Thoughts on power word kill?

[DMGMAPC]

A few games back the DM of a long running game used power word kill to decimate a PC that had been in the campaign since day one (going back about 2 years). They doubled that up by turning the corpse into a zombie, thus making true resurrection the only option for bringing them back.

The whole party knew what we were up against and we all went in expecting at least one of us to wind up dead but this method just bugged me. I was expecting the DM to write in a get out clause a few sessions after this, meeting a high level caster that could help etc but it was three games ago and nothing has materialised.

My gripes come down to these points:

1) PWK is boring, narratively speaking
Our DM has always placed her empathise on story-telling and there's no drama in taking a PC out with one word. No chance to die with glory. Just dead. It seemed like an odd move for the DM, all PCs had well worked out back stories that were slowly unfolding and this one has been cut short before it could get going. To be fair to the DM though, she randomly decided who would get PWKed. I understand how it could be used as an Agent Coulson style rally the troops move but to use it like this seemed ineffective.

EDIT: Just to give more info of the scenario; we were dealing with a short side quest that would help us deal with the BBEG in the long run. An ambush came once we had returned to base camp and we were walled.

2) We were completely defenceless against it
No one in the party was above a lvl 12, there was a clear trend in the party toward melee and none of us had any clue of what we could have done to avoid it happening. The PWK came after a few rounds of combat so it was highly unlikely that any of us would have been above 100hp. It didn't feel like a case of having the puzzle pieces but not in the right order, it felt like we were thrown in at the deep end before we were ready.

EDIT: after a few comments I've realised there were steps we could have taken to mitigate the chances of this happening with counterspell. That should have been attempted. In our defence, our wizard had only played that class once before and wasn't completely familiar with the way it plays.

3) It felt cruel
The combination of PWK and the zombification has meant our party can't bring the PC back without help from an NPC, at least not for a very long time. It's just a game, it's meant to be fun and the BBEG sound have teeth, this felt like being robbed of a character though. Our party are also robbed of any control over the situation and no meaningful choice to overcome it.

Basically, am I right to feel this was a bad move or should I just suck it up?

EDIT: I'm not just looking to bad mouth my DM or claim I know how the game should run better than they do. They played a ligitimate move. I'm bugged by this but not enough to call shenanigans and make it an issue in our group. I want to hear opinions from outside of our group and hopefully see why I shouldn't be bothered by it!

EDIT: After reading some feedback, I can see that my real issue here wasn't PWK on it's own. It was the situation in which it was used (ambushed without warning, no escape route) and the combo with animate dead. Those two together made it feel like the outcome was unavoidable. I completely take on board that in terms of telling a story, this may become a defining point in the campaign, however the method used felt like we were on rails. I also DM and will always avoid removing a PC from the game without making sure the player was happy to do so. Basically I'm here to vent, I trust my DM enough to believe they didn't bend the rules at all to pull this off and that she wouldn't have done it for no reason but I still feel I need to blow off steam!

[EvilAnagram]

I'd say it was a bad move. I've never even killed an NPC without giving the party ample opportunity to stop it.

[jaappleton]

A few games back the DM of a long running game used power word kill to decimate a PC that had been in the campaign since day one (going back about 2 years). They doubled that up by turning the corpse into a zombie, thus making true resurrection the only option for bringing them back.

The whole party knew what we were up against and we all went in expecting at least one of us to wind up dead but this method just bugged me. I was expecting the DM to write in a get out clause a few sessions after this, meeting a high level caster that could help etc but it was three games ago and nothing has materialised.

My gripes come down to these points:

1) PWK is boring, narratively speaking
Our DM has always placed her empathise on story-telling and there's no drama in taking a PC out with one word. No chance to die with glory. Just dead. It seemed like an odd move for the DM, all PCs had well worked out back stories that were slowly unfolding and this one has been cut short before it could get going. To be fair to the DM though, she randomly decided who would get PWKed. I understand how it could be used as an Agent Coulson style rally the troops move but to use it like this seemed ineffective.

2) We were completely defenceless against it
No one in the party was above a lvl 12, there was a clear trend in the party toward melee and none of us had any clue of what we could have done to avoid it happening. The PWK came after a few rounds of combat so it was highly unlikely that any of us would have been above 100hp. It didn't feel like a case of having the puzzle pieces but not in the right order, it felt like we were thrown in at the deep end before we were ready.

3) It felt cruel
The combination of PWK and the zombification has meant our party can't bring the PC back without help from an NPC, at least not for a very long time. It's just a game, it's meant to be fun and the BBEG sound have teeth, this felt like being robbed of a character though. Our party are also robbed of any control over the situation and no meaningful choice to overcome it.

Basically, am I right to feel this was a bad move or should I just suck it up?

A few thoughts...

1. You're right to feel a bit ticked about it. I both DM and play, and as a player, PW: K is a rough way to go out. It's like getting dumped through a text; there's just better ways to handle it, y'know?

2. However, PW: K is legitimate. It sucks it happened to your group, but it isn't illegal or anything.

3. I don't know your party composition, but if you have any spellcasters... Why wasn't Counterspell prepared and ready? Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all get it. Bards can take it at lv10. Only Druids and Clerics have an excuse. Its the BBEG, you knew what you were going up against. Not to mention the numerous magic items that could've helped. Though admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like you weren't prepared.

[MaxWilson]

My gripes come down to these points:

1) PWK is boring, narratively speaking
*snip*

2) We were completely defenceless against it
*snip*

3) It felt cruel
*snip*

Basically, am I right to feel this was a bad move or should I just suck it up?

It's really hard to say from here. If your DM is into narrative roleplaying, presumably she's out to create emotions in the players and herself. Was she perhaps trying to get you to hate the NPC responsible? Sounds like some of those negative feelings may have transferred onto the DM herself, which I'm sure she didn't intend--but she may have intended to create those feelings as part of the narrative.

I don't really understand narrative roleplaying though. People say they do it to create a cool story, but at this moment, clearly the story is not cool from your perspective, and you don't think that's going to change. From that standpoint it seems like it may have been a bad move.

P.S. I'm a bit puzzled about zombification though. Did the zombification occur as part of PWK (Power Word: Zombify?) or did you leave the corpse alone instead of Revivifying/Raising it? I mean, you're 12th level, you probably have some kind of access to magic that overcomes death. If you did leave the corpse alone then it becomes harder for me to sympathize with "We were completely defenceless against it." In a less narratively-oriented campaign that death might have been just the price of failure-to-prepare-properly.

Also, the poster who mentions Counterspell has a good point; and casting Death Ward on everyone before attacking a BBEG is also a good SOP for any party with access to it, as insurance not just against PWK but dragon breath too and all kinds of nastiness including Meteor Swarm. (If you thought PWK was unfair, just imagine if it had been Meteor Swarm instead!)

[Vaz]

PWK is a 17th level spell, and something that can be faced at CR12 - Ki-Rin have 9th level spells as do Archmage - it stands to reason an 18HD Cleric is the same. Ki-Rin have TrueRes. Go searching for them, or Gate it in if you're sufficiently levelled.

But yes, it sounds like a bad move unless the zombie'd person was in on it. I don't even use Finger of Death or Dominate on the party except for two players who legitimately would like the opportunity to wail on the party.

[jaappleton]

A good point by MaxWilson.

If your DM was trying to get the party emotionally invested in taking down the BBEG, so its more than just some NPC stat block to the party... I understand the intention. I understand it completely.

Though... PW: K? I think there could've been better ways to go about it.

[lunaticfringe]

I can see it as some sort of statement about death. Death is random, unavoidable, shocking, and pointless. You have a bad taste in your mouth and don't understand why this has happened. Seems Accurate.

[Kryx]

If a spell is problematic when used on PCs then the spell is problematic to begin with. Power Word Kill is one of those spells as it is a save or die spell that has survived the purge. The few save or die spells/abilities that made it into 5e don't belong in 5e imo.

[Dudewithknives]

The way I look at it, if the pcs can do it, npcs can do it.

We deal with this at the beginning of a campaign by voting on a fee things. That we all agree on that the npcs and pcs can't use because it is overpowered, unfun, or broken in some way but the vote has to be unanimous.

Ex. We started a game with 5 people, a barbarian, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a rogue.

We discussed and decided that Force cage, is too broken of a spell to be fun when used. No dave, no concentration, no nothing, cast spell, at least 1 person maybe more are stuck with no real way to deal with it. So we voted that in this world force cage did not exist.

We also discussed not allowing the -5 for +10 damage for GWM and Sharpshooter. We would replace them with a different benefit. However, the Barbarian was planning to take GWM, so the vote was not unanimous. However it was made clear, that because it is fine for a pc, then no complaining when an npc uses it.

We fix a lot of problems that way. We fixed the retardedness of Hunger of Hadar, and changed mage slayer where it's reaction happens before the spell goes off.

