Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]

Fnord-Fnairlane · 07-17-2005, 08:07 PM

We've discovered a potentially significant problem with the Death Vision spell. The spell has no resistance roll, and mentally stuns the victim. Since it has no resistance roll, advantages like: Unfazeable or Immune: Mind Affecting Magic do not actually defend or assist.

The wording is also vague, in that it says "subject is mentally stunned until he makes an IQ roll" - normally recovering from a stun uses up your action for the turn. We've had to house rule that recovering from this stun is a free action, otherwise a Necromancer with the Death Vision spell at skill 25 can keep anyone not immune to all Magic stunned for ever - while his buddy pokes you to death with a sharp thing.

jahn · 07-17-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

We've discovered a potentially significant problem with the Death Vision spell. The spell has no resistance roll, and mentally stuns the victim. Since it has no resistance roll, advantages like: Unfazeable or Immune: Mind Affecting Magic do not actually defend or assist.

I won't make much of a comment here since from your wording we have different interpretation of what Unfazeable and Immunity can and can't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

The wording is also vague, in that it says "subject is mentally stunned until he makes an IQ roll" - normally recovering from a stun uses up your action for the turn. We've had to house rule that recovering from this stun is a free action, otherwise a Necromancer with the Death Vision spell at skill 25 can keep anyone not immune to all Magic stunned for ever - while his buddy pokes you to death with a sharp thing.

I have less of a problem with this scenario because (a) the mage went to a lot of effort to get to skill 25 with his cool spell, (b) you're taking two PCs to stop one NPC or at best one PC to keep one NPC out of the fight (and Stunned doesn't mean totally helpless, though for most NPCs it amounts to the same thing).

Fnord-Fnairlane · 07-17-2005, 08:52 PM

Well, the wording of Resistance / Immunity is pretty clear: if you get a resistance roll, it adds to the roll. Since in this case you don't get to try and resist, there is nothing to add your resistance or Immunity to.

"Unfazeable" is a lot more vague - you could rule either way, but not that the spell is specifically not a fright check (which Unfazeable would definately help with).

As for "he got his cool spell to 25" - this is the first spell in the Necromancy college. Think of it this way: a PC with IQ 10, one level of Necromancy only magery and 60 points in the spell now has the ability to perma-stun anyone within ~10 yards, no resistance. If the PC in question is already a mage with decent IQ, the incremental points cost is a lot lower.

This is one of the very few offensive spells in Magic that doesn't allow a resistance roll. It may not be a problem at low points levels - a spell at skill 25 is a really big deal at 150 points or so - it's a defining characteristic of the PC. But we also play at very high points totals - I'm playing a 1,000 point Paladin in the game where this came up - and the PC has Unkillable 3, Immune to Mind Magic, Will and HT in the low 20s and several defensive spells that boost his resistances. A "low level" (from our perspective) Necromancer of ~500 points was able to eliminate my PC from the battle. More worryingly, the item for this spell, with 2 points of Speed and Power is (in our world) a relatively cheap and easy item to get, and can be used by any mage to perma-stun an opponent.

The spell is broken (IMO). It should be a resisted spell.

garfield · 07-18-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

<snip>

The spell is broken (IMO). It should be a resisted spell.

I agree, that there should be a clarification. But looking at M9, Limits on Effect, I would rule, that Death Vision cannot affect a subject "continuously": after the subject has shaken off the effects, it should be "immune" (please define better) to the spell for a minute/hour/day - I'm not sure, what the appropriate time would be.

jahn · 07-18-2005, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

Well, the wording of Resistance / Immunity is pretty clear: if you get a resistance roll, it adds to the roll. Since in this case you don't get to try and resist, there is nothing to add your resistance or Immunity to.

On reading the description, I don't agree with your interpretation of Immunity. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's whatever your GM says it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

"Unfazeable" is a lot more vague - you could rule either way, but not that the spell is specifically not a fright check (which Unfazeable would definately help with).

I agree that Unfazeable would not help as it's not meant to be a cure-all versus all mental attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

...I'm playing a 1,000 point Paladin in the game where this came up..

Ah I see, this is from a PC's perspective as the victim of said spell. All I can say is that you're playing in a 1000-point campaign and this should be just another heroic challenge to overcome. Whether or not this particular spell is unfair or not is irrelevant because the GM will just throw something else that's totally unfair at your character.

Fnord-Fnairlane · 07-18-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahn

On reading the description, I don't agree with your interpretation of Immunity. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's whatever your GM says it is.

I could quote rules - but let's agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahn

Ah I see, this is from a PC's perspective as the victim of said spell. All I can say is that you're playing in a 1000-point campaign and this should be just another heroic challenge to overcome. Whether or not this particular spell is unfair or not is irrelevant because the GM will just throw something else that's totally unfair at your character.

