Deathwatch as a permanent ability…balanced?

[rodomontade]

Hail!

My campaign has just has just gone through a major change, with the original party with the exception of our barbarian's apprentice being completely destroyed. The new party is setting out about 10 years later with the apprentice becoming an adventurer as well.

Here's the thing; he's got demonic ancestry. He was raised by foster parents who abused him horribly. The only person who ever showed him any kind of kindness or anything was cut down (pretty brutally mind you) right before his eyes.

So I figure this kid is going to be pretty screwed up. This is why I'm considering allowing him to have the Deathwatch cleric spell active on him at all times, as one of his demonic powers manifesting. This is in exchange for his 1st level feat. I don't see this as being horribly overpowered, but then, I've let lots of stuff through that I really shouldn't have. Is there anything I should be worrying about by allowing this?

[Euphemism]

From the SRD ( http://dnd.enterwiki.net/page/Deathwatch_(SRD_Spell) )
"You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile, fighting off death, undead, or neither alive nor dead. Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death."
This can turn the tables on many events. Is that a flesh golem or a zombie? Is that gargoyle just a carving? Did I kill that last BBEG?
I might allow it as a feat. But I'd probably also tag it with "character will show up as "Evilly enchanted" in Detect Evil spells."

[Frost]

1) No it's not in any way unbalanced, it's actually a pretty crappy feat choice that if you presented it as a feat to everyone else in the party, no one would want to take it.

2) I'm not sure how Deathwatch fits that character, but whatever.

3) You do know that Deathwatch isn't evil right? Look at the PHB, compare Deathwatch (Evil descriptor) to Deathknell (No such descriptor). They probably meant to put it on Deathknell and just made a typesetting mistake. If they didn't, then they are wrong. There is nothing evil about knowing who is alive and who is dead, and most groups allow information like that to be common knowledge except when disguised undead are involved anyway.

[AmberVael]

Well, this isn't exactly the same thing, but...
You might consider giving him the Lifesense feat without needing to fulfill the prerequisites (which assume you're undead).
Linky to Lifesense. (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Lifesense,LM)

[ghost_warlock]

I played in a campaign for about a year where the party necromancer (cleric/wiz/true necro build) had magic goggles that pretty much gave him deathwatch 24/7. It didn't unbalance the game in any perceivable way for us and was actually both fun and thematically appropriate for his character.

[Ned the undead]

Well, this isn't exactly the same thing, but...
You might consider giving him the Lifesense feat without needing to fulfill the prerequisites (which assume you're undead).
Linky to Lifesense. (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Lifesense,LM)

Good gods I love that feat.

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch being evil looks like a mistake for a few reasons.

Vile darkness gave us the optional rule of it being evil
PHB 3.5 made it evil, but then:

MH Healer got it. Healer MUST be good alignment
Exalted Deeds Slayer of Domiel got it: must be Exalted Lawful Good, falls for commiting any evil act.

Conclusion: those books effectively mean it should be reset to non-evil.

[FinalJustice]

It won't unbalance anything, in fact, it's a somewhat underpowered ability for a feat, since, by the Item Creation Guidelines, this would be somehow cheap even as a slotless item. So, in upper levels, you might even want to allow your player to 'pay the price' and retrain the feat.

[Collin152]

Or give it in place of a racial ability...
Unless that's what this is. Replacing the Human bonus feat.

[Grynning]

I wouldn't even make the player spend the feat - I would just work it in as a story angle. If you want it to carry some kind of penalty, just give the player a minus to their will saves against fear, to represent their childhood trauma...or maybe they have a phobia of death and undead, so while they can warn the party, they get shaken in the presence of dead/undead things for the first round or two, or automatically go last in initiative in such encounters. I doubt any of the other players would be jealous, and it certainly doesn't cause a mechanical balance issue.

By the way, it is mandatory that this character whisper the line "I see dead people..." in a creepy kid voice at least once.

[deathdumb]

I need to know how deathwatch operates. Does it give the location of the creatures that are alive not alive dead etc?

I have a player who wants to abuse the spell.

thanks.

[Another_Poet]

Is that gargoyle just a carving? Did I kill that last BBEG?

Actually it wouldn't help with this one. A Gargoyle is neither alive nor dead. A carving is neither alive nor dead. Both would scan the same way.

[Collin152]

Actually it wouldn't help with this one. A Gargoyle is neither alive nor dead. A carving is neither alive nor dead. Both would scan the same way.

Gargoyles are in fact, alive.
Monstrous Humanoids, aren't they?

[Jack_Simth]

Gargoyles are in fact, alive.
Monstrous Humanoids, aren't they?

They're Monstrous Humanoids... that'd don't need to eat, breath, or drink (unlike most Monstrous Humanoids). But yes - Gargoyles are, in fact, alive.

[Gaiwecoor]

Gargoyles are in fact, alive.
Monstrous Humanoids, aren't they?

Heh - looks like this would be a good place for them to define "life." Yes, gargoyles are alive. Constructs are listed as neither alive nor dead ... are there any other examples? (Aside from inanimate objects) :smallconfused:

[monty]

I always assumed that all creatures boiled down to 3 categories: alive, undead, and construct. Constructs are construct, undead (and deathless, sort of) are undead, everything else is alive.

[Collin152]

What about elementals?
Are they alive?

[monty]

Yes.stupid 10-character minimum

[nargbop]

Barbarian strikes me as a poor choice for the recipient of this effect, both for fluff and crunch reasons. He has demonic ancestry? Cool! Make him a Warlock. He senses someone dying? He was gong to hit them anyway. Possibly he was going to hit them repeatedly AFTER they died.

Now, a Warlock with this effect on would be neat - a torturer, a flayer of nerve and soul, who takes his opponents to 1 HP lethally and then gives them a dozen nonlethal strikes to knock them out... this would be a fun evil character to play.

[Siosilvar]

The gargoyle/carving thing is much simpler; it detects creatures. Carvings are not creatures. Therefore, carvings do not show up on your deathwatch-o-meter, and the gargoyle does.

[TheOOB]

In terms of D&D, anything that has a Con score is alive.

[monty]

In terms of D&D, anything that has a Con score is alive.

Soo...everything except undead, deathless, and constructs?

[OverWilliam]

Soo...everything except undead, deathless, and constructs?

I ROFL'd. :smallbiggrin:

I agree with most said here, especially about the class not making sense for the ability. Barbarian? Why? Warlock as mentioned would be optimal, but a sorcerer or even something like Rogue would work better than Barbarian.

[Mewtarthio]

I believe the OP is playing up the "Rage" angle.