[DMGMAPC]

A few thoughts...

1. You're right to feel a bit ticked about it. I both DM and play, and as a player, PW: K is a rough way to go out. It's like getting dumped through a text; there's just better ways to handle it, y'know?

2. However, PW: K is legitimate. It sucks it happened to your group, but it isn't illegal or anything.

3. I don't know your party composition, but if you have any spellcasters... Why wasn't Counterspell prepared and ready? Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all get it. Bards can take it at lv10. Only Druids and Clerics have an excuse. Its the BBEG, you knew what you were going up against. Not to mention the numerous magic items that could've helped. Though admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like you weren't prepared.

Our party had only just gained a wizard, counterspell was prepped and in hindsight should have been attempted. However, my understanding of the situation was that for counterspell to work it would required a roll of 19 (PWK being a 9th level spell). Totally willing to admit we were probably underprepared but we were ambushed at the end of one session and picked up the encounter on a second, so there wasn't time to find magical items that could have helped. You're right about it being a totally legitimate move from the DM.

[jaappleton]

You add your spellcasting modifier to Counterspell, right? You're lv12, I think? Or 10?

So assuming 18 Int on the Wizard... Certainly not impossible to have achieved a result of 19.

Especially if he had Lucky, or was perhaps a Diviner.


EDIT: Honestly... You didn't screw up. I don't think you did. Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But I don't think you screwed up. You said the group recently got a Wizard, so I'm assuming the Wizard player didn't know Wizards like the back of their hand.

That said... DM didn't screw up, either.

Its a strange scenario, as to "The DM shouldn't have done this" but at the same time, he's playing the villain. Literally, he's playing the villain. It's a blurry line, where the BBEG does something and not the DM, y'know? It's a balancing act for DMs. Don't be too hard on yours over this.

[DMGMAPC]

It's really hard to say from here. If your DM is into narrative roleplaying, presumably she's out to create emotions in the players and herself. Was she perhaps trying to get you to hate the NPC responsible? Sounds like some of those negative feelings may have transferred onto the DM herself, which I'm sure she didn't intend--but she may have intended to create those feelings as part of the narrative.

I don't really understand narrative roleplaying though. People say they do it to create a cool story, but at this moment, clearly the story is not cool from your perspective, and you don't think that's going to change. From that standpoint it seems like it may have been a bad move.

P.S. I'm a bit puzzled about zombification though. Did the zombification occur as part of PWK (Power Word: Zombify?) or did you leave the corpse alone instead of Revivifying/Raising it? I mean, you're 12th level, you probably have some kind of access to magic that overcomes death. If you did leave the corpse alone then it becomes harder for me to sympathize with "We were completely defenceless against it." In a less narratively-oriented campaign that death might have been just the price of failure-to-prepare-properly.

Also, the poster who mentions Counterspell has a good point; and casting Death Ward on everyone before attacking a BBEG is also a good SOP for any party with access to it, as insurance not just against PWK but dragon breath too and all kinds of nastiness including Meteor Swarm. (If you thought PWK was unfair, just imagine if it had been Meteor Swarm instead!)

Yeah, getting us to hate the BBEG was probably the motivation and it definitely worked! I'm not really harbouring ill feeling toward the DM, she's been great and always puts a lot of effort into the games. I'm interested in getting some more opinions on it because it bugged me but not enough to make it an issue in an otherwise great campaign.

I'm not really sure what spell was used after PWK but in one turn the BBEG killed the PC and brought them back as a zombie so there was no time to use revivify/raise before the PC became undead.

[jaappleton]

Yeah, getting us to hate the BBEG was probably the motivation and it definitely worked! I'm not really harbouring ill feeling toward the DM, she's been great and always puts a lot of effort into the games. I'm interested in getting some more opinions on it because it bugged me but not enough to make it an issue in an otherwise great campaign.

I'm not really sure what spell was used after PWK but in one turn the BBEG killed the PC and brought them back as a zombie so there was no time to use revivify/raise before the PC became undead.

The only spell I can think of is that the BBEG used PWK followed by Animate Dead.

[DMGMAPC]

The way I look at it, if the pcs can do it, npcs can do it.

We deal with this at the beginning of a campaign by voting on a fee things. That we all agree on that the npcs and pcs can't use because it is overpowered, unfun, or broken in some way but the vote has to be unanimous.

Ex. We started a game with 5 people, a barbarian, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a rogue.

We discussed and decided that Force cage, is too broken of a spell to be fun when used. No dave, no concentration, no nothing, cast spell, at least 1 person maybe more are stuck with no real way to deal with it. So we voted that in this world force cage did not exist.

We also discussed not allowing the -5 for +10 damage for GWM and Sharpshooter. We would replace them with a different benefit. However, the Barbarian was planning to take GWM, so the vote was not unanimous. However it was made clear, that because it is fine for a pc, then no complaining when an npc uses it.

We fix a lot of problems that way. We fixed the retardedness of Hunger of Hadar, and changed mage slayer where it's reaction happens before the spell goes off.

I can definitely see the benefit of agreeing those things before a campaign starts. Something I'll kept in mind for the future.

[DMGMAPC]

The only spell I can think of is that the BBEG used PWK followed by Animate Dead.

Yeah, that was probably it

[Dudewithknives]

A few thoughts...

1. You're right to feel a bit ticked about it. I both DM and play, and as a player, PW: K is a rough way to go out. It's like getting dumped through a text; there's just better ways to handle it, y'know?

2. However, PW: K is legitimate. It sucks it happened to your group, but it isn't illegal or anything.

3. I don't know your party composition, but if you have any spellcasters... Why wasn't Counterspell prepared and ready? Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all get it. Bards can take it at lv10. Only Druids and Clerics have an excuse. Its the BBEG, you knew what you were going up against. Not to mention the numerous magic items that could've helped. Though admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like you weren't prepared.

On point number 3, I will say this.

People really put a ton of stock in counterspell, and it is an essential spell to have on hand. However, every single game I have ever seen in 5e runs the spell completely wrong.

Nowhere in 5e is there isnt any rule about identifying what spell is being cast, people however always just wait for the DM to go, "ok, the bad guys casts "x" spell, THEN the pc goes, "Oh that one, no, counterspell"

[DMGMAPC]

You add your spellcasting modifier to Counterspell, right? You're lv12, I think? Or 10?

So assuming 18 Int on the Wizard... Certainly not impossible to have achieved a result of 19.

Especially if he had Lucky, or was perhaps a Diviner.


EDIT: Honestly... You didn't screw up. I don't think you did. Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But I don't think you screwed up. You said the group recently got a Wizard, so I'm assuming the Wizard player didn't know Wizards like the back of their hand.

That said... DM didn't screw up, either.

Its a strange scenario, as to "The DM shouldn't have done this" but at the same time, he's playing the villain. Literally, he's playing the villain. It's a blurry line, where the BBEG does something and not the DM, y'know? It's a balancing act for DMs. Don't be too hard on yours over this.

That seems like a fair assessment. I'm not looking to fall out with my DM over it, or even take umbridge with using the PWK. I just wanted to talk it through with some players outside of my group. Thanks for clearing it up a bit!

[Armored Walrus]

That seems like a fair assessment. I'm not looking to fall out with my DM over it, or even take umbridge with using the PWK. I just wanted to talk it through with some players outside of my group. Thanks for clearing it up a bit!

I don't think you need to fall out with your DM in order to have a discussion with her about it. Probably there is more to this than you are seeing. Especially since you say it's out of character for this DM.

Maybe the reason you haven't found a solution yet is that she's waiting for the party to actively seek it out, rather than have it drop into their lap.

[DMGMAPC]

I don't think you need to fall out with your DM in order to have a discussion with her about it. Probably there is more to this than you are seeing. Especially since you say it's out of character for this DM.

Maybe the reason you haven't found a solution yet is that she's waiting for the party to actively seek it out, rather than have it drop into their lap.

You're probably right, maybe this is our Empire and I need to put more faith in the reaching Endor

[Waterdeep Merch]

I don't think you need to fall out with your DM in order to have a discussion with her about it. Probably there is more to this than you are seeing. Especially since you say it's out of character for this DM.

Maybe the reason you haven't found a solution yet is that she's waiting for the party to actively seek it out, rather than have it drop into their lap.
I killed a player once because he was concerned his character was boring.

Next game, he came back under the compulsion of a hag trio that had him on a geass to act as their inside man with the party, which, among other things, made the once-noble fighter now part oathbreaker paladin.

If your DM's typically good, wait and see what she has in store. It could be awesome.

[Sigreid]

I'll defend your DM as much as I can without knowing more about the campaign. It sounds like you over reached. Hopefully, before this point you would have had some indications of how strong the opposition was, and planned accordingly. My players are well versed in identifying "later" situations.

