Blasphemy/Dictum/etc.

[Pippin]

Hi playground,

veil of undeath protects the bearer from "death", does that mean it protects from effects that would kill immediately, such as the spells in the title, or does it only protect from spells that have the [Death] descriptor?

Assuming the latter is correct, how do we get around Dictum?

[Studoku]

Assuming the latter is correct, how do we get around Dictum?
Not fighting casters 10 levels higher than you might be a good idea.

[Evolved Shrimp]

veil of undeath protects the bearer from "death", does that mean it protects from effects that would kill immediately, such as the spells in the title, or does it only protect from spells that have the [Death] descriptor?

I can find nothing in the description of Veil of Undeath that indicates that the subject is protected only from death by spells, let alone spells with the [death] descriptor. The spell seems to offer absolute protection from any kind of death, whether by spell or otherwise. (Although this makes the separate listed effect “[protection from] death from massive damage” redundant.)


Assuming the latter is correct, how do we get around Dictum?

That’s very interesting, not because Dictum can kill people (against which the subject of Veil of Undeath should be protected, as noted above) but because it also destroys undead. And Veil of Undeath can be described, in rough terms, as turning people into undead for a limited time.

There seems to be now RAW governing this, so it’s down to DM interpretation. I can see three main ways to resolve this:

Rule that the subject of the spell is equivalent to an undead for the duration and is therefore destroyed. When the spell ends, there is nothing left that could turn back into a person – game over. Fair but harsh.
Same as 1, but when the spell ends the subject turns back into a normal person and is therefore now dead (but could be raised, etc.). Slightly iffy internal logic, but probably the most balanced interpretation.
The subject of the spell is protected from death, so cannot be killed by Dictum but is not a real undead either and so cannot be destroyed – therefore the spell does neither. This seems too lenient to me, but nevertheless could be argued to be in accordance with RAW.

I’d say you can houserule it according to taste.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The latter is indeed correct. Immunity to death effects only prevents things with the [Death] descriptor.

You can protect yourself with Greater Spell Immunity, Silence, spell resistance and anything that grants immunity to sonic effects.
Energy Immunity isn't enough because it only blocks damage, but there is at least one bard spell that gives immunity to sonic effects.
Nezram's Emerald Energy Shield (LEoF) protects against Dictum, Holy Word and Word of Chaos, but not Blasphemy.

[Ashtagon]

The way I play it, for the purpose of healing spells, you are considered either alive or undead, depending on which would grant the least amount of healing, and for the purpose of harmful spells, you are considered either alive or undead, depending on which would result in you taking the least amount of damage.

Yeah, total houserule. :smallcool:

[Evolved Shrimp]

Immunity to death effects only prevents things with the [Death] descriptor.

Note, however, that Veil of Undeath does not protect against “death effects” but against “death”, period. (Along with a long list of other things.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

Note, however, that Veil of Undeath does not protect against “death effects” but against “death”, period. (Along with a long list of other things.)

Same difference. Unless you want to interpret it to mean that you're unkillable?

Immunity to death is a defined thing in D&D - it means spells and effects with the [Death] descriptor.
It's pretty clear that that's the intent behind the spell too, because undead aren't immune to death. They're just immune to death effects.

Yeah, you can argue and rules-lawyer around it because they left out the word "effects" in the spell description, but i wouldn't expect it to work at an actual table.

[atemu1234]

Same difference. Unless you want to interpret it to mean that you're unkillable?

Immunity to death is a defined thing in D&D - it means spells and effects with the [Death] descriptor.
It's pretty clear that that's the intent behind the spell too, because undead aren't immune to death. They're just immune to death effects.

Yeah, you can argue and rules-lawyer around it because they left out the word "effects" in the spell description, but i wouldn't expect it to work at an actual table.

Yeah, you're taking a dictionary to a D&D fight. It just doesn't work.

death (lowercase d) isn't defined in-game. Death effects, however, are. Realistically, one sees a better case for the spell doing nothing than making you immune to dying.

[Brookshw]

Silence
Huh, just noticed the Srd version of Dictum lacks the "hear" part of Holy Word.

[Evolved Shrimp]

Immunity to death is a defined thing in D&D.

Where can I find that definition? So far, I could only find this in the Player’s Handbook (p308): If a dying character reaches −10 hit points, she is dead., which seems to indicate that death is not necessarily connected to spells with the [death] descriptor.


