Death knell abuse

[Tor the Fallen]

Death Knell
Necromancy [Death, Evil]
Level: Clr 2, Death 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous/10 minutes per HD of subject; see text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

You draw forth the ebbing life force of a creature and use it to fuel your own power. Upon casting this spell, you touch a living creature that has -1 or fewer hit points. If the subject fails its saving throw, it dies, and you gain 1d8 temporary hit points and a +2 bonus to Strength. Additionally, your effective caster level goes up by +1, improving spell effects dependent on caster level. (This increase in effective caster level does not grant you access to more spells.) These effects last for 10 minutes per HD of the subject creature.

No limit or type to the strength, hp and caster level increases, other than time, and the will save. Is there a way to break this, outside of burning a 10th level spell slot when you go epic to cast it as Su (which really isn't that broken, considering what casters do at that level)?

[Cybren]

i'm pretty sure there's a build similair in theory that just kills everything in its path to gain the HP and strength with some sort of aura.

[Catch]

i'm pretty sure there's a build similair in theory that just kills everything in its path to gain the HP and strength with some sort of aura.

Cleric, plus Permanent Emanation (Greater Consumptive Field). Drops anything with less than ten HP in a sizable aura around you, and gives you 1d8 bonus hitpoints and a +2 untyped bonus to your Strength along with +1 CL. Since the spell doesn't wear off, neither do the bonuses.

Walk into a town. Watch commonfolk die. Enjoy your ~infinite HP and Strength. Prollem is, I think the CL bonus has been eratta-ed to a max of 1.5x your level.

Permanent Emination requires epix, so you could just Divine Metamagic (Persistent Spell) it unless they've eratta-ed that too.

It's still neato, though.

[Tor the Fallen]

you could just Divine Metamagic (Persistent Spell) it unless they've eratta-ed that too.

I don't think Persistent Spell works with spells of duration: instantaneous.

[Catch]

I don't think Persistent Spell works with spells of duration: instantaneous.

I'm talking about Consumptive Field, not Death Knell. Same effect, but in all ways superior. Libris Mortis, I think.

[deadseashoals]

No limit or type to the strength, hp and caster level increases, other than time, and the will save. Is there a way to break this, outside of burning a 10th level spell slot when you go epic to cast it as Su (which really isn't that broken, considering what casters do at that level)?

Um.. what? It won't stack with itself. Nothing stacks with itself, unless it has a specific provision for stacking with itself.

[Annarrkkii]

Since each casting takes a spell slot and a standard action, it's not going to be that broken, really. You might be able to get away with using it in conjunction with Summon Monster. A level 11 evil cleric could use a Maximized Summon Monster III to summon 5 fiendish small monstrous spiders in a tight container, and it shouldn't be hard to punch all of them out with a gauntlet in three or four rounds, reducing them to negatives without killing them, and then spend your next 6-7 rounds casting 5 Death Knell spells to get you 10 minutes of +10 to Strength. That's not even a particularly off-flavor idea for evil characters, but it is a little wonky.

...actually, I rather like this idea. With a 10 minute duration, and each process taking a mere 10 rounds, almost exactly, then you could perform this 3 times for +30, and still have 6-7 minutes left over. Only problem is that you have to start using high-level spells to summon slightly tougher minions, as the increased Strength makes you more likely to kill your enemies, rather than negative them. A 15 STR, 13th-level Cleric could probably get away with 2 Maximized Summon Monster IIIs, to get +20, and then a Maximizied Summon Monster IV to get another +10, perhaps yet another for +20, making a total of +40, as well as 20d8 temporary hitpoints, with a good 5 minutes left over.

But it all depends on how your GM decides to stack things. I have a feeling the guy above me is correct with that, since there's a clause that says no two bonuses will stack if they are of the same type—even if that time is unnamed—if they are from the same source.

[greenknight]

But it all depends on how your GM decides to stack things. I have a feeling the guy above me is correct with that, since there's a clause that says no two bonuses will stack if they are of the same type—even if that time is unnamed—if they are from the same source.

Here's the text on spell stacking from the SRD:

Stacking Effects

Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Different Bonus Names

The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

I've bolded the two important sentences here. The first one indicates that spells don't stack with themselves, but that usually means that sometimes they do. The second sentence states that unnamed bonuses stack with any bonus, and there's no usually there, so it happens every time. So it's really up to DM interpretation, and it could reasonably be said that unnamed bonuses are the exception the first sentence was implying.

[PinkysBrain]

There are enough rules broken as written to worry about the ones which are ambiguous and could be broken if read in a certain way. It could reasonably be read to say that spells don't stack with themselves, and that is the best way to read it. If you are aware that it is open to interpretation there is only one reason to go with the interpretation which is unbalancing to the game ...

