Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Negative Plane Protection vs. Skulltrap
    Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- AD&D 2nd Edition
    Negative Plane Protection vs. Skulltrap
    Author Message
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:04 am  
    Negative Plane Protection vs. Skulltrap

    Another gaming mechanics question, although I have a solution in mind, but, as usual, want input from the greater collective:

    There is a spell in the Complete Book of Necromancers called Skulltrap (pg 53). It is a 3rd lvl necromancer (wizard) spell that unleashes a devastating blast of energy from the Negative Plane if triggered. The damage is pretty hefty at 2d4 plus d4 for every level of the caster (!). All living creatures in the 10 foot blast radius must save vs. breath weapon or take damage; those saving take half.

    The 3rd lvl priest spell Negative Plane Protection (see the PHB) defends against energy drain attacks (ex: wraiths, vampires, spectres, and wights). However, wouldn't it also protect against the damage caused by the aforementioned spell?

    I don't see why not. Both the energy draining attacks of undead (or device and spell) and this new spell draw their power from the Negative Plane. Consequently, I'd say that the NPP spell WOULD protect the recipient from one blast of the Skulltrap before losing all protective benefit (just as it does against one energy drain attack). I don't see this as a balance of power problem. In fact, this 3rd lvl priest spell, for defensive measures, is POTENT compared to spells that replicate the energy draining powers of the greater undead (Enervation is 4th, while the full fledged Energy Drain is 9th!). Great trade-off, if you are the defender.

    Thoughts on the matter?

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:22 am  

    The creatures you mention -- Wraiths, Vampires, Specters and Wights -- all draw their power from the Negative Plane, thus the name of the spell -- Negative Plane Protection. The mention of Wights and Vampires is especially telling, as we will see.

    I would definitely allow the spell to protect the player against Skulltrap. As the spell description itself states -- ". . . releasing a blast of energy drawn from the Negative Material plane. The burst of negative energy . . ." -- the damage is done via the Negative Material Plane, which is exactly what the spell protects against.

    Add to that the very "telling" ingredients: "The material component is a pinch of dust from the physical remains of a corporeal undead being with strong ties to the Negative Material Plane, such as a Wight or a Vampire." And there's the "telling" part, the very creatures you named and that are specifically protected against by the spell Negative Plane Protection, form the ingredients for the spell.

    How could Negative Plane Protection possibly fail to protect against Skulltrap? It can't fail.

    Negative Plane Protection will protect your Player Character against the spell Skulltrap. Wink
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:25 am  

    My thoughts precisely, Mystic. Thanks.

    Just as an 'aside,' wondering if the Skulltrap affects things such as wooden objects, or, as the ward implies, ONLY living things (living plants too?) rather than once living things. If so, chests, walls, ceramics, books, etc. are totally "safe" from this spell.

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:10 pm  

    Skulltrap would affect all living things, which would include plant life; an example would be Treants and other plant based life forms. Cool

    But non-living matter would be unaffected. Non-living matter is comprised of neither positive nor negative energy, a.k.a. "life force." Wink

    A thought, though: The chest, or ceramics, you mention would not protect any living matter hidden within them. The non-living matter does not act as a barrier to the spell, it is merely immune from it. Anything living thing "hiding" in the chest or ceramic "whatever" would be killed. Evil Grin
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:16 am  

    Negative plane protection, despite its name, is purposely targeted at only protecting against level draining attacks:
    Quote:
    This spell affords the caster or touched creature partial protection from undead monsters with Negative Energy plane connections (such as shadows, wights, wraiths, spectres, or vampires) and certain weapons and spells that drain energy levels.

    So, despite the spell's name, it only works against effects that drain energy levels, which skull trap does not do if it is set to deal out negative energy damage.

    I think that what you are looking for is a spell effect similar to resist fire or protection from fire, but for negative energy. Negative plane protection is not such a spell, and there is no such spell, but if there were, I am pretty sure that such a spell would have been created by one mage in particular- Nystul. So, create the protection from/resist negative energy spells, but create the protection from/resist positive energy spells as well (Nystul studies both phenomena). Wink
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:29 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    . . .and spells that drain energy levels.


    Ahh! Missed that! Embarassed

    You're correct, of course. A specific spell would need to be created. I won't say that it needs to be named for Nystul, however. An "in-house" game spell wouldn't require a "canon" name.

    Still, if the "energy" to develop a specific spell is lacking -- perhaps the DM doesn't have time -- then I'd go ahead and use Negative Plane Protection by making needed adjustments to the spell's protective "range." A quick, simple answer.

    But I think the problem here lies in the fact that the creators of the spell simply over-looked that particular aspect anyway. Why would there be a "Protection from . . ." everything else, but not this? So, in spite of the Core Book's statement, in my game, I'd simply view it as an over-sight and treat it that way, using Negative Plane Protection to protect from Skulltrap.