If you push to far to fast, AvardeCadavera is a fine way to kill a character. Lets the others know what they are up against.

[Hrugner]

I'm pro player attrition as both a DM and player, so I'm a bit biased toward the DM here. Most CC used on the players will feel tedious and death is of course a pretty serious form of CC. I do generally discourage DMs from removing players from play as much as possible, but something like power word kill can't be shelved simply because it's anti-climactic. I seem to remember an ability that raised as undead those killed by necromancy, but I can't recall where it was.

Finger of Death! that's the one.

[MaxWilson]

If your DM was trying to get the party emotionally invested in taking down the BBEG, so its more than just some NPC stat block to the party... I understand the intention. I understand it completely.

Though... PW: K? I think there could've been better ways to go about it.

Yeah. I'd vote for beating the PCs up, taking their stuff, and leaving them for dead. Nothing enrages players like taking their PCs' stuff, just like nothing terrifies them like taking their XP (energy drain!--which doesn't happen in 5E unless you house-rule it in). :-P

=========================


I killed a player once because he was concerned his character was boring.

LOL. I know what you really meant, but in conjunction with the double meaning of "character", this still made me laugh.

"STOP. PUTTING. YOURSELF. DOWN. YOU'RE NOT BORING!" *stabbity*stab*

=========================


The only spell I can think of is that the BBEG used PWK followed by Animate Dead.

Can't be--even if she Action Surged following PWK, Animate Dead takes a full minute to cast.

Must have been a DM fiat/"plot spell". That means that PWK doesn't deserve the blame or credit here--looks like the main factor was the plot spell, zombifying the dead PC immediately. If it had just been PWK you would simply have Revivified the PC at first opportunity, thus depriving yourselves of the opportunity to really hate the BBEG.

[Mellack]

Are you completely sure it was PWK? It honestly sounds more like they used Finger of Death.

[DMGMAPC]

Are you completely sure it was PWK? It honestly sounds more like they used Finger of Death.

It was definitely PWK, the same BBEG used finger of death later in the encounter

[DMGMAPC]

I'll defend your DM as much as I can without knowing more about the campaign. It sounds like you over reached. Hopefully, before this point you would have had some indications of how strong the opposition was, and planned accordingly. My players are well versed in identifying "later" situations.

If you push to far to fast, AvardeCadavera is a fine way to kill a character. Lets the others know what they are up against.

We didn't seek the fight out and weren't given a way to avoid the combat. Ambushed, with no way to run away.

[Moosoculars]

Personally when I DM I have two ways that a PC can die. The first is if they are stupid and deserve it. Secondly if they have been forewarned of a powerful enemy and decide to take it on (their choice). In the latter case I expect them to be fully prepared, researched, fresh (as much as possible) and with proper equipment to help them.

The DM's enemy spell caster as an enemy would definitely fall into the second category given the strength of its magic. but it is not too clear whether you decided to take it on as a party or not. If you were treking to the wizard tower with an intent to do harm and he ambushes you on the way then OK, that is something that high level wizards can do and you could/should have expected something like that. And been prepared for the fight generally even if the fight was bought to you.

If the wizard hunted you out, ambushed you and PWK'd you. then that was too harsh (without it being a large plot device)

Were there things you could have done? Maybe. Counterspell, Silence, Deathward if you were taking the wizard on. I feel you should have had some kind of plan in case of a direct confrontation.

Kudos for the DM though. No punches were pulled from the BBEG and that takes some stones. People become VERY invested in characters and killing one should never be done lightly.

One final note, Sometimes stories need low points out of which highs are then build. When the party is down and out, with a dead member, smashed by an evil wizard who has it in for them things are bleak. But from this low an amazing high can be generated as a DM if the players res the fallen, bring the fight to the wizard against overwhelming odds and emerge victorious.

[RSP]

Our party had only just gained a wizard, counterspell was prepped and in hindsight should have been attempted. However, my understanding of the situation was that for counterspell to work it would required a roll of 19 (PWK being a 9th level spell). Totally willing to admit we were probably underprepared but we were ambushed at the end of one session and picked up the encounter on a second, so there wasn't time to find magical items that could have helped. You're right about it being a totally legitimate move from the DM.

If Counterspell wasn't even attempted, then it's not really a case of "powerless against it."

Also, DMs have different styles: some allow PC death, others don't, most fall somewhere inbetween.

And if your group is heavy melee, then it probably gets boring, as both player and DM, if all you do is fight melee monsters.

In your defense, PWK is probably more of a good Enemy spell, as opposed to a good PC spell. The way it works definitely is more useful against PCs than for them, as you'd need to whack at a BBEG for awhile to make them eligible for it (and even then better be sure, otherwise it's wasted).

There are better uses of a 9th level slot most times for a PC, whereas taking out a quarter, or a fifth of the PCs in one action is an effective method of combat for NPC villains.

[RSP]

I killed a player once because he was concerned his character was boring.

Is that a confession? Boring or not you shouldn't be killing Players...

[Ruebin Rybnik]

First I'll say that its hard to really judge the situation without know your party compositions and weather or not the caster was alone or accompanied by other enemies.

However OP said that it was at the end of a session so the party was unlikely to be fresh and ready for battle, with a lot of resources already used up. Even if they were just starting a day, a CR 12 Archmage alone is a challenging encounter to 4 lvl 12 players. Its unlikely that a caster would face a party of heroes alone, and when you start adding other enemies the encounter it becomes Very Difficult. Then add in that this was an ambush, I'm am surprised that only one PC died.

[Contrast]

In your defense, PWK is probably more of a good Enemy spell, as opposed to a good PC spell.

I see what you're saying but at the same time they could have polymorphed a minion into a dragon and sent them to breath fire on the PCs repeatedly or encased them in a prismatic wall or just meteor stormed them.

If I'm fighting a spell caster and they expend their 9th level spell slot to do less than 100 damage total, I count that as a win (though obviously it sucked specifically for OPs character). Hell just upcasting a 9th level fireball to start the ambush would have probably done more damage.

[EvilAnagram]

I see what you're saying but at the same time they could have polymorphed a minion into a dragon and sent them to breath fire on the PCs repeatedly or encased them in a prismatic wall or just meteor stormed them.

If I'm fighting a spell caster and they expend their 9th level spell slot to do less than 100 damage total, I count that as a win (though obviously it sucked specifically for OPs character). Hell just upcasting a 9th level fireball to start the ambush would have probably done more damage.

You have a point with Meteor Swarm, but a ninth level fireball averages 49 damage.

[Contrast]

You have a point with Meteor Swarm, but a ninth level fireball averages 49 damage.

...and it probably would have hit every member of the party.

[RSP]

I see what you're saying but at the same time they could have polymorphed a minion into a dragon and sent them to breath fire on the PCs repeatedly or encased them in a prismatic wall or just meteor stormed them.

If I'm fighting a spell caster and they expend their 9th level spell slot to do less than 100 damage total, I count that as a win (though obviously it sucked specifically for OPs character). Hell just upcasting a 9th level fireball to start the ambush would have probably done more damage.

Are you saying it would have better for the players to each take about 140 damage? I'm pretty sure any 12th level character is down with a missed save, and casters are probably straight Dead.

I'd take greater umbrage with a DM casting that than PWK. Though I imagine the CR is based on the Wizard having PWK and not Meteor Swarm.

[some guy]

I'm all for pc deaths and PWK on lvl 12 is totally fair. The zombification in the same turn as PWK is a bit wonky (though it could be legendary actions).


We didn't seek the fight out and weren't give a way to avoid the combat. Ambushed, with no way to run away.

But I'd feel this above is unfair. Either the party seeks out the fight and there's no way out, the party is ambushed but can retreat, or they are ambushed but there are clear signs before the ambush that they are entering an area in which escape is impossible.
I'm not a fan of ambushes as a player (but will accept them without too much grumbling), but ambushes without ecape options? That's something worth talking to the dm about (to me it is, at least).

[EvilAnagram]

...and it probably would have hit every member of the party.

More likely two to three of them, and none of them would be out of commission. Killing one enemy is more advantageous than wounding 3.

[Sigreid]

We didn't seek the fight out and weren't give a way to avoid the combat. Ambushed, with no way to run away.

Assuming this is true, I got nothing. As described I don't see how 1 party member rates a caster's 9th level slot.

[Contrast]

Are you saying it would have better for the players to each take about 140 damage? I'm pretty sure any 12th level character is down with a missed save, and casters are probably straight Dead.

I'd take greater umbrage with a DM casting that than PWK. Though I imagine the CR is based on the Wizard having PWK and not Meteor Swarm.

