Is the damage Negative Energy? TormentedOne 09:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've made the link clearer. I think this qualifies as a reasonable exception to preserving the in-game text. --The Krit 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
How does this spell affect undead? --126.96.36.199 04:57, 12 December 2011
- The same as it would affect any other creature. If the save is failed, the spell attempts to kill the target, which will fail if the creature is immune to death magic (as are most undead). If the save is passed, the target takes 10d6 points of divine damage. It's just a bit unusual in that creatures immune to death magic (like most undead) would be better off failing the save, but since the save is not "versus death" (the spell lacks that descriptor), they are not granted automatic failure. --The Krit 17:33, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
About immunity note
Hey, 188.8.131.52 to clarify the undoing your revised of the Finger of death note: The page death magic is describing the "death immunity effect". This is a correct name for this immunity and the note is there as this immunity itself won't block the spell (different concept than immunity to necromancy spell school from SS). Speaking of descriptor, while the Death descriptor should mean that the spell has no effect on death magic immunes, the NWN engine doesn't follow this and the immunity to damage must be added explicitly as the saving throw roll is still made.
As for usefulness of the note about behavior of the damage in Destruction goes, first: what is this less usefull than note about Fire arrow damage efficiency (which is true only if target doesn't have IE or good reflex saves btw). Second - imagine an environment of dungeon containing many spellcaster npcs casting this spell. The player might find that losing the fort saving throw roll is more advantageous than succeed (im assuming presence of immunity to death magic item/boost as such environment would be auto-lose without it (unless 1 doesn't matter - rare case)) and I think this is worth note. Its only matter of discussion whether this is intented (not Death descriptor) or oversight (my guess). 184.108.40.206 15:39, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Since I just edited the notes in question, I suppose decorum dictates that I not ignore the above. So I acknowledge that the above was written. However, the reasoning is flawed, so I am disregarding the above. (In addition, given the poster's track record, I see no reason to waste my time with a more detailed explanation.) --The Krit (talk) 15:29, October 12, 2012 (UTC)