Opportunistic Sacrifice+Indirect Sorcery

[Vortigern]

The thread concerning Domination got me to thinking.

How do people handle spells of this type with Opportunistic Sacrifice?

Literally the feat applies to whenever you kill someone, physically or with a spell. Would you gms out there apply this to an indirect kills such as dominating someone and having them kill someone for you?

 

[DimitriX]

I would probably allow an evil npc to get away with it as a plot point, but not a PC.

 

[Vortigern]

I would probably allow an evil npc to get away with it as a plot point, but not a PC.

Why the differing standard? To me as a player that would be more angering/frustrating than any ruling one way or the other.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Personally i would say it is only someone they directly killed and by killed I mean doing the killing blow on.

 

[flatscan]

Personally i would say it is only someone they directly killed and by killed I mean doing the killing blow on.

Agreed. 8)

 

[Hervé]

That's how I ruled it too. Direct killing. :twisted:

 

[kintire]

I would mostly go for direct killing. I might allow them to do it if the sorcerer was actually right there instructing the dominated victim to do it. I might even improve the results if there was dramatic irony... close allies killing each other for example. But the sorcerer would have to be there, and paying full attention to the killing. I wouldn't allow it if he was doing something else.

 

[Sutek]

I would probably allow an evil npc to get away with it as a plot point, but not a PC.

Why the differing standard? To me as a player that would be more angering/frustrating than any ruling one way or the other.

Because it applies to the epic villain. There's nothing in the book that says that all rules apply equally for PCs and NPCs, and for story purposes (which is what "as a plot point" refers to) anything foes. I've had villains shoot fire out of thier eyes and have my PCs start trying ot look for the spell in the books...to which I say, "...well, he had access to ancient lore that is lost to mortal man...or something." Then I give them my best all-knowing smile. They get it. It's just for the special effects, for the story or to make things a little more challenging for the party, and they're okay with it.

What you ought not do is abuse that kind of GM fiat, then they will get annoyed (or bored with always encountering people with made up powers), but the players have to understand that differnt standards apply to PCs and NPCs for the sake of the campaign and arean't arbitrary.

With that said, Oportunistic Sacrifice is pretty clear in that the sorcerer gets power from slaying someone, so I wouldn't allow it. Just doesn't make much sense...unless I'd already telegraphed such an ability as something that the villain was capable of. In other words, the PCs might find a stabbed body, obviously slain by the assassin they have been tracking, but each body is increasingly withered, descicated and mummified in appearance. The slit throat is still the means of death, but something is draining the victim's life away as well. However, such a plot hook in writing now sounds like something tied to an enchanted weapon rather than through mere domination of the assassin NPC.

I don't know, it'd have to be a very special situation and a one-time epic villain card that I'd play as GM.

 

[DimitriX]

Sutek said it best but I wanted to clarify a bit more as to why I would set a different standard.

What I had in mind is an adventure arc in which an evil sorcerer has created a ritual or found some ancient artifact that allows him to hypnotize people into doing his will and he is able to sort of 'act through them'. So, he is using this new power to do assassinations, kidnappings, and thefts. He is able to transfer the energy of these murders through his thralls and back to him.

So, while I wouldn't want my PCs to have access to this power because I think its too open to abuse, I think it makes for a great idea for an adventure.

 

[Vortigern]

I would mostly go for direct killing. I might allow them to do it if the sorcerer was actually right there instructing the dominated victim to do it. I might even improve the results if there was dramatic irony... close allies killing each other for example. But the sorcerer would have to be there, and paying full attention to the killing. I wouldn't allow it if he was doing something else.

This I can pretty much agree with. The OS feat basically states that killing someone with a spell 'counts' ... and this is how you kill people with hypnotism, you mind screw them one way or another. But you do kind of have to have your attention devoted to the kill in order to dedicate it and draw the energy.

I also am just flatly against special rules for NPCs however. It is an idea/concept that I detest for a variety of reasons. I can see that you like it, and not vor invalid reasons, it just isn't my preference. If an NPC can go and study the mystic pillar of X and learn the lost art of Y in the forbidden city of Z... so can a PC. It is important to me to have a clear understanding of how everything functions rules-wise for that reason. Your PC could decide to go and find that pillar, and that magic. If your archmage villain learned his magic from a certain demon, a PC could decide to make a pact with the same demon. A source information, even if unique like that pillar and that demon, is reusable... unless you specifically make a point and killing the demon or breaking the pillar. And then... why? Why would your super-mage do that, reasonably speaking? To hide the information from the players for meta-game reasons? ... That is when my suspension of disbelief starts to slide.

Because I am that pain in the ass player... I'll go find the pillar, or try and summon the exact same demon. I'll keep your supermage's skull and talk to it every night before bed-time. Whatever it takes to learn what I want to know. Resource management if you will.

Meta-game reasons are not invalid. But they should be woven into the game in a seamless way. Every time that meta-game stuff is clearly visible, it is a crack in the setting/story.

 

[Stygian Devout]

I'll keep your supermage's skull and talk to it every night before bed-time.

I may have to steal that line for my sig :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[Sutek]

Okay...Vort wins "LINE THAT MADE SUTEK SPLIT HIS SIDE LAUGHING 2009"!

LOL

 

[Vortigern]

:wink:

Very kind, thank you. Personally now that I reviewing this thread with a higher sleep to activity ratio I'm in horror at all of my typos... but I suppose I got my point across. :twisted:

 

[reoiv]

So would this feat work with raise dead/legions of the dead?

As you have to concentrate to keep the corpses animated and they are doing your bidding.

If so this makes sorcerers even more powerful than before.

 

[kintire]

Perhaps as an expert on necromancy you could answer this yourself?

To answer the question, by the RAW no. I would allow it provided that the sorcerer had specifically instructed the minions to make the kill and was paying attention to it at the time... much like Domination above.

 

[Phobos]

I´ll only allow direct killing, not by third persons.

 

[reoiv]

But if he directing the undead by concentrating on them and the fact that they are alive only because of him, does that really make it a third party? The Scholar can't do anything other than concentrate as a standard action to maintain the undead staying alive or they fall down in 1d6 rounds.

How about this.

Take animate weapon from prestidigitation in Secrets of Skelos.

If a Scholar animated a sword and then had it kill someone would that allow them to regain power points from opportunistic sacrifice.

Since the feat basically reads:

You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat
any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or
ranged attacks.

I guess the question is do animated items or mind controlled minions count as magic in that case? If not what is the threshold where your magic actually kills vs it not killing.

What if the Scholar in question dedicated the deaths of those slain by his minions to his demon lords/gods etc?

 

[kintire]

This is a case of the exception proving the rule: if a feat specifically says that you do get the benefit of Ritual Sacrifice, the implication is that you usually don't.

 

[Phobos]

So if the victim is slayed by demons summoned by the sorcerer, you give him or her the PP?

 

[kintire]

If he directly instructs the Demon to do so, and watches gloating as it does...in other words if he uses it as a weapon. If he loses it on a city for a random rampage then no.

Note: this is a houserule and NOT How It Works (tm)