    After all, the DM decides what does and doesn't work in his game. Wink
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 20, 2004
    Posts: 580
    From: British Isles

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:50 pm  

    Are there any other spells in the 2nd edition rulebook that do Negative Energy Damage? I can't think of any. If there were then I'd say no it wouldn't protect against Skulltrap.

    If there aren't then I would say that it's purely a case that such spells didn't exist to even be considered within the spell description and if they had existed they would have been included.

    Although the exact wording of the spell would indicate no the spirit of the spell and the applicaiton of some common sense to what the spell is actually doing would say yes it would offer protection.

    Personally I'd even let it protect against a Vampiric Touch spell!
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:57 pm  

    Wolfling wrote:
    If there aren't then I would say that it's purely a case that such spells didn't exist to even be considered within the spell description and if they had existed they would have been included.


    And therein lies the problem with "additions," no one can think of everything. In hind sight, I think the creators of the spell Negative Plane Protection would have included protection from Skulltrap in the description -- IF they had "invented" the Skulltrap spell, but they didn't. It should be noted here that Skulltrap isn't even in the 2e Player's Handbook (published 1989). It doesn't make its appearance until featured in The Complete Book of Necromancers which is a "Rules Supplement" published in 1995.

    It's obvious that no fore-thought, or consideration, was given to what came before -- namely the existing spell Negative Plane Protection -- when the supplement was written. That's not the first time such a thing has happened. Wink

    Wolfling wrote:
    Personally I'd even let it protect against a Vampiric Touch spell!


    Nice catch, Wolfling, I would too.
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:43 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:

    And therein lies the problem with "additions," no one can think of everything.


    Indeed! And perhaps the reason why I bother you all with my endless questions. Confused

    Quote:
    In hindsight, I think the creators of the spell Negative Plane Protection would have included protection from Skulltrap in the description -- IF they had "invented" the Skulltrap spell, but they didn't.


    Nobody but the author(s) can say one way or the other...but I'd tend to lean towards your thoughts on this matter, too, Mystic. With all the supplements and spells out there, it's quite easy to 'overlook' something that, to us, may seem obvious or a potential oversight.

    Quote:
    It should be noted here that Skulltrap isn't even in the 2e Player's Handbook (published 1989). It doesn't make its appearance until featured in The Complete Book of Necromancers which is a "Rules Supplement" published in 1995.


    And there is that point, too!

    Quote:
    It's obvious that no fore-thought, or consideration, was given to what came before -- namely the existing spell Negative Plane Protection -- when the supplement was written. That's not the first time such a thing has happened. Wink


    Nor the last...

    -Lanthorn
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:55 am  

    Negative plane protection works against the following: chill touch, vampiric touch, enervation, energy drain, any undead energy drain effect. Very short list, but we all know that the spell is primarily used vs. scary, level-sucking undead.

    If you want the negative plane protection spell to literally do what it says, re-build it using the protection from fire framework, and add to it the regular native plane protection effect. That way the spell actually protects against general negative energy, but being put in contact with energy draining effects still causes the spell to end upon a successful save, something like this:

    Quote:
    Negative Plane Protection

    Sphere: Protection, Necromantic
    Range: Touch....................Components: V, S,M
    Duration: Special...............Casting Time: 1 rd.
    Area of Effect: 1 creature....Saving Throw: None

    The effect of a negative plane spell differs according to whether the recipient of the magic is the caster or some other creature. In either case, the spell lasts no longer than one turn per caster level. If the spell is cast upon the caster, it confers complete invulnerability to negative energy attacks, such as vampiric tough, skull trap, cause wounds effects, and similar things. The invulnerability lasts until the spell has absorbed 6 points of negative energy damage per level of the caster, at which time the spell is negated. If the spell is cast upon another creature, it gives a bonus of +4 to saving throw die rolls vs. negative energy damage, and reduces damage sustained from such attacks by 50%.

    This spell also affords the caster or touched creature partial protection from undead monsters with Negative Energy plane connections (such as shadows, wights, wraiths, spectres, or vampires) and certain weapons and spells that drain energy levels. The negative plane protection spell opens a channel to the Positive Energy plane, possibly offsetting the effect of the negative energy attack. A protected creature struck by a negative energy attack is allowed a saving throw vs. death magic. If successful, the energies cancel with a bright flash of light and a thunderclap. The protected creature suffers only normal hit point damage from the attack and does not suffer any drain of experience or Strength, regardless of the number of levels the attack would have drained. An attacking undead creature suffers 2d6 points of damage from the positive energy; a draining wizard or weapon receives no damage. This protection is proof against only one such attack, and the spell ends immediately whether or not the saving throw was successful.

    The caster's holy symbol is the material component.