[Cybren]

well considering the flavor of the spell, that is, draining life force from a near-dead creature, i would imagine it would stack, game-balance reasons aside

[Jasdoif]

I've bolded the two important sentences here. The first one indicates that spells don't stack with themselves, but that usually means that sometimes they do. The second sentence states that unnamed bonuses stack with any bonus, and there's no usually there, so it happens every time. So it's really up to DM interpretation, and it could reasonably be said that unnamed bonuses are the exception the first sentence was implying.

"Usually" means spells that provide self-stacking bonuses are exceptions to the rule, and as such the spell text will point out the exception if it exists. Since death knell (and the consumptive field spells, for that matter) state no such exception, they do not stack with themselves.

A case could be made for death knell stacking with (greater) consumptive field, I suppose....

[greenknight]

It could reasonably be read to say that spells don't stack with themselves

No, that's definately not a reasonable way to read it, because this reading completely omits the word "usually", and it violates specific exceptions mentioned elsewhere in the rules. It's true that doing that does remove the ambiguity, but you've also changed the meaning of the sentence. Especially considering the follow on sentence states the more general rule which only focuses on bonuses of the same type not stacking, even if they come from different spells. That then brings us to the exceptions to the rule:

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.

There's one more exception not listed there - a bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus. Given the way the rules are written, I think dodge, most circumstance, racial and unnamed bonuses all stack, but the other types of bonuses don't. At least, according to the RAW.

[DaMullet]

Either way, I don't see how you could really 'abuse' Death Knell, unless you were evil and liked killing your followers. You need to beat the snot out of the guy first, and by then it's just a magic CdG.

[PinkysBrain]

Especially considering the follow on sentence states the more general rule which only focuses on bonuses

Which actually directly follows a sentence talking about different spells (the one you didn't bold) which could be taken as the context within which to interpret that specific sentence.

[deadseashoals]

No, that's definately not a reasonable way to read it, because this reading completely omits the word "usually", and it violates specific exceptions mentioned elsewhere in the rules. It's true that doing that does remove the ambiguity, but you've also changed the meaning of the sentence. Especially considering the follow on sentence states the more general rule which only focuses on bonuses of the same type not stacking, even if they come from different spells. That then brings us to the exceptions to the rule:



There's one more exception not listed there - a bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus. Given the way the rules are written, I think dodge, most circumstance, racial and unnamed bonuses all stack, but the other types of bonuses don't. At least, according to the RAW.

No, that's not how it works. See http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040210a

A bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything except itself. This is always true, but it's sometimes hard to remember. For example, many feats provide unnamed bonuses, so don't panic when you read a feat description and it provides a bonus without a name. An unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice.

[greenknight]

No, that's not how it works. See http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040210a

No, that's not how it works. Skip Williams wrote that way back in 2004, and according to the latest FAQ (D&D FAQ v.3.5 Update Version: 04/20/07), unnamed bonuses do stack with each other:

The text for synergy under the Diplomacy skill on page 72 of the Player’s Handbook states: “If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.” I’m assuming that means if a character has 5 ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), and Sense Motive that the character would receive only a +2 synergy bonus on Diplomacy checks. Or would the character receive a +6 synergy bonus (+2 for each)?

The bonuses listed in the synergy section of a skill description are unnamed and so they stack. (There’s no such thing as a synergy bonus in the current edition of the D&D game.) The character in your example would receive a +6 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

That's an example of 3 unnamed bonuses stacking with each other. Since the FAQ is much more recent than Skip's article, that's the one which is considered to represent the current view of the rules.

Which actually directly follows a sentence talking about different spells

You're looking at the wrong sentence. The one I was referring to is:

More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

This seems to clarify the intent of the first sentence, stating it as a general rule. That said, there does seem to be a mistake there, since this sentence seems to say that even things like Dodge bonuses don't stack. I assume the author meant to put a "usually" in there, but forgot to for some reason. In any event, it doesn't really clarify the situation when it comes to unnamed bonuses, unless you want to take the view that all unnamed bonuses share the same type.

[Tor the Fallen]

That's an example of 3 unnamed bonuses stacking with each other. Since the FAQ is much more recent than Skip's article, that's the one which is considered to represent the current view of the rules.

They're also from 3 different sources.

[deadseashoals]

No, that's not how it works. Skip Williams wrote that way back in 2004, and according to the latest FAQ (D&D FAQ v.3.5 Update Version: 04/20/07), unnamed bonuses do stack with each other:



That's an example of 3 unnamed bonuses stacking with each other. Since the FAQ is much more recent than Skip's article, that's the one which is considered to represent the current view of the rules.



You're looking at the wrong sentence. The one I was referring to is:

More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

This seems to clarify the intent of the first sentence, stating it as a general rule. That said, there does seem to be a mistake there, since this sentence seems to say that even things like Dodge bonuses don't stack. I assume the author meant to put a "usually" in there, but forgot to for some reason. In any event, it doesn't really clarify the situation when it comes to unnamed bonuses, unless you want to take the view that all unnamed bonuses share the same type.

You're missing the point. Unnamed bonuses absolutely stack with each other, they just don't stack with themselves. As Tor said, those bonuses are from different sources, so obviously, they stack.