My point was just that the DM hadn't chosen the most deadly option open to them with a 9th level spell slot so clearly the DM wasn't really trying to kill them. Even at a higher level meteor storm is going to instantly kill a lot of characters if they flubb the save or leave them very badly damaged even if they pass. High level casters can do lots of terribly unfair things (compared to martials who just beat you to death over a number of turns :smallwink:) - if you aren't prepared for that then maybe higher level D&D isn't for you. To be clear I don't mean that as a criticism of anyone, I don't think its for me either.


More likely two to three of them, and none of them would be out of commission. Killing one enemy is more advantageous than wounding 3.

I mean, they were ambushed. I was working on the assumption the enemy either chose when to ambush or it was set up so they'd be held up somewhere - don't think its unreasonable to assume they'd all be caught. At level 12 50 damage probably represents over half their hitpoints (and it was mentioned this wasn't their first encounter of the day). The point I was trying to make is that even if you're trying to play the bad guy suboptimally (and upcasting a level 3 spell to level 9 is pretty suboptimally) you're going to do signficant amounts of damage to the party no matter what.

This combat went 'the BBEG ambushed us and cast PWK and then a legendary action or some special ability to turn the corpse into a zombie and then Finger of Death on someone else, that sucked'. Another combat could have gone 'the BBEG ambushed us and had set a trap with a Delayed Blast Fireball and then upcast a 9th level fireball at us, instantly killing half the party and leaving the other half almost dead, that sucked'.

[jaappleton]

There's one bit to this scenario that we don't know.

The players assume the roles of their characters. They are acting.

It is possible this was discussed between the DM and the player that got PW: K'd. That's possible.

And even if the OP asks, I don't know if OP will get a truthful answer.

[Sirdar]

The way I look at it, if the pcs can do it, npcs can do it.

We deal with this at the beginning of a campaign by voting on a fee things. That we all agree on that the npcs and pcs can't use because it is overpowered, unfun, or broken in some way but the vote has to be unanimous.

Ex. We started a game with 5 people, a barbarian, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a rogue.

We discussed and decided that Force cage, is too broken of a spell to be fun when used. No dave, no concentration, no nothing, cast spell, at least 1 person maybe more are stuck with no real way to deal with it. So we voted that in this world force cage did not exist.

We also discussed not allowing the -5 for +10 damage for GWM and Sharpshooter. We would replace them with a different benefit. However, the Barbarian was planning to take GWM, so the vote was not unanimous. However it was made clear, that because it is fine for a pc, then no complaining when an npc uses it.

We fix a lot of problems that way. We fixed the retardedness of Hunger of Hadar, and changed mage slayer where it's reaction happens before the spell goes off.

Off topic: Just curious about your fix of Hunger of Hadar. What did you do? I love the flavor of the spell, but it's lack of scaling is extremely annoying.

[Dudewithknives]

Off topic: Just curious about your fix of Hunger of Hadar. What did you do? I love the flavor of the spell, but it's lack of scaling is extremely annoying.

We fixed it's lack of scaling.

The fact that it is a spell only usable by a class that can only cast the highest level possible, but it does. It scale is bad design.

We added 1d6 to each damage per spell level up to 5th.

[KorvinStarmast]

PWK is a 17th level spell, and something that can be faced at CR12 - Ki-Rin have 9th level spells as do Archmage - it stands to reason an 18HD Cleric is the same. Ki-Rin have TrueRes. Go searching for them, or Gate it in if you're sufficiently leveled. It's a 9th level spell first available to PC's at Character level 17, but available to a CR 12 Archmage (though it's listed as having time stop) (as per Ki Rin, etc).

Concur with "gate them in" but that's a 9th level spell, and CR 12 is suitable for char levels 11 and 12, depending on party size, even 10 ... which means that lacking an item, gating in help may be beyond them.

If there's a cleric in the party, try divine intervention.



Beginning at 10th level, you can call on your deity to intervene on your behalf when your need is great.
Imploring your deity’s aid requires you to use your action. Describe the assistance you seek, and roll percentile dice. If you roll a number equal to or lower than your cleric level, your deity intervenes.
The GM chooses the nature of the intervention; the effect of any cleric spell or cleric domain spell would be appropriate.

it never hurts to ask.

[Vaz]

A Candle of Invocation of LG (I think) is a good thing to pick up in that instance.

In regards to the fixing of Hunger of Hadar; i roll a D8 (2d8 if flying/swimming) to pick a vector to travel along for blinded people unless they have Blindsight, and reduce the speed of people within it by 10ft/level if they take damage, and increase the damage ticks from d6/round to d8/round and d12.

[DivisibleByZero]

I can see it as some sort of statement about death. Death is random, unavoidable, shocking, and pointless. You have a bad taste in your mouth and don't understand why this has happened. Seems Accurate.

This. A thousand times, this.
Sure it sucks, but dem's da breaks.

[Findulidas]

I dont think I would enjoy this game if it wasnt for the fact that I could die at the encounters.

Several people at my table dont play optimized characters and dont pick the best spells at all, just the things they think are nice and enjoy. Although picking counterspell and similar would probably seem like good choices and they might do it if I pointed it out, they probably wouldnt be happier if they did in the end. The way we play I think is honestly is way more fun, even though it sometimes leads to deaths. Im the only optimizer at the table most likely, thats not to say I dont play oddball characters and strategies though.

[BurgerBeast]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this to troll. It's my honest opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I am sure many will.

I'm totally fine with it. The game has rules, and the DM played by them. No problem, in my opinion. Leave your feelings out of it.

The spell is part of the game. If you want it out, then lobby to have it out of the game. But don't play a game that has the spell and then complain when it gets used.

Edit: There is an important distinction to be made between "this is not fair" and "I really, really, don't like this." It is fair. You really, really don't like it. It's still fair.

[Vaz]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this to troll. It's my honest opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I am sure many will.

I'm totally fine with it. The game has rules, and the DM played by them. No problem, in my opinion. Leave your feelings out of it.

The spell is part of the game. If you want it out, then lobby to have it out of the game. But don't play a game that has the spell and then complain when it gets used.

Edit: There is an important distinction to be made between "this is not fair" and "I really, really, don't like this." It is fair. You really, really don't like it. It's still fair.

I don't play for 5 hours to not have fun. You can have fun AND be fair, and there are a hundred spells which are fair use against the party, without so much as 'nope, you die' without even the mitigating feeling of a DM rolling dice for damage.

[Kryx]

I don't play for 5 hours to not have fun. You can have fun AND be fair, and there are a hundred spells which are fair use against the party, without so much as 'nope, you die' without even the mitigating feeling of a DM rolling dice for damage.
So then lobby to remove Power Word Kill from the game if the spell is unfair.

[rollingForInit]

I wouldn't mind Power Word Kill as a finisher attack for someone. I'd mind it much more if the villain started off just murdering a low HP PC with it. But if the combat has been going on, and the party knew they'd fight a powerful spellcaster ... I'd say it's fine.

However, preventing a regular resurrection seems rather harsh to me, more so than the rest.

[Vaz]

We do. I was addressing the point where it was stated that it was fair, and regardless of how fair it may be, it doesn't to stamping the fun out of the game.

Also the tools of the player are not the same in the hands of the DM. A DM can make stuff up on the fly, and system is supportive of that. That is the reason why a DM is there.

There is also the fact that a DM can be running a story that has taken an individual from 3rd level to 20 as our game is going to do (currently at 15th) Lets assume you ding every 4th session, and you play once a week, that is 9 months of playing thrown away.

A player having their character killed and then anything shy of literally begging the DM for a Legendary or Very Rare item to get access to the one specific monster that has TrueRes as a spell 5 levels earlier than is typically available for characters is hardly what I call fair.

Worst that happens to a DM is that their opponent for the party dies a round or two before they were intended to.

[DMGMAPC]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this to troll. It's my honest opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I am sure many will.

I'm totally fine with it. The game has rules, and the DM played by them. No problem, in my opinion. Leave your feelings out of it.

The spell is part of the game. If you want it out, then lobby to have it out of the game. But don't play a game that has the spell and then complain when it gets used.

Edit: There is an important distinction to be made between "this is not fair" and "I really, really, don't like this." It is fair. You really, really don't like it. It's still fair.

I don't disagree with you. It's a strange game to debate the rules of anyway, when some people play it like a war game, some people play it as a story-telling mechanic but most people probably fall somewhere in between.

[DMGMAPC]

I wouldn't mind Power Word Kill as a finisher attack for someone. I'd mind it much more if the villain started off just murdering a low HP PC with it. But if the combat has been going on, and the party knew they'd fight a powerful spellcaster ... I'd say it's fine.

However, preventing a regular resurrection seems rather harsh to me, more so than the rest.

Yeah, I think it's the blocking of a resurrection that has irked me here.

[Findulidas]

However, preventing a regular resurrection seems rather harsh to me, more so than the rest.

Depends I think, on the character of the guy they are fighting that is. If hes a necromancer sort of guy its really natural for him to try to raise anyone as a zombie in a fight. While I agree its harsh to lose a character, like I said earlier however, its part of the game to sometimes do it anyway.