It's pretty clear that that's the intent behind the spell too, because undead aren't immune to death. They're just immune to death effects.

Well, arguably, undead are immune to death, since they already are dead. Hence, the standard terminology is not that they “die” but that they are “destroyed”.

However, looking for relevant passages on this issue, I came across the description of “Undead type” in the Monster Manual (p317). That description includes pretty much the same list of immunities as the Veil of Undeath description – except that it lists “death effects” in place of “death”.

So it looks very much like you’re right about the RAI. I still feel that, by RAW, the spell protects its subject from any kind of dying, but it would be silly to argue that one should base play on this interpretation, given that there seems to be a clear and simple phrasing error.

[Andezzar]

That’s very interesting, not because Dictum can kill people (against which the subject of Veil of Undeath should be protected, as noted above) but because it also destroys undead. And Veil of Undeath can be described, in rough terms, as turning people into undead for a limited time.

There seems to be now RAW governing this, so it’s down to DM interpretation. I can see three main ways to resolve this:

Rule that the subject of the spell is equivalent to an undead for the duration and is therefore destroyed. When the spell ends, there is nothing left that could turn back into a person – game over. Fair but harsh.
Same as 1, but when the spell ends the subject turns back into a normal person and is therefore now dead (but could be raised, etc.). Slightly iffy internal logic, but probably the most balanced interpretation.
The subject of the spell is protected from death, so cannot be killed by Dictum but is not a real undead either and so cannot be destroyed – therefore the spell does neither. This seems too lenient to me, but nevertheless could be argued to be in accordance with RAW.

I’d say you can houserule it according to taste.You may want to look at the most recent version of the spell. The subject definitely does not become undead. Also contrary to the LM version the subject does not gain CON - , so it is definitely still alive but protected from any form of death.


You gain many of the traits common to undead creatures.So not all of them.

You don't actually gain the undead type from casting this spell.

[Psyren]

Not fighting casters 10 levels higher than you might be a good idea.

While this is good advice, keep in mind that CL can be very easy to pump (particularly for a BBEG) and so they don't actually have to be 10 levels higher for this effect to be a danger.


Huh, just noticed the Srd version of Dictum lacks the "hear" part of Holy Word.

It's still a [Sonic] spell even without that line and thus Silence defeats it.

[Brookshw]

It's still a [Sonic] spell even without that line and thus Silence defeats it.

A fair point though I'm still surprised at the omission.

[Pippin]

So Veil of Undeath thwarting Dictum is the final consensus? How nice.

[Khedrac]

So Veil of Undeath thwarting Dictum is the final consensus? How nice.
Not quite, regardless of the decision on the death part, you are still slowed and deafened as they are not part of the list of effects that Veil of Undeath prevents.
Note, the SRD specifically lists these effects in addition to "killed" (and paralyzed) so it expects certain effects to be potentially negated.

Also a really picky RAW interpretation could be that you are "killed" but you don't actually die until the Veil of Undeath wears off or the kill is reversed. I don't agree with such a ruling, but less tortuous constructions are used to justify some RAW abuse...

[Evolved Shrimp]

So Veil of Undeath thwarting Dictum is the final consensus?

Not sure why it would. Dictum does not have the [death] descriptor and so (at least according to the opinions voiced in this discussion) is not a death effect. And Veil of Undeath protects only against death effects and death by massive damage, not other ways of dying. Even if Dictum were considered a death effect, Veil of Undeath would arguably not protect against it because Dictum specifically states that it affects undead, so this would be a case of the specific overriding the general.

Looking at it from another angle, Veil of Undeath protects a living being by making it like undead in some respects. However, Dictum kills or destroys both living beings and undead, so it is unclear why Veil of Undeath should protect against it. (As I wrote above, there is a way of interpreting the rules to come to this conclusion, but it looks awfully contrived to me.)

[Andezzar]

Not sure why it would. Dictum does not have the [death] descriptor and so (at least according to the opinions voiced in this discussion) is not a death effect. And Veil of Undeath protects only against death effects and death by massive damage, not other ways of dying.Your assumption is wrong:
While the spell lasts, you have immunity to mind-affecting spells and abilities, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death, extra damage from critical hits, non-lethal damage, death from massive damage, ability drain, energy drain, fatigue, exhaustion, damage to physical ability scores, and any effect requiring a Fortitude save unless it is harmless or affects objects. You need not breathe, eat, or sleep.The immunity from Veil of Undeath is not restricted to death effects but extends to death in general. Sure listing death from massive damage is redundant, but it is not the first time the books had redundant information.

