Is this really as OP as it looks?

[Dimers]

The 1st-level cleric spell "painless death" from Ghostwalk kills its target, no save, no SR, no mention of any limitation (such as HD or hit points). The target has to be willing, but all unconscious creatures are considered willing, and you can often get a charmed creature to be willing to have a spell cast on them. Seems like an easy way to make a very effective assassin -- it doesn't matter how powerful the target is, as long as they sleep sometime or can be charmed.

Am I missing something? Is the game just assuming that creatures are screwed anyway if they get charmed/unconscious?

[Feint's End]

Yeah they are already dead when this is applicable

[Vaz]

Pretty much. If it's that weak that it's succeptible to the "if's", then it's pretty much already dead. If you're that powerful that the "ifs" are autopassed, then it's not exactly that dangerous. It's essentially a plot point spell, I think, to give someone an ease of passing while they're in pain (hence the name), without going for a full Coup De Grace with a battleaxe, which is something that grieving families for a diseased family member don't always like to see.

[FearlessGnome]

The makers were perhaps a little naive. It's a fine spell as intended. Any sane GM is going to smack you down if you try to use it for assassinations, and rule that the spell makes the target aware of what is happening before they decide if they are willing or not.

But RAW, sure. Of course, if you live in a world where it can be used to kill people, an evil NPC could easily replace the contents of one of your buff potions with their own insta-death potion off screen, because anything the players insist on using, the GM is perfectly justified in using right back at them.

[Necroticplague]

If you're in a position where it's applicable, you can already kill them. if they're asleep, you can just coup-de-grace them.If they're Charmed, they still automatically won't follow any obviously harmful or suicidal actions, so you can't get them to accept a Painless Death unless they would do so normally.

[Dimers]

insta-death potion

I freaking LOVE that idea. Potions of painless death for everyone!


If they're Charmed, they still automatically won't follow any obviously harmful or suicidal actions, so you can't get them to accept a Painless Death unless they would do so normally.

If the charmed creature can't tell what you're casting, they don't get to make that choice.

[Venger]

If the charmed creature can't tell what you're casting, they don't get to make that choice.

just use false theurgy and tell them it's some other first level spell. the best thing about it is there's no way to actually bypass false theurgy, it just works, albeit only 1/encounter.

[NichG]

Like many OP things, this one lives in the fluff gap between RAW and RAMS. Essentially, it forces one to answer the question: 'what does a person experience when accepting or refusing to allow a spell with Willing Only to affect them?'. The response of an NPC to having this cast on them and having the caster Bluff 'its actually Cure Light Wounds' depends on the answer to this, but it's a fluff question, not a mechanics question.

That is to say, lets say the caster of a willing-only spell is not observable by the spell's target. Does the target just know 'something is trying to affect me; I can't tell anything about it, except that I can say yes or no'? Do they have a feel for what the spell's effect is? In the most extreme interpretation, do they have full knowledge of the direct consequences of their decision?

RAW doesn't say they know anything, and therefore by RAW they don't know anything (aside from what can be gleaned by a Spellcraft check). But similarly, by RAW you shouldn't know if you've got lots of hitpoints left or are almost dead unless you actually make a Heal check, use Status, use a Combat Focus feat that lets you read off hitpoints, etc - however fluff wise it makes sense that when an ogre crits you versus when a 1/4 HD kobold pokes you with a dagger, you should be able to feel the difference.

So once you're trying this at any actual table, the results you achieve in game are going to depend on details of that otherwise unspecified fluff. It's not unlikely that the DM will say, now aware of the consequences of making any other ruling in this case: 'when you are the subject of a Willing-only spell, you fully perceive all sorts of intricate details about the spell's effects and so even if the caster can fake what they seem to be casting, they can't fake the feeling of the spell itself'. Because once you try this once it becomes obvious that there's a whole host of effects that are Willing-only for a reason (e.g. because they have potential negative consequences that are necessarily disproportionately powerful for their level in order to provide the intended degree of versatility or tradeoff, and so 'Willing-only' excludes their use as a hostile action), where this kind of trick is going to bypass that reason.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Given that the target has to be genuinely willing or unconcious, the spell's useability is about what it should be.