    If you rebuild the spell that way, then you have a spell that does what the name says. Note that I lowered the absorption level to 6 points per caster level, namely as mere mortal magic should have a harder time protecting against forces not indigenous to the Prime Material Plane, and because the spell is now much more useful. I would still leave it as a 3rd level spell though, as negative energy effects are still not all that common compared to fire and lightning.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:06 pm; edited 3 times in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:39 am  

    Cebrion, your efforts in this matter are truly appreciated and your version of the spell certainly works for what Lanthorn is looking for. Wink

    Speaking for myself, I intend to "copy & paste" your "newly created" version of the Negative Plane Protection spell for my personal use. Cool

    And it's easy to see that you are "old school:"

    Cebrion wrote:
    If the saving throw is failed, the spell recipient suffers double the usual physical damage, in addition to the loss of experience or Strength that normally occurs.


    If the spell protects against powerful Magics, then the consequences of failure are equally disastrous! Evil Grin

    That's fair and . . . I like it! Thanks, my friend! Happy

    Oh! Uh, being a Writer . . . I'm sprucing up the language just a little bit -- for my personal use. Wink Laughing Laughing Laughing
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 20, 2004
    Posts: 580
    From: British Isles

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:05 am  

    Nice re-write of the spell Cebrion
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:56 pm  

    Agreed on this end, too. Great add-on and modification, Ceb.

    Happy

    -Lanthorn
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:48 am  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:
    Cebrion wrote:
    If the saving throw is failed, the spell recipient suffers double the usual physical damage, in addition to the loss of experience or Strength that normally occurs.


    If the spell protects against powerful Magics, then the consequences of failure are equally disastrous! Evil Grin

    You misunderstand. That effect only applies to draining attacks from undead, spells, and weapons that also carry a physically damaging effects, such as a vampire pounidng somebody's face in with his fist for physical damage (plus energy drain) or a sword of life stealing that does it sword damage (plus energy drain). Only the physical damage is doubled, meaning the damage done directly by the vampire's fist and the sword. Nothing else is doubled. If one gets hit by negative energy damage only then there is no adverse effect on a failed save, and damage is either absorbed or halved, depending on whether the spell is has been cast upon the caster or a recipient. That is why this bad side effect is mentioned only in the energy draining attack paragraph. Also, this is not a change I made, but how the real negative plane protection spell works.

    As to the language of the spell, it is almost completely cut-n-pasted from the protection from fire and negative plane protection spells- I only added a dozen words or so. When writing similar spells, stick with the language of the rules set I say (unless it is unclear in the first place), just to keep things familiar.

    As to game editions, I cut my teeth on 1E and played as a player in 1E the longest, from about 1982 until 2E came out on 1989. I played/DM'd 2E from 1989 until 2000. I switched to 3.0E in 2000, and to 3.5E in 2003, and stuck with that system until about 2010, which is the last time I played/DM'd. Until this last Sunday that is, when I used Pathfinder for the first time. Despite a little bit of haziness in my memory, I know a pretty good amount about 1E, 2E, and the core 3.5E stuff, but don't expect me to rifle off information on the metric crap-ton of 3.5 supplementary books off the top of my head (but I can hunt down information on that stuff easily enough).

    I am comfortable offering opinions on any questions regarding the 1E, 2E, or 3.5E rules sets. As to Pathfinder, I have more questions than answers at this point, and any answers to questions I could provide would probably be what anybody could already find on their own using the index. But a DM has to know things (just to keep those cheatin' bastard players honest! Laughing), so I'll be learning Pathfinder well over the coming months. I've already learned a few things in the aftermath of the very first encounter, and, yes, my Pathfinder player's are (unknowingly it seems) cheatin' bastards, so it appears that I better get on the stick sooner rather than later. Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:32 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    You misunderstand . . . Only the physical damage is doubled . . .


    Honestly, I don't think I did. I think I failed to make myself "clear." Sorry! Embarassed

    The "normal" damage is doubled because the spell failed. Doesn't that make it more "disastrous" for the PC? Confused

    Cebrion wrote:
    As to the language of the spell, it is almost completely cut-n-pasted from the protection from fire and negative plane protection spells- I only added a dozen words or so.


    Meaning that the authors of the original spells weren't the best of writers either! Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Of course, that's just a personal opinion and I really don't mean to give offense to anyone. Wink Happy
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:04 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:
    Cebrion wrote:
    You misunderstand . . . Only the physical damage is doubled . . .


    Honestly, I don't think I did. I think I failed to make myself "clear." Sorry! Embarassed

    The "normal" damage is doubled because the spell failed. Doesn't that make it more "disastrous" for the PC? Confused

    Yes, but not by much (at 1d6+4, the vampire's fist damage is the worst, so not that bad). To be honest, why this damage is doubled makes absolutely no sense. One would think that, if anything, negative energy damage would be increased, not physical damage completely unrelated to the spell effect. I recommend dropping this negative effect altogether. That would make the spell perfect. Might as well edit that out, just because. Wink
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- AD&D 2nd Edition All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.34 Seconds