Talk:Dust to Dust (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Havvy is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	It's a utility spell that I cannot see being needed in most cases. When it can be used, mundane means are just as effective. There are only two places I see this spell being used for: Ritualized funeral ceremony and on scrolls for adventurers who have no other way of destroying a body.

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)

As previously mentioned, no remains means nothing weaker than true resurrection will work. The only difference is that this spell can't actually stop true resurrection (and wish and miracle) from working. That, and barghest's feast has a 1-round casting time. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As Fox implies, you can do this perfectly well without magic. Burn the corpse and scatter the ashