Is this legal by RAW?

[Dust]

Tonight we were playing in a campaign using the Ghostwalk setting book, and the GM threw a villain at us that used a combination of spells for an unbelievably quick TPK.

The first was a mind-affecting compulsion like Mass Suggestion (we're not sure precisely what it was). The second was the low-level Cleric spell 'Painless Death' from the Ghostwalk book, which causes instant death with no saving throw against a 'willing' subject.
He ruled that the Suggestion-esque spell was enough to make us trust the BBEG implicitly and no longer fear death; rather, we secretly wouldn't mind it, though we still wouldn't endanger ourselves as per the rules of the first spell.

Does this combination of spells actually work like that?

[Chrono22]

He's incorrect. Suggestion is a compulsion- it forces a character to comply with a command... furthermore, creatures so compelled are aware of this, they just don't have the will to stop themselves.
Charms alter a creature's attitude or perceptions- a mass charm person effect would probably have worked. But mass suggestion? No.

If he phrased the suggestion as, "Accept the next spell I cast that targets you." That might also work.

Right or wrong, though, my advice is not to play under this DM again. Using cheesy exploits to deliberately kill off the entire party is a massive waste of time and effort (for him and you). Next time, play with someone who wants to let people have fun.

[Delta]

Did the DM say anything about his intention with the scenario? Unless a forced TPK was somehow intended for the campaign, it sounds pretty pointless to me. Sure, I can throw Pun-Pun at the players to wipe out their party any day I feel like it, but I don't really think that's what this game is about.

[Amphetryon]

It's somewhat murky without precise knowledge of what that first spell actually was. That said, your description of it says you 'wouldn't endanger yourselves', which, as I read it, means you'd not be a valid target for Painless Death, which specifies 'willing target' but doesn't allow a saving throw.

For the setup to a Ghostwalk campaign, though, I would probably let it slide. The whole point there is that you're all dead, right?

[Chrono22]

^That's also a possibility. The GM may want you all to become ghosts.

When I run ghostwalk, I like to have a mix of fleshies, ghosts and others though.

[Dust]

Indeed, I believe the intention was to kill us all to further the story. So I'm not particularily grumpy about it, rather simply surprised that such a combination of spells - if they worked together in an 'Accept the next spell I cast upon you' sort of way- was legit.

[Optimystik]

He has just opened the door for you to make any of his baddies willing with a Compulsion effect. Make use of it.

RAW, he is wrong. The only way to force someone to be willing (paradox?) is to knock them out.

[Sinfire Titan]

He's trying to get you guys to use a poorly balanced book (a 3.0 one at that).


Do me a favor and deck him one.

[Emmerask]

Tonight we were playing in a campaign using the Ghostwalk setting book, and the GM threw a villain at us that used a combination of spells for an unbelievably quick TPK.

The first was a mind-affecting compulsion like Mass Suggestion (we're not sure precisely what it was). The second was the low-level Cleric spell 'Painless Death' from the Ghostwalk book, which causes instant death with no saving throw against a 'willing' subject.
He ruled that the Suggestion-esque spell was enough to make us trust the BBEG implicitly and no longer fear death; rather, we secretly wouldn't mind it, though we still wouldn't endanger ourselves as per the rules of the first spell.

Does this combination of spells actually work like that?

Well without knowledge of the spell it is hard to tell though I´m pretty sure there is nothing 1 to 9th level slot that does such a thing. On the other hand it could very well have been epic magic, which can do about everything, then it would have been legal by raw

[warmachine]

I wouldn't even regard Charm Person as acceptable. If your best friend told you you ought to kill yourself with the pills he has, you'd tell him that's not funny, and when he said he was serious, he'd stop being your best friend. Almost no one is willing to die. It's a hardwired instinct.

I also think it's thematically inappropriate to become ghosts in this way. Ghosts are supposed to hang around the real world due to business or conflict that they couldn't finish when they were alive. A person with unfinished business would not be willing to die because they want to remain alive to finish their business.

But that's standard mythology. I know nothing of Ghostwalk.

[Irreverent Fool]

He has just opened the door for you to make any of his baddies willing with a Compulsion effect. Make use of it.

RAW, he is wrong. The only way to force someone to be willing (paradox?) is to knock them out.

This. Get enough ranks in Spellcraft to identify the spell after the fact and figure out what spell it was. Then use similar worded spells to screw up the game.

If he needed you all dead for the campaign to start, he should have narrated it and saved you time thinking you were in a combat when you weren't.

obnoxious
sig

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I wouldn't even regard Charm Person as acceptable. If your best friend told you you ought to kill yourself with the pills he has, you'd tell him that's not funny, and when he said he was serious, he'd stop being your best friend.

And remember, your initial attitude to a best friend would most likely be Helpful. Charm person only makes the target friendly. So although the spell makes the target see the caster as a trustworthy friend, it’s not so trustworthy that the caster is a best friend.

Only compulsion that I know off the top of my head that overrides a creatures self-preservation in this fashion is the psionic power death urge. Most compulsions can’t mess with their targets that badly. Especially ones with open-ended effects like suggestion.

[Sholos]

Can't you trick someone into being willing for a negative spell? If they think you're, say, casting Cure Moderate Wounds, but instead you're casting some other spell that requires a save unless willing.

[Starbuck_II]

Can't you trick someone into being willing for a negative spell? If they think you're, say, casting Cure Moderate Wounds, but instead you're casting some other spell that requires a save unless willing.

Yes, if you ask them to not save vs next spell and they agree (same as lower your SR so I can heal you).