In either case you could just as easily apply a deadly poison, a coup de grace, a lethal (or nearly so) sneak attack, or any of a number of other lethal or at least nearly so attacks. I'm just not impressed, especially since a simple heal check can reveal that the target was killed with magic and a spellcraft check can tell which spell.

[aleucard]

In short, this is one of those hat-trick tactics that even if the DM accepts this interpretation, it'll only work once on anyone important, with the rest making sure that they're not at your disposal when they're unconscious. Chances are, though, anyone you could conceivably do this to without a campaign's worth of setup for it is likely to be low enough on the totem pole that them being offed in such a silly way isn't going to be all too frustrating. That assumes an experienced DM, though. Not all of them are able to think of crap like this faster than the players can implement it.

[Flickerdart]

If your DM allows you to convince a charmed person to accept a mystery spell on them, he'll also allow you to convince them to accept a mystery sandwich full of deadly poison, or to "close your eyes and stand next to that thresher for just a moment."

[Inevitability]

I just have three words to say.

Living Painless Death.

That's all.

[atemu1234]

I just have three words to say.

Living Painless Death.

That's all.

How would this work?

[Flickerdart]

How would this work?
A slime that goes around shouting "You there, CAKE OR DEATH?"

[SwordChucks]

A slime that goes around shouting "You there, CAKE OR DEATH?"

I'll have cake please.

This could also be good as a cyanide capsule type thing for assassins.

[Necroticplague]

I just have three words to say.

Living Painless Death.

That's all.

...Clever, but no. Their slam subjects you to the effect, regardless of target validity. This doesn't work though, since Living Spells can only be made from area or effect spells (a much forgotten fact), while Painless Death is targeted. A Living Glyph of Warding gets around that issue, but it puts the target validity back in (because it doesn't subject you to painless death, it subjects you to a glyph of warding that casts painless death, which you would resist as normal).

[nedz]

...Clever, but no. Their slam subjects you to the effect, regardless of target validity. This doesn't work though, since Living Spells can only be made from area or effect spells (a much forgotten fact), while Painless Death is targeted. A Living Glyph of Warding gets around that issue, but it puts the target validity back in (because it doesn't subject you to painless death, it subjects you to a glyph of warding that casts painless death, which you would resist as normal).

So: Living Sleep, with an Eternal Wand of Painless Death.

[Venger]

So: Living Sleep, with an Eternal Wand of Painless Death.

go with living deep slumber, the HD cap is higher.

[nedz]

go with living deep slumber, the HD cap is higher.

So is the CR — but you could use one of many spells here.

[Crake]

So: Living Sleep, with an Eternal Wand of Painless Death.

Can't living spells be infused with multiple spells?

[Extra Anchovies]

A slime that goes around shouting "You there, CAKE OR DEATH?"

This is an excellent reference, thank you for the laugh :smallsmile:

[StreamOfTheSky]

I have ALWAYS firmly held to the notion that unconscious should not automatically = willing, it leads to all sorts of bad things.

[Flickerdart]

I have ALWAYS firmly held to the notion that unconscious should not automatically = willing, it leads to all sorts of bad things.
Not really, as long as you remember that "willing" and "foregoing the saving throw" are not the same thing.

[NichG]

I have ALWAYS firmly held to the notion that unconscious should not automatically = willing, it leads to all sorts of bad things.

Agreed. A dead character can make a voluntary choice whether to accept a resurrection or not, so I think there's precedent anyhow for letting an unconscious character make a voluntary choice whether to accept a willing-only spell.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Agreed. A dead character can make a voluntary choice whether to accept a resurrection or not, so I think there's precedent anyhow for letting an unconscious character make a voluntary choice whether to accept a willing-only spell.

There's some dream monster in one of the later monster manuals that tries to enter the victim's mind and it explicitly says that the sleeping victim still gets a will save because unconscious doesn't make them willing or something to that effect.

In any case, saves are at least one part sheer dumb luck. You get a reflex save (with a horrendous penalty, but still) even while unconscious. True story.