How resurrection works against zombies that you have killed AGAIN depends on how the dm reads the spell though. I guess you could argue that if the zombie is killed it might stop the undead part? Its really how the dm decides to do things.

[Thrudd]

Power Word spells are a thing that exist in D&D and have existed from the beginning. You know they're out there. It's as legit a way to die as any other way. That's how you threaten high level characters - they have so much HP that many things don't feel too dangerous, that's why stuff like this exists.

Whether or not this specific encounter was fair or over-leveled for the party, I'm not going to judge. Did they need to zombify the dead character right away? Maybe not - but that's a separate question from whether the spell was fair to use. There is nothing unfair about the spell Power Word: Kill. There are many things that can outright kill characters at different points in the game with only one roll, including plain old damage from an attack. Higher level should mean more danger and difficulty for the players, not less.

[DivisibleByZero]

We do. I was addressing the point where it was stated that it was fair, and regardless of how fair it may be, it doesn't to stamping the fun out of the game.

Also the tools of the player are not the same in the hands of the DM. A DM can make stuff up on the fly, and system is supportive of that. That is the reason why a DM is there.

There is also the fact that a DM can be running a story that has taken an individual from 3rd level to 20 as our game is going to do (currently at 15th) Lets assume you ding every 4th session, and you play once a week, that is 9 months of playing thrown away.

A player having their character killed and then anything shy of literally begging the DM for a Legendary or Very Rare item to get access to the one specific monster that has TrueRes as a spell 5 levels earlier than is typically available for characters is hardly what I call fair.

Worst that happens to a DM is that their opponent for the party dies a round or two before they were intended to.

Dude, that's the way the game is played.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but originally it didn't sound like you were whining. Now it does.

[Vaz]

Saying Power Word Kill is fair is like saying that Pun-Pun is fair to throw at a L1 party in 3.5e.

Also, preventing legitimate reasons to heal the individual afterwards hardly strikes me as fair, when animate dead takes a minute to cast, without taking damage and Conc checks to maintain casting the spell.

@DivisibleByZero, coulda sworn I was on your block list. Kinda feel upset to find I'm not.

[DivisibleByZero]

Saying Power Word Kill is fair is like saying that Pun-Pun is fair to throw at a L1 party in 3.5e.

Also, preventing legitimate reasons to heal the individual afterwards hardly strikes me as fair, when animate dead takes a minute to cast, without taking damage and Conc checks to maintain casting the spell.

As previously stated, Finger of Death is much more likely to have been the spell cast here. It deals 7d8+30 (~62) damage, and if it kills you then you rise the next round as a zombie under the caster's control.

edit @v: That explains it.

[MaxWilson]

Dude, that's the way the game is played.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but originally it didn't sound like you were whining. Now it does.

Point of clarification RE: "originally": Vaz is not the OP.

[Vaz]

As previously stated, Finger of Death is much more likely to have been the spell cast here. It deals 7d8+30 (~62) damage, and if it kills you then you rise the next round as a zombie under the caster's control.

As previously stated, Finger of Death certainly isn't the spell.

[DMGMAPC]

We do. I was addressing the point where it was stated that it was fair, and regardless of how fair it may be, it doesn't to stamping the fun out of the game.

Also the tools of the player are not the same in the hands of the DM. A DM can make stuff up on the fly, and system is supportive of that. That is the reason why a DM is there.

There is also the fact that a DM can be running a story that has taken an individual from 3rd level to 20 as our game is going to do (currently at 15th) Lets assume you ding every 4th session, and you play once a week, that is 9 months of playing thrown away.

A player having their character killed and then anything shy of literally begging the DM for a Legendary or Very Rare item to get access to the one specific monster that has TrueRes as a spell 5 levels earlier than is typically available for characters is hardly what I call fair.

Worst that happens to a DM is that their opponent for the party dies a round or two before they were intended to.

I think this pretty much sums but why I'm bugged by the move. To be honest, I've adjusted minor details in the OP in case my DM happened to see the post but the character had been in play since 2013. To now have that broken with little choice as to bringing it back doesn't feel good.

[DivisibleByZero]

As previously stated, Finger of Death certainly isn't the spell.


I'm not really sure what spell was used after PWK but in one turn the BBEG killed the PC and brought them back as a zombie so there was no time to use revivify/raise before the PC became undead.

I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't know exactly what happened, so I take the absolute claim that it was PWK with a grain of salt, and maintain that FoD is more likely.
What he described as having happened is literally exactly what FoD does.

[Vaz]

😂 😂 😂 😂

Try again mate.

[Mellack]

Did the victim get a save?

[mephnick]

Totally legit. Enemies use the resources available to them or there's no point in using the statblock. If they can res the dead to help defend themselves they'll do it. If PCs die then they die. I think I'd be disappointed in a DM that could have killed me fairly but didn't. Yes, it was fair.

[mephnick]

Did the victim get a save?

There are no saves on PW:K. It's the only reason it's a worthwhile spell.

[Mellack]

There are no saves on PW:K. It's the only reason it's a worthwhile spell.

I know that. I was attempting to verify that it was actually PWK and not something else.

[Kryx]

I think this pretty much sums but why I'm bugged by the move.
So you believe the spell is unfair in the hands of NPCs. I'd argue that the spell is unfun in all cases.

Simply ask to remove the spell and other similar spells that you find unfun.

[Hrugner]

It was definitely PWK, the same BBEG used finger of death later in the encounter

I thought it was possibly a misremembered FoD as well, but even that doesn't raise the target till the beginning of the caster's next turn. Hopefully the DM has a good reason for all this.

[Sigreid]

So you believe the spell is unfair in the hands of NPCs. I'd argue that the spell is unfun in all cases.

Simply ask to remove the spell and other similar spells that you find unfun.

But it's such a handy answer to a level 20 moon druid.

[Mellack]

I thought it was possibly a misremembered FoD as well, but even that doesn't raise the target till the beginning of the caster's next turn. Hopefully the DM has a good reason for all this.

If it was PW:K then it isn't totally a problem with that spell. The DM might have given the necromancer some additional power that raises undead, presumably as a bonus action? It would be that combination that made things as troublesome as they were.

[Gtdead]

PWK is cheap. I always think of it as an "execute" style of ability to be used at less than 50% of the enemy's health. Using it against someone that hardly has 100 health is sneaky on the DM's part. It's pretty much the equivalent of "rocks fall on you, you die".

[Hrugner]

PWK is cheap. I always think of it as an "execute" style of ability to be used at less than 50% of the enemy's health. Using it against someone that hardly has 100 health is sneaky on the DM's part. It's pretty much the equivalent of "rocks fall on you, you die".

It certainly encourages mid combat healing to keep people above that level of HP. It's probably good to leave it in since mid combat healing is typically considered wasteful despite being supported in the rules.

[Sigreid]

PWK is cheap. I always think of it as an "execute" style of ability to be used at less than 50% of the enemy's health. Using it against someone that hardly has 100 health is sneaky on the DM's part. It's pretty much the equivalent of "rocks fall on you, you die".

Well, it's also a strong discouragement against rushing the spell caster. "Yeah, I know that's the normal tactic, but the last one of us that did that just died..."

Edit, why couldn't you raise your friend after killing their zombie? RAW you have to have the dead body and they can't have been dead long. Don't think there's anything about their body can't have been animated inbetween.

[DMGMAPC]

Well, it's also a strong discouragement against rushing the spell caster. "Yeah, I know that's the normal tactic, but the last one of us that did that just died..."

Edit, why couldn't you raise your friend after killing their zombie? RAW you have to have the dead body and they can't have been dead long. Don't think there's anything about their body can't have been animated inbetween.

The DM has been very clear, they interpret the rules as once the character became undead, they are undead permenantly so revivify/ressurection weren't options. They have said they would only allow reincarnate or true-res

[Vogonjeltz]

A few games back the DM of a long running game used power word kill to decimate a PC that had been in the campaign since day one (going back about 2 years). They doubled that up by turning the corpse into a zombie, thus making true resurrection the only option for bringing them back.

Not to make you feel worse, but the spell True Resurrection won't work in this situation.

"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" (emphasis added, PHB 284)

So long as that Zombie exists, your friend is SoL.

[DMGMAPC]

I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't know exactly what happened, so I take the absolute claim that it was PWK with a grain of salt, and maintain that FoD is more likely.
What he described as having happened is literally exactly what FoD does.

Unless the DM is going with a bluff it was 100% PWK. The spell was described as PWK in combat, no saves, DM checked to see if HP was under 100.

The DM has always said she's a big fan of PWK anyway. She's building a PC in another game with the intention of getting it.