Unless the subject of the spell is undead already it also protects from the destruction Dictum can inflict on undead because the subject does not actually become undead under the spell:
You don't actually gain the undead type from casting this spell.

[Ashtagon]

Given that it isn't normal to call something a "death effect" in the SRD, this seems like splitting a hair that isn't written to be splittable.

The SRD doesn't even define "death effect"; It defines "death attack". Further, it isn't routine to include the word "effect" in any listing for each individual entry. Where a number of different types of attack are listed, it is also unusual to include the word "attack" after each one. As such, it is quite unremarkable that the specific game effect of "death attack" would be referred to simply as "death" when in amongst a long list of things that are protected against.

[Andezzar]

Given that it isn't normal to call something a "death effect" in the SRD, this seems like splitting a hair that isn't written to be splittable.It isn't? Just a few examples:

Granted Power

You may use a death touch once per day. Your death touch is a supernatural ability that produces a death effect.

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

A death effect (or if that effect is based on an attack a death attack) is a rather small subset of situations that result in a dead creature. Was the intention to only include death effects or death attacks? Probably. But as written the spell protects against any form of death.


The SRD doesn't even define "death effect"; It defines "death attack". Further, it isn't routine to include the word "effect" in any listing for each individual entry. Where a number of different types of attack are listed, it is also unusual to include the word "attack" after each one. As such, it is quite unremarkable that the specific game effect of "death attack" would be referred to simply as "death" when in amongst a long list of things that are protected against.If you are saying that a death effect is anything but the result of a death attack many spells will not work because they only have an interaction with death effects not death attacks.
The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

[Ashtagon]

Well whaddya know -- it's badly proofread!

[Evolved Shrimp]

Your assumption is wrong:The immunity from Veil of Undeath is not restricted to death effects but extends to death in general.

That’s what I thought at first as well. (See my earlier posts.) But it appears that this is a simple transfer error, and it should really read “death effects”. (Also see my earlier posts.)

[Chronos]

For reasons unknown, Holy Word and Word of Chaos only work on creatures that hear them, while Dictum and Blasphemy work regardless of whether the creature hears or not. This means that a deaf Lawful Evil creature is immune to all four.

You can also get immunity to all four by taking at least six levels of Horizon Walker and choosing the aligned planar mastery. And as mentioned, Silence stops all four, because even if you don't need to hear them, they're all still sonic effects.

[Story]

I think it's very obvious that the RAI is to protect against death effects. You can argue about the exact meaning of the RAW, but that's pedantry on the order of Swordsage 6x skillpoints or that one thing where a misplaced subscript turned into 21 spells a day.



There seems to be now RAW governing this, so it’s down to DM interpretation. I can see three main ways to resolve this:

Rule that the subject of the spell is equivalent to an undead for the duration and is therefore destroyed. When the spell ends, there is nothing left that could turn back into a person – game over. Fair but harsh.
Same as 1, but when the spell ends the subject turns back into a normal person and is therefore now dead (but could be raised, etc.). Slightly iffy internal logic, but probably the most balanced interpretation.
The subject of the spell is protected from death, so cannot be killed by Dictum but is not a real undead either and so cannot be destroyed – therefore the spell does neither. This seems too lenient to me, but nevertheless could be argued to be in accordance with RAW.

I’d say you can houserule it according to taste.

As long as you're hourseruling it, you might as well just use the RAI. Worrying about the meaning of protection from "death" is only an issue in the most pedantic interpolations of RAW.

[Felyndiira]

Keep in mind that the SRD does say that "if a dying character reaches −10 hit points, she is dead." Thus, Veil of Undeath would also protect you from death by hit point damage by that interpretation. Since Dictum technically inflicts "Killed" instead of "Death", it would be a stretch to argue that Veil doesn't protect from dying to hit point damage (which inflicts "is dead"), but does protect against "Killed".


It's still a [Sonic] spell even without that line and thus Silence defeats it.

Just want to note that [Sonic] is an energy descriptor, and Energy Substitution can modify "any spell with an energy descriptor." Thus, you can easily circumvent the silence problem by casting Acid Dictum (or Silent Acid Dictum if you're in the silence AoE) instead of vanilla Dictum.