That's actually not the issue. Our group of PCs are the pre-eminent ultimate bad-asses on the planet. To borrow a D&D term - we're the first group of people to hit Epic levels. We've fought (and won) against demon Princes. We destroyed a world. We can Plane shift, create Mana from scratch, and use Tech. Three of the PCs have raised themselves from the dead - I can do it routinely (I get killed, I go to heaven, I cast Plane Shift, I'm back - and yes, I've paid for Unkillable 3). We kick-ass, take names, and let God sort them out. Dealing with a puny irrestiable spell is not a problem! Sadly, we're still 0 - 1 - 1 (Win, lose, draw) against the current group of enemy God-lich-dragons, but we're working on a re-match.

The problem in our campaign is that every PC, and all our various minions with Magery 0+ can turn up next session with "Auto-Stun" wands. We are going to house rule this out of existance in our campaign.

What are you going to do about it in your Fantasy game?

And is the spell "Broken by design" or simply poorly edited? (And thus a candidate for an Errata or FAQ entry?)

F-F

jahn · 07-18-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

We are going to house rule this out of existance in our campaign.

So I see two basic outcomes: either SJG officially says the spell description is wrong (and the spell description hasn't changed in the 16 years since GURPS Magic was first published, going through several reprints and a second edition) or they come out and say it should be a Resisted spell. Your house rule will still be used (or it will become the official way and it'll still be used but it will not be a house rule) because the way the spell currently works blows up your campaign. In other words at this point whatever answer you get from SJG won't change your campaign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

What are you going to do about it in your Fantasy game?

Assuming the bad guys have mass produced these stun-wands and taken over the world, obviously there's going to be an ancient relic that the PC party will quest for and gain and said relic will protect the PCs from the stun-wand as they fight the forces of evil.

Or this could be a new thing. Perhaps the Empire has finally gotten hold of the secrets of Death Vision from the elusive Necromancy Guild and they have a set up factory to mass produce the beasties, well as soon as they research how to do it. The PCs then have to find and destroy the factory and perhaps kill the magical researchers before they fully develop their stun-wand technology.

Or perhaps there are some rules we've missed and Death Vision is not that much of a problem.

Edit: Oops, now that I reread your post I realize that your problem is your PC party using stun-wands and the other guys not, or something similar. Really as I GM I would have no problem putting a stop to that if I felt it was wrong, and most of them would be described as being "capricious" or "arbitrary" but my players are used to my GMing style.

Fnord-Fnairlane · 07-18-2005, 02:41 AM

The real problem is that it's a spell that's open to abuse by either PC or GM. Your GM style sounds similar to our GM - it isn't going to be a problem in either of our campaigns.

However, there are a lot of GMs who for reasons that escape me are uncomfortable doing anything not vetted by the great god Kromm, or his assigned disciple, Ellie - thus the request for a FAQ or Errata. I wish I had of joined Pyramid in time for the Magic playtest - I'm tempted to send my "busted spells" list in to Kromm / Steve anyway....

As for your comments re "It was busted 16 years ago, and will still be busted tomorrow" - well, some of us live in hope that Magic will get updated to 4th edition at some point. (And no, I don't think the current printing counts).

Here's another one:

They specifically changed the wording of Resist Fire in 4e Magic so that it no longer mentions "Battle Lasers" - does it protect against Lasers now, or not? What about Missile Shield and lasers? Deflect Energy works - but where's the Regular version, instead of the Blocking one?

I could go on... and I probably will at some point.

hal · 07-18-2005, 03:52 AM

I would suggest printing that list on GURPSNET and/or here. Feel free - I know I have! ;)

Salvius · 07-18-2005, 05:34 AM

The item version of the spell requires you touch the subject. That's going to make using one of your stun-wands decidedly non-automatic. If you are in a position to be touching your enemies freely, there are probably much better things you could be doing. I really don't see how your stun-wands are abusive, or even good.

The spell version is more problematic, but its going to tie down an actual spellcaster. It is potentially a very effective tactic, paticularly in very high power games and against single opponents, but a lot of the time the trade off will simply not be worth it. Still, I can see how it could be abusive in games where the point cost is not significant. Really, that's the main problem with it: past a certain point, it simply ceases to diminish in effectiveness while the point cost remains the same.

If it has to be nerfed, I would recommend simply letting the subject make the IQ roll to shake it off when it first gets hit with the spell as well as at the normal times. It would be an improvement, although I really don't think the current version is sufficiently troublesome in most campaigns to actually need any sort of errata. Also, it definitely seems like exactly the sort of thing Unfazeable is designed to protect against, even if its not explicit.