[Sirdar]

2) We were completely defenceless against it
No one in the party was above a lvl 12, there was a clear trend in the party toward melee and none of us had any clue of what we could have done to avoid it happening. The PWK came after a few rounds of combat so it was highly unlikely that any of us would have been above 100hp. It didn't feel like a case of having the puzzle pieces but not in the right order, it felt like we were thrown in at the deep end before we were ready.


Did every character in the party even have more than 100 hp to begin with? A level 12 Rogue (or some other class with a d8 Hit Die) with a solid Con of 16 only has (8+3)+11*(5+3) = 99 hp for instance. In fact, at level 12 a d6 Hit Die Class need Con 20 to be above 100 hp at max. A d8 Hit Die Class need Con 18. A d10 Hit Die Class need Con 16 and a d12 Hit Die Class need Con 12.


Unless the DM is going with a bluff it was 100% PWK. The spell was described as PWK in combat, no saves, DM checked to see if HP was under 100.

The DM has always said she's a big fan of PWK anyway. She's building a PC in another game with the intention of getting it.

So the DM bash the party for a few rounds to ensure the success of the PWK before she determines to kill a PC (at random?) with one of her favorite spells. Well, it is not the type of game I'm interested in, but some badass players may like it (or at least pretend they do).

It feels like your DM really wanted to kill someone with PWK and bided her time until at least some of the party had more than 100 hp (at max) in order to make it look like a fair fight. I could be wrong, but it feels really uncool. It feels like she prepared a case of 'rocks fall, you die' for her own amusement.

[Sigreid]

The DM has been very clear, they interpret the rules as once the character became undead, they are undead permenantly so revivify/ressurection weren't options. They have said they would only allow reincarnate or true-res

Was worth a shot.

[Beelzebubba]

Saying Power Word Kill is fair is like saying that Pun-Pun is fair to throw at a L1 party in 3.5e.

Exaggerate much?

That said, the follow-up of the Zombifying was a rough tactic, for sure, but I know tables and players that wouldn't whine like you're doing now. They'd go 'Ooooooh, we are SO going to get you for this!' and roll up something new. So, don't pretend you speak for everyone with judgments of 'fair' or 'not fair'.

All's fair in love and war.

[Mellack]

Unless the DM is going with a bluff it was 100% PWK. The spell was described as PWK in combat, no saves, DM checked to see if HP was under 100.

The DM has always said she's a big fan of PWK anyway. She's building a PC in another game with the intention of getting it.

In that case I would say the problem was not PWK, it was the instant zombiefication. Without that, you would have been able to use Revivify or some other spell to bring them right back.

[BurgerBeast]

The DM has been very clear, they interpret the rules as once the character became undead, they are undead permenantly so revivify/ressurection weren't options. They have said they would only allow reincarnate or true-res

Okay, so here you go. 1. Stop whining. 2. Get to work. Put a stop to the current story goal and get to work seeking out a caster who can resurrect your friend via reincarnate or true resurrection. Problem solved. Story drama increased. Win win. No loss of dignity.


Not to make you feel worse, but the spell True Resurrection won't work in this situation.

"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" (emphasis added, PHB 284)

So long as that Zombie exists, your friend is SoL.

This is the most glaring example of poor logic and/or poor reading comprehension I've seen in a while. Sorry, but you're flat out wrong.

"Even if" is the important part of this sentence. By your logic, you can't resurrect someone if their body exists? You must destroy it first? Yeah... no.

[Findulidas]

Its a 9th level spell to be fair. I mean its not that great compared to lets say meteor swarm which is its equivalent level. That spell does about as much damage in aoe on failed saves. Granted it wont just instantly kill someone but at the same time its probably going to make 2-3 PC's unconscious at level 12 if its used intelligently (like a wizard would), which is likely to lead to deaths. If they fail the save its not impossible that they just straight up die as well.

[Sigreid]

Its a 9th level spell to be fair. I mean its not that great compared to lets say meteor swarm which is its equivalent level. That spell does about as much damage in aoe on failed saves. Granted it wont just instantly kill someone but at the same time its probably going to make 2-3 PC's unconscious at level 12 if its used intelligently (like a wizard would), which is likely to lead to deaths. If they fail the save its not impossible that they just straight up die as well.

Meteor Swarm is for instantly killing lots of people. You don't use it on the 4 guys you found in your living room stealing your couch, you use it to snarle at the king "remember that army you used to have?

[Vaz]

Exaggerate much?
Wait, what, it's fair, because the rules allow it, and throwing Pun-Pun, which is something the rules allow from level 1, at the party is suddenly verboten? What sort of double standard is that?

Or do you mean to say that the DM shouldn't throw something at the party, because it's clearly unfair, because of its intrinsic unfairness, as opposed to some ridiculous concept of it's fair because the rules "allow it"?


That said, the follow-up of the Zombifying was a rough tactic, for sure, but I know tables and players that wouldn't whine like you're doing now. They'd go 'Ooooooh, we are SO going to get you for this!' and roll up something new. So, don't pretend you speak for everyone with judgments of 'fair' or 'not fair'.

All's fair in love and war.
Yeah, I don't even know what to say for that.

Is a Alpha, Wizard of X level equal in power to Beta, NPC Enemy Wizard of X level? No. Despite being the same level, Wizard A, under the control of the player has to be able to judge when and where to use their spells. Had they used spells beforehand, how much adventuring day is still to go. And that says nothing for spell preparation. NPC Wizard is a red shirt, fated to die. They do not have to bother with wasted resources to get to the location, they do not have to worry about afterwards. They do not have to worry about what spells to prepare. They don't need to worry about preparing Identify, or Rope Trick, or any other sort of utility spells, they just take the ones that are going to do the job they need, and can spam their most powerful spells while they have spell slots, while a player has to manage those same slots through 7 other encounters.

That enemy who spends a 9th level spell slot

A party who has 4 members has one player instantly killed by a character 5+ levels higher than them, and then has the 'rules broken' against them, preventing them from being summoned. A DM using homebrew is nothing new, but to seriously tell a player who has been involved with a game that they can no longer participate with that character through no fault of their own apart from being underlevelled is hardly fair. Cutting a parties killing power by 25% and preventing its raising, as opposed to killing Red Shirt #44 (or Bag of XP #123414) is hardly the same thing.

And you wouldn't be saying all is fair in love in war if I slept with your significant other then stabbed you in the eye, would you? "All is fair in love and war"? You'd feel hard done to, but apparently it would be "fair", and you'd be totally magnaminous, because I loved your SO? Behave. Also, we're not at war. I literally have to spell out that it's a game, where people can feel legitimate connections with their characters and their stories. To have a DM go, yeah, no, you sit in the corner until the next convenient time I can bring in your next character is not something that's inherently fair.

If everything the players can do is something the GM can do, and "all is fair and love and war", then I'm going to be bringing along my CR20 Ancient Dragon, because what's fair for the DM is fair for the player, too.

Or did you not mean THAT kind of fair? Did you mean the kind of fair that only goes one way? Which, by definition, is not fair. This feels like explaining to toddlers why not to eat playdoh.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A party who has 4 members has one player instantly killed by a character 5+ levels higher than them, and then has the 'rules broken' against them, preventing them from being summoned. A DM using homebrew is nothing new, but to seriously tell a player who has been involved with a game that they can no longer participate with that character through no fault of their own apart from being underlevelled is hardly fair. Cutting a parties killing power by 25% and preventing its raising, as opposed to killing Red Shirt #44 (or Bag of XP #123414) is hardly the same thing.
I'm having trouble explaining this to a soon-to-be-first time DM who has been obsessed with using intellect devourers. Like, en masse. He's something of a munchkin in play normally and cannot grasp the idea that outright killing players with cheap, hard to avoid death isn't fun.

I've spent an actual year trying to tell him no, I'm not telling him 'oh man, not intellect devourers!' like a scared player afraid of challenge, but that 'if you do this it WILL kill a player, probably most of them, and force those players to sit off to the side and not play your game'. It would be more fun to roll a d20 and say I win a cookie if I roll a 13+.

Since that's what it boils down to.

Never mind the fact that it directly contradicts their intended lore and tactics, because homebrew campaign means you can ruin everything at your leisure.

[rollingForInit]

Depends I think, on the character of the guy they are fighting that is. If hes a necromancer sort of guy its really natural for him to try to raise anyone as a zombie in a fight. While I agree its harsh to lose a character, like I said earlier however, its part of the game to sometimes do it anyway.

How resurrection works against zombies that you have killed AGAIN depends on how the dm reads the spell though. I guess you could argue that if the zombie is killed it might stop the undead part? Its really how the dm decides to do things.

I sort of agree with this. But I also think it's important to consider how a player is going to react. Death can sometimes be difficult to avoid as a DM, but we all know that different players will take it differently. Especially people who are really into character development might be extra disappointed to see their characters go, permanently, before they've gotten what they want out the character. So while death can't always be avoided, I also feel that a DM should work to make a game as fun as possible, even in that situation. E.g. if a player feels their character died prematurely, working out a way for the character to be resurrected (even if the Resurrection spell wouldn't typically work for whatever reason) seems like a good idea. To me, at least.

