Talk:Dust to Dust (3.5e Spell)

A Bit Terse

This is a viable spell concept, but it could use some elaboration. It says that the corpse is consumed completely, but...in what way? The name suggests that it might turn to dust, but the method is completely unstated -- it might vanish into vapor, cease to exist, crumble into sand, burn into smoke, etc. So some clarity might be useful there. Dovetailing into that concern is the notion of remains -- are there any, for the purposes of resurrection spells? I would suggest not, because that gives a solid mechanical use for this: requiring a 9th-level spell to rez. Lacking that, the only real use I can see is hiding murder evidence. --DanielDraco (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While "consumes ... utterly" is unambiguous about whether remains are left, I have added some clarification. The details of this utter consumption seem best left to the DM. --Ideasmith (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't have called it unambiguous, but with the new clarification that's irrelevant. One other thing I'd note is that the [Death] tag seems misplaced here. Yes, it pertains to death, but that tag generally denotes something which causes death.

As a side note, what's with all those blank lines you threw in? Makes the page look all wonky. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While the death descriptor is typically applied to spells that cause death, whether a spell has it is not determined by whether it causes death. Dust to dust fits in well with the existing list.

Thank you for noting the blank lines. Fixed, I hope. --Ideasmith (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it? Everything on the SRD list, at least, is a SoD effect (or other instadeaths like PWK). --DanielDraco (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, language-dependant spells would only relate to spoken, not written, language, and darkness spells would be no higher than 4th level. Dust to dust does the same thing to dead bodies that destruction does to living bodies. --Ideasmith (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked into it out of curiosity and Ideasmith is right, only language-dependant and mind-affecting have any special rules about them (you need to understand what you see/hear and you need to have a mind). Death has no such effect, rendering it a generic tag, usually to determine immunities and resistances, such as constructs immunity to death effects or how it interacts with protective spells like Death Ward. That said, it's an odd, but valid, use of the Death tag. Odd, because the target is a corpse, which would imply it has no life force to turn off. To quote another source on similar topic, "A death effect is something that uses the Power Of Death Itself (cue spooky music!) to kill the target. Slay Living is such an effect, as is Power Word: Kill. They simply "turn off" the target's life force like a switch. An autopsy would show a victim to be in perfect health, except for being dead."

But the real reason I had for this is... well... what's that about darkness spells not rising over 4th level if the Darkness tag was only applied to things that create darkness? Or something. I'm not really sure what you're saying. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I was saying that if 'all spells with the descriptor x in the SRD are y, then all spells with the descriptor x are y' was valid, then all spells with descriptor darkness would have to be below 5th level. The intended conclusion is that that line of reasoning is not in itself valid. --Ideasmith (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While you are well within your rights to apply a descriptor to a spell that is not defined, that doesn't make it a good fit. Death effect is referenced in several places that make it seem redundant and weird here. Death ward makes creatures immune to [Death] effects for its duration, though it probably doesn't apply in this case because a corpse is not a valid target for the spell. But even if it was a valid target, I don't see a reason to make that spell protect against this one. Raise dead is unable to raise a creature killed with a [Death] effect, but this isn't killing them and the loss of corpse makes the line redundant anyway. The other references to [Death] effects similarly don't apply here, which makes it entirely extraneous mechanically and a bit of an outlier. If there's no interaction with the tag, what's the point?

Your destruction argument is sound, but it's not the only spell this is similar to. By way of counter argument: this is a touch range disintegrate that only functions on a very specific form of material. It also removes a corpse and leaves everything else behind, exactly as disintegrate does. Should disintegrate also have the [Death] descriptor? Should a creature benefiting from death ward be immune to this spell or disintegrate? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Death descriptor removed. --Ideasmith (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Save or Die?

A save-or-die spell at LEVEL 1? Fuck that noise. --71.82.214.138 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading fail, the target is already dead. See "Target: Dead Creature Touched", emphasis mine. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

More Comments

Figured I'd start a new header here. Gonna run down the spell in order of stuff that appears in it. First up is the missing Material component though, since it is mentioned under components but not in the description (material components get consumed with the focus not being consumed). Sure, it's just likely to be a forgotten about spell component pouch thing, but if it's there for flavor, mention it. So that's some kind of error or omission that needs a fixin'. I've also got a beef with "Target: Dead creature touched" for wording. It's one of those weird technicality things, but it might be improper to call it a "dead creature" as dead creatures are objects in DnD and calling it a creature makes me think that it works on undead or animated object skeletons. Is it supposed to work on undead? With a 1 minute casting time, it would be kinda nifty actually (pin that ghoul and de-corporeate 'im!). Plus, affecting undead has the added benefit or fitting in better with the other [Death] descriptor spells. So yeah, anyways, "dead creature" should probably say something else like "corpse", which is what I think you're getting at anyways. In the descriptive text, the spell name should be italicized, as that's a common DnD formatting thing for spell names. So, the hourglass is listed at being worth at least 10 "g.p." (Note: "gp" is proper, "g.p." is improper), but SRD:Tools and Skill Kits lists the hourglass as being worth 25 gp. Why the difference? That's about it. Though lastly, don't feel down for getting these concerned comments. Comments are awesome. --Ganteka Future (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for catching all those errors. Fixed, I hope. Adding usability against undead (say a maximum of 4 HD), would be kinda nifty, but I am worried about balance (and undeath to death does not have the death descriptor). Comments are indeed awesome. --Ideasmith (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Dead creature" is valid phrasing, because "dead" is a technical term (albeit one with some oversights) and so is "creature". A skeleton is not "dead", so it isn't a valid target. A clarification à la resurrection would certainly be nice, but it isn't strictly necessary. Agreed on other points. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A clarification is certainly worth considering here. --Ideasmith (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What the hell?!? No, just no!!!

This spell is Barghest's Feast, just without the 50% chance of utter unrevivability! AT LEVEL 1!!! Barghest's Feast is a 6th-level spell - at about the point where resurrecting the dead is actually a possibility!!! I'm sorry, this spell's level is just way too low!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's still higher-level than building a funeral pyre. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems to be 'low' in power. --Havvy (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)