07-17-2005, 08:07 PM	#1
Fnord-Fnairlane Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Downunder, mate!	Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?] We've discovered a potentially significant problem with the Death Vision spell. The spell has no resistance roll, and mentally stuns the victim. Since it has no resistance roll, advantages like: Unfazeable or Immune: Mind Affecting Magic do not actually defend or assist. The wording is also vague, in that it says "subject is mentally stunned until he makes an IQ roll" - normally recovering from a stun uses up your action for the turn. We've had to house rule that recovering from this stun is a free action, otherwise a Necromancer with the Death Vision spell at skill 25 can keep anyone not immune to all Magic stunned for ever - while his buddy pokes you to death with a sharp thing. __________________ He was walking along the street when an ebola-infected monkey driving a pickup truck full of flaming gasoline drums...

07-17-2005, 08:52 PM	#3
Fnord-Fnairlane Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Downunder, mate!	Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?] Well, the wording of Resistance / Immunity is pretty clear: if you get a resistance roll, it adds to the roll. Since in this case you don't get to try and resist, there is nothing to add your resistance or Immunity to. "Unfazeable" is a lot more vague - you could rule either way, but not that the spell is specifically not a fright check (which Unfazeable would definately help with). As for "he got his cool spell to 25" - this is the first spell in the Necromancy college. Think of it this way: a PC with IQ 10, one level of Necromancy only magery and 60 points in the spell now has the ability to perma-stun anyone within ~10 yards, no resistance. If the PC in question is already a mage with decent IQ, the incremental points cost is a lot lower. This is one of the very few offensive spells in Magic that doesn't allow a resistance roll. It may not be a problem at low points levels - a spell at skill 25 is a really big deal at 150 points or so - it's a defining characteristic of the PC. But we also play at very high points totals - I'm playing a 1,000 point Paladin in the game where this came up - and the PC has Unkillable 3, Immune to Mind Magic, Will and HT in the low 20s and several defensive spells that boost his resistances. A "low level" (from our perspective) Necromancer of ~500 points was able to eliminate my PC from the battle. More worryingly, the item for this spell, with 2 points of Speed and Power is (in our world) a relatively cheap and easy item to get, and can be used by any mage to perma-stun an opponent. The spell is broken (IMO). It should be a resisted spell. __________________ He was walking along the street when an ebola-infected monkey driving a pickup truck full of flaming gasoline drums...

07-18-2005, 02:41 AM	#8
Fnord-Fnairlane Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Downunder, mate!	Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?] The real problem is that it's a spell that's open to abuse by either PC or GM. Your GM style sounds similar to our GM - it isn't going to be a problem in either of our campaigns. However, there are a lot of GMs who for reasons that escape me are uncomfortable doing anything not vetted by the great god Kromm, or his assigned disciple, Ellie - thus the request for a FAQ or Errata. I wish I had of joined Pyramid in time for the Magic playtest - I'm tempted to send my "busted spells" list in to Kromm / Steve anyway.... As for your comments re "It was busted 16 years ago, and will still be busted tomorrow" - well, some of us live in hope that Magic will get updated to 4th edition at some point. (And no, I don't think the current printing counts). Here's another one: They specifically changed the wording of Resist Fire in 4e Magic so that it no longer mentions "Battle Lasers" - does it protect against Lasers now, or not? What about Missile Shield and lasers? Deflect Energy works - but where's the Regular version, instead of the Blocking one? I could go on... and I probably will at some point. __________________ He was walking along the street when an ebola-infected monkey driving a pickup truck full of flaming gasoline drums...

07-18-2005, 03:52 AM	#9
hal Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Buffalo, New York	Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?] I would suggest printing that list on GURPSNET and/or here. Feel free - I know I have! ;)

07-18-2005, 05:34 AM	#10
Salvius Join Date: Jul 2005	Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?] The item version of the spell requires you touch the subject. That's going to make using one of your stun-wands decidedly non-automatic. If you are in a position to be touching your enemies freely, there are probably much better things you could be doing. I really don't see how your stun-wands are abusive, or even good. The spell version is more problematic, but its going to tie down an actual spellcaster. It is potentially a very effective tactic, paticularly in very high power games and against single opponents, but a lot of the time the trade off will simply not be worth it. Still, I can see how it could be abusive in games where the point cost is not significant. Really, that's the main problem with it: past a certain point, it simply ceases to diminish in effectiveness while the point cost remains the same. If it has to be nerfed, I would recommend simply letting the subject make the IQ roll to shake it off when it first gets hit with the spell as well as at the normal times. It would be an improvement, although I really don't think the current version is sufficiently troublesome in most campaigns to actually need any sort of errata. Also, it definitely seems like exactly the sort of thing Unfazeable is designed to protect against, even if its not explicit.