Unless something else has been agreed upon at the start of the campaign, of course.

[BurgerBeast]

Wait, what, it's fair, because the rules allow it, and throwing Pun-Pun, which is something the rules allow from level 1, at the party is suddenly verboten? What sort of double standard is that?

Yes, strictly speaking it is fair. That's not the point.

The point is that they are different in degree. To the point that it raises suspicions about "sportsmanship." (I try to explain below.)


Or do you mean to say that the DM shouldn't throw something at the party, because it's clearly unfair, because of its intrinsic unfairness, as opposed to some ridiculous concept of it's fair because the rules "allow it"?

We seem to be using different definitions of fair. I am using it in a way that "because the rules allow it" is precisely what it means. In my view, you're driving more at something like sportsmanship/etiquette, or perhaps appropriateness.

As an analogy, consider an olympic event in which the U.S.A. is up against Somalia in ice hockey. You can complain about the appropriateness of the match-up, but as long as the game is played by the rules of the Olympic games, it's still fair. Somalia did not need to enter the competition, but they did, and they know the rules. Also, the U.S.A. players might decide to exploit their ability in distasteful ways, such as running up the score to 35-0, showboating, or even insulting the Somalia players. All of these are deplorable, but the game is still fair as long as it is played by the rules.

I understand that you might find poor sportsmanship, poor etiquette, or inappropriate challenges to be "unfair," but I would say that you should convince yourself that they are not. It is not only a more accurate way to assess situations, it is more useful. Here's what I mean:

If you are confronted with someone who is playing the game unfairly, you have a place to look to solve disputes: the rules of the game.

However, if you are confronted with a poor sport, a person with no manners, or someone who fails to understand appropriate challenges... then you are often up against someone who has different tastes. In such a case, the problem is much more likely to be either irreconcilable, or only reconcilable after exerting a disproportionate amount of effort. In such cases, it's better for your character [edit: I meant character as in your moral character or integrity, etc. -- not as in your PC] to simply accept the outcome as fair, leave, and never play with that person ever again.

[Beelzebubba]

Wait, what, it's fair, because the rules allow it, and throwing Pun-Pun, which is something the rules allow from level 1, at the party is suddenly verboten? What sort of double standard is that?

There is no double standard. This is 'A spell in the core rulebook of every edition of the game since AD&D' vs. 'a crazy thought experiment made possible by loopholes cobbled together from several poorly-tested sources, designed by different people at different times, with no balance testing between them, for an edition of the game that was SO BROKEN they couldn't just do errata, they had to patch it with a completely new edition'.

There is no double standard. Only your sloppy logic, jumping to conclusions, and over-dramatic language.

Note: we are not your parents. Tantrums don't help your case here.


Yeah, I don't even know what to say for that.

You say that, but then you followed it up with an *awful lot* to say. :smallwink:

[Vogonjeltz]

This is the most glaring example of poor logic and/or poor reading comprehension I've seen in a while. Sorry, but you're flat out wrong.

"Even if" is the important part of this sentence. By your logic, you can't resurrect someone if their body exists? You must destroy it first? Yeah... no.

No, and I find it bemusing you displayed such poor reading comprehension while accusing me of the same.

The caster must target and touch the creature unless the body no longer exists.
If they were turned into a zombie you neither have a valid target (dead creature) nor does the body not exist allowing for the creation of a new body.
As neither condition is fulfilled, the spell won't work.

[Vaz]

There is no double standard. This is 'A spell in the core rulebook of every edition of the game since AD&D' vs. 'a crazy thought experiment made possible by loopholes cobbled together from several poorly-tested sources, designed by different people at different times, with no balance testing between them, for an edition of the game that was SO BROKEN they couldn't just do errata, they had to patch it with a completely new edition'.

There is no double standard. Only your sloppy logic, jumping to conclusions, and over-dramatic language.

Note: we are not your parents. Tantrums don't help your case here.
And yet you say nothing at all yourself.

All of the above materials are legal. Ergo, its all legal. Apart from when its unfair, in which case its an arbitrary decision. Also, PWK has never been "fair" in any sort of "fair" when it has intrinsically greater impact and intrinsically less cost on one side of the table to the other. Just because it's old doesn't make it fair. Slavery isn't fair, fox hunting isn't fair, bull fighting isn't fair. Just because it's legal doesn't make it fair.

Having a certain unit in a video game be more dangerous and cheaper would not be considered equal, so how can they be fair, when the cost is OHKO.




You say that, but then you followed it up with an *awful lot* to say. :smallwink:
You consider that a lot? Seriously, you're an idiot if you consider that a lot. I expect you believe the Hungry Caterpillar is a work of modern art also?

Explain to me how its fair to remove a player character as opposed to nobodycares.com #7.

[BurgerBeast]

No, and I find it bemusing you displayed such poor reading comprehension while accusing me of the same.

The caster must target and touch the creature unless the body no longer exists.
If they were turned into a zombie you neither have a valid target (dead creature) nor does the body not exist allowing for the creation of a new body.
As neither condition is fulfilled, the spell won't work.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "True Resurrection won't work" then?

Kill the zombie, then resurrect. Or, if you say that won't work: kill zombie, destroy body, resurrect.

So how does it not work?

[Kryx]

Original post edited
This is uncalled for and has no place in this community. Please don't treat people in such a manner.

[Vaz]

Fixed. Was a sloppy drunk at the time and didn't filter.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is uncalled for and has no place in this community. Please don't treat people in such a manner.
That's just who Vaz is. You get used to it.


@DivisibleByZero, coulda sworn I was on your block list. Kinda feel upset to find I'm not.
Oh, you are.
Every once in a while I click the Show Post button to reaffirm why I had people blocked in the first place. It never disappoints, because I find things like this (one of which was apparently in a post that you *claim* to have already "fixed").

This feels like explaining to toddlers why not to eat playdoh.

You consider that a lot? Seriously, you're an idiot if you consider that a lot. I expect you believe the Hungry Caterpillar is a work of modern art also?

Yep. Reaffirmed.


No, and I find it bemusing you displayed such poor reading comprehension while accusing me of the same.

The caster must target and touch the creature unless the body no longer exists.
If they were turned into a zombie you neither have a valid target (dead creature) nor does the body not exist allowing for the creation of a new body.
As neither condition is fulfilled, the spell won't work.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "True Resurrection won't work" then?

Kill the zombie, then resurrect. Or, if you say that won't work: kill zombie, destroy body, resurrect.

So how does it not work?

The Raise Dead spell has a line specifically stating that "The spell can't return an undead creature to life."
Resurrection and True Resurrection lack that line, while the rest of the text for all three spells is basically exactly the same with only minor changes such as the length of time the target has been dead, so lacking that line I think it's safe to assume that either will work.

[Solunaris]

The Raise Dead spell has a line specifically stating that "The spell can't return an undead creature to life."
Resurrection and True Resurrection lack that line, while the rest of the text for all three spells is basically exactly the same with only minor changes such as the length of time the target has been dead, so lacking that line I think it's safe to assume that either will work.

Resurrection also has that line. It's just in a different part of the spell text than where the clause is located in Raise Dead.

Edit: If you are ok with a possible change to your race, Reincarnate would serve you quite well in this instance. All you need is a piece of the zombie you became.

[DivisibleByZero]

Resurrection also has that line. It's just in a different part of the spell text than where the clause is located in Raise Dead.

Edit: If you are ok with a possible change to your race, Reincarnate would serve you quite well in this instance. All you need is a piece of the zombie you became.

Ah, I missed the "and that isn't undead" part. Yep.

[Armored Walrus]

If you kill a zombie, is it still undead? I would think at that point it's just... dead.

[Findulidas]

If you kill a zombie, is it still undead? I would think at that point it's just... dead.

This is where the dm decides things I say. I would say its proper dead if there is no magic left in it, but you can make an argument for a body becoming "corrupt" once it has once been undead and so requires the stronger ways of resurrecting. Much like missing vital bodyparts require stronger ways.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm talking about True Resurrection. Is there still debate about whether it would work? It appears to me that it would work.

[Solunaris]

I'm talking about True Resurrection. Is there still debate about whether it would work? It appears to me that it would work.

Well, that depends on how the DM views it. They might need the corpse (walking or not) unless they cremated the character. Also, would the character be willing to return to life? The afterlife in D&D is pretty sweet; especially when you die in pursuit of a quest.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm talking about True Resurrection. Is there still debate about whether it would work? It appears to me that it would work.

My ruling is that it would work. It lacks the verbiage that the other spells have about undead.