You have to ask first, you can't assume.

[Person_Man]

For your next build, play an Enchanter that abuses the heck out of Compulsions, who has Willing Deformity: Madness (which makes you immune to Mind-Effecting Affects).

[Irreverent Fool]

Yes, if you ask them to not save vs next spell and they agree (same as lower your SR so I can heal you).

You have to ask first, you can't assume.

This is why I mentioned ranks in Spellcraft. If you identify the spell as harmful, you're not obliged to allow it. In fact, under Charm Person, you're freed.

On the topic of willing targets, I thought this only mattered for those spells that automatically work on willing targets. Does it say anywhere you can voluntarily fail a saving throw? I've seen it mentioned countless times but I don't think I've ever seen it in the rules.

obnoxious
sig

[olentu]

This is why I mentioned ranks in Spellcraft. If you identify the spell as harmful, you're not obliged to allow it. In fact, under Charm Person, you're freed.

On the topic of willing targets, I thought this only mattered for those spells that automatically work on willing targets. Does it say anywhere you can voluntarily fail a saving throw? I've seen it mentioned countless times but I don't think I've ever seen it in the rules.

obnoxious
sig

PHB page 177 would be where one would find such a thing.

[Thurbane]

Long story short - rock fall, everyone dies. There is no save vs. plot device.

By my reading, neither Charm Person, Suggestion or even Dominate Person could make a creature desire death. As mentioned earlier, Death Urge comes closest, but with a duration of only 1 round.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

As mentioned earlier, Death Urge comes closest, but with a duration of only 1 round.

Plus one round per 4 power points augmentation.

But, really, if used right, 1 round is all the manifester should need.

[Thurbane]

Plus one round per 4 power points augmentation.

But, really, if used right, 1 round is all the manifester should need.

Shows my ignorance of psionics.

However, the follow up spell, Painless Death, only affects once creature. Also, if the creature had any form of weapon, it would use that on itself in preference to allowing a spell to be cast on it.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

However, the follow up spell, Painless Death, only affects once creature. Also, if the creature had any form of weapon, it would use that on itself in preference to allowing a spell to be cast on it.

If an obviously quicker, easier method is available, they take that. See the description’s comment about throwing themselves off a cliff. And by “used right,” I do mean ensuring an obviously quicker, easier method is available.

Of course, in many cases, I wouldn’t expect a third party’s access topainless death to be obvious. And one might rule that the attempted suicide has to be a bit more active than asking that third party to cast a spell. Though it would be interesting to ping death urge on a caster with painless death prepared (assuming you can target yourself with the spell).

[Mewtarthio]

Have cleric ready painless death to cast when the target moves. Have the psion manifest death urge. When the target moves to take his own life, the cleric's readied action triggers, thus meaning that the most expeditious way for the target to die becomes "do not resist the casting of painless death." Simple.

[Thurbane]

Just curious what the rest of the party would be doing as their comrades sacrifice themselves at a rate of 1 per round...

[FMArthur]

Do all poor DMing choices require player vengence? No one's perfect. I might tell the DM what I felt was wrong about the way he did it and carry on playing instead of using it against him in game-breaking ways the whole campaign, were I in the OP's shoes. I know we get a lot of 'evil DM' stories here, but I think we're all a little too eager to find ways to spite DM mistakes here. This isn't nearly so bad as most and you at least know the reason he did it.

[Jayabalard]

Mind-Effecting Affects.

Don't you mean Mind-Affecting Effects?

Anyway, since the OP believes that "the intention was to kill us all to further the story" it really doesn't seem all that important whether it's strictly raw or not, other than to satisfy the OP's curiosity. So that's useful to talk about, but rants to the tune of "omg this is teh worst DM evar!!!eleven!1!" ... not so much...

Noone but the OP knows enough of the context to be able to really judge the situation. What's really important is: how do the players feel about it, are they enjoying the direction that this is taking the story. It sounds like the OP is a bit ambivalent, so only time will tell if it was a good or a bad move on the part of the DM.

[Dust]

Exactly.

The primary reason I was wondering is that this guy - if we are indeed continuing the campaign as undead, which is how ghostwalk usually works - is BBEG material. If we encounter him again, it'll be good to know if he was using a legal spell combination that resulted in a Save-or-Die effect, or if it was more plot-based. The GM in question is usually a stickler for the rules, so if it IS the former, we needed to figure out some way to defend against it in the future.

I now know everything I need to. Gracias, folks.

[Runeclaw]

we needed to figure out some way to defend against it in the future.

Why? You're already dead.

[arguskos]

Why? You're already dead.

It's GHOSTWALK. They're ghosts now. Death is but the beginning in that setting.

[Irreverent Fool]

Do all poor DMing choices require player vengence? No one's perfect.

I wasn't talking about vengeance, I was talking about consistently-applied rules. It's no worse than saying "save or suck/lose/die spells are mechanically superior to damage spells in most cases, so you should prepare those". The DM has presented a useful new mechanic. It should be exploited.

But to answer your question: Yes. Yes they do.

obnoxious
sig

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Have cleric ready painless death to cast when the target moves. Have the psion manifest death urge. When the target moves to take his own life, the cleric's readied action triggers, thus meaning that the most expeditious way for the target to die becomes "do not resist the casting of painless death." Simple.

Well, if the target doesn’t have any ranks in Spellcraft, it’s not going to be obvious that the spell will aid in suicide. Unless perhaps the cleric says so before casting the spell and the target believes the cleric.