[Waterdeep Merch]

My ruling is that it would work. It lacks the verbiage that the other spells have about undead.
I could also swear I read a specific anecdote about true resurrection working on undead targets. I believe it was in Curse of Strahd, regarding reversing the vampirism of the priest Donahue's son. I believe it was also careful to mention that you could resurrect him by killing him as a vampire and using normal resurrection magic as well.

As an officially published module that could be played as part of Adventurer's League, does that make it RAW?

EDIT: No, it's most certainly not in that portion of the CoS book. It's actually in the Monster Manual, in the sidebar on the vampire entry. It states the only way to bring back a vampire is to either use the wish spell or kill them and bring them back to life. It requires a bit of circular thinking, but it's reasonable to assume that means a dead body doesn't count as undead anymore for the purposes of spellcasting and abilities.

Or it means that only true resurrection works due to the aforementioned lack of specification, and vampirism is a really, really nasty affliction. Is it more gamist to assume that a dead undead still has the undead typing, or that it is the same as a dead body of its previous type? Does something keep its creature type after death?

[Sigreid]

I could also swear I read a specific anecdote about true resurrection working on undead targets. I believe it was in Curse of Strahd, regarding reversing the vampirism of the priest Donahue's son. I believe it was also careful to mention that you could resurrect him by killing him as a vampire and using normal resurrection magic as well.

As an officially published module that could be played as part of Adventurer's League, does that make it RAW?

EDIT: No, it's most certainly not in that portion of the CoS book. It's actually in the Monster Manual, in the sidebar on the vampire entry. It states the only way to bring back a vampire is to either use the wish spell or kill them and bring them back to life. It requires a bit of circular thinking, but it's reasonable to assume that means a dead body doesn't count as undead anymore for the purposes of spellcasting and abilities.

Or it means that only true resurrection works due to the aforementioned lack of specification, and vampirism is a really, really nasty affliction. Is it more gamist to assume that a dead undead still has the undead typing, or that it is the same as a dead body of its previous type? Does something keep its creature type after death?

I hold that an undead is not longer an undead once he's a re-dead.

[BurgerBeast]

Does something keep its creature type after death?

There's been talk in other threads along the lines that a corpse is an object, not a creature. If you hold this view, then it would seem to me that a corpse does not have a creature type (since it's not a creature).

[War_lord]

I feel statements like "well it's in the book, so it's fair" are missing the forest.

If the DM sold the game to the players as a story driven narrative game, there's a social contract there to play by the rules of drama. To use an example from another media, if Han Solo got force choked to death on Bespin during Vader's ambush, it would be lame and anti-climatic. Would it make "sense" within the rules of that universe? Yes, but it doesn't make sense from a plot perspective. If you're going to kill off a main character, it should be meaningful. Now in D&D, sometimes people roll badly, sometimes people do things that are so dumb that there's no way the DM can save the situation without it being clear they fudged it. But a DM running a story driven campaign should never be sitting down to the game with the goal of unceremoniously shanking a PC.

The sports analogy is dumb. A sport is competitive, you have players, or teams of players engaged in a contest with each other, that's why sports, or at least professional sports have immutable rules, it's not about enjoyment, it's about fairness, in the strictest sense of fair, competitions have to be. A sport doesn't ever play by the rules of dramatic tension, because it's an actual contest with a clear "win" condition that athletes and spectators have a personal and often professional stake in, Goliath beats David 9 times out of 10.

D&D isn't competitive. You have the players, who are all on the same side, as well as (usually) being the only audience. And the DM, who is a storyteller and arbitrator. It's not a contest, because as everyone knows, a DM does not have to try very hard if they want a player character dead or otherwise incapacitated permanently. There's a hundred ways to do that "fairly", none of them are particularly enjoyable for anyone. Except perhaps one of those DM's who gets some strange trip out of player deaths.

Death by random bullcrap generally isn't considered fun if the players were lead to expect any other kind of game. Because D&D isn't competitive, rules are often bent in play, because the BBEG and his minions aren't going to complain that the players are bending the rules for fun, they're NPCs that exist to be overcome.

If D&D is like any athletics, it's Professional Wrestling. The goal is to entertain the audience, part of that is to maintain enough of the illusion of a sporting contest that everyone can suspend their disbelief for the night, but too much adherence of that pretense is as boring as discarding it entirely.

[Zalabim]

If a spell is problematic when used on PCs then the spell is problematic to begin with. Power Word Kill is one of those spells as it is a save or die spell that has survived the purge. The few save or die spells/abilities that made it into 5e don't belong in 5e imo.
Technically, it's no save, just die, but it can be countered (literally counterspell), prevented (death ward), reversed (revivify), or just fail to work due to HP limits. It survives mostly on legacy, but it's just fair enough, imo.

Yeah, getting us to hate the BBEG was probably the motivation and it definitely worked! I'm not really harbouring ill feeling toward the DM, she's been great and always puts a lot of effort into the games. I'm interested in getting some more opinions on it because it bugged me but not enough to make it an issue in an otherwise great campaign.

I'm not really sure what spell was used after PWK but in one turn the BBEG killed the PC and brought them back as a zombie so there was no time to use revivify/raise before the PC became undead.
Many have said it, but it bears repeating that the instant zombie seems like the more unfair action. It's a homebrew or at least not-player-allowed ability to block resurrection beyond what PW:K does.

Yeah, I think it's the blocking of a resurrection that has irked me here.
This is the suspect part. Closing death's revolving door is what actually ends the PC. Just snuffing their life can be cheap at the start of a fight, but not meaningful when death has been beaten for so many levels already. Killing off a PC for realz now can be part of a good story, but it's something that varies from person to person.

As previously stated, Finger of Death is much more likely to have been the spell cast here. It deals 7d8+30 (~62) damage, and if it kills you then you rise the next round as a zombie under the caster's control.

edit @v: That explains it.


I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't know exactly what happened, so I take the absolute claim that it was PWK with a grain of salt, and maintain that FoD is more likely.
What he described as having happened is literally exactly what FoD does.
FoD also doesn't have any special instant kill ability with its damage. Unless it does massive damage, the PC still gets death saves.

So you believe the spell is unfair in the hands of NPCs. I'd argue that the spell is unfun in all cases.

Simply ask to remove the spell and other similar spells that you find unfun.
I think you're misattributing the sentiment here. I read this as being about the removal of their PC from the story, the permanent death, rather than the normal temporary death.

Meteor Swarm is for instantly killing lots of people. You don't use it on the 4 guys you found in your living room stealing your couch, you use it to snarle at the king "remember that army you used to have?
I would totally use Meteor Swarm to kill 4 people, but I wouldn't use it to kill an army in my living room stealing my couch because I don't want to destroy my couch and living room. It has a 1 mile range because you should stand clear of the blast and keep it out of the reach of small children.

No, and I find it bemusing you displayed such poor reading comprehension while accusing me of the same.

The caster must target and touch the creature unless the body no longer exists.
If they were turned into a zombie you neither have a valid target (dead creature) nor does the body not exist allowing for the creation of a new body.
As neither condition is fulfilled, the spell won't work.
It's arguable that the zombie is a different creature, and since that creature has used up the entire body, the body of the PC no longer exists. Then once the zombie is killed, the body is merely the zombie's dead body. So True Resurrection may work even without the zombie first being killed.

[Vogonjeltz]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "True Resurrection won't work" then?

Kill the zombie, then resurrect. Or, if you say that won't work: kill zombie, destroy body, resurrect.

So how does it not work?

I mean as long as the Zombie exists. If you kill it then you could touch the dead body to revive it.


The Raise Dead spell has a line specifically stating that "The spell can't return an undead creature to life."
Resurrection and True Resurrection lack that line, while the rest of the text for all three spells is basically exactly the same with only minor changes such as the length of time the target has been dead, so lacking that line I think it's safe to assume that either will work.

Yes, but it does have to be dead given the casting time of 1 hour and the requirement to touch the body.

You can't just go away without the body and cast True Resurrection, because the body still exists.


It's arguable that the zombie is a different creature, and since that creature has used up the entire body, the body of the PC no longer exists. Then once the zombie is killed, the body is merely the zombie's dead body. So True Resurrection may work even without the zombie first being killed.

Nobody would say it's not Billy's body just because he got turned into a dad-blasted zombie.

[BurgerBeast]

I mean as long as the Zombie exists. If you kill it then you could touch the dead body to revive it.

Yes.

My comment about reading comprehension is in regard to this:


"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists" (emphasis added, PHB 284)

Nothing in this sentence disallows the spell from creating a new body when the original does exist. You've read it wrong.

It says "even if," not "if."

Edit:


You can't just go away without the body and cast True Resurrection, because the body still exists.

Yes, you can. Think about it.

[Razor]

Will it affect a dragon?

[BurgerBeast]

Will it affect a dragon?

Yes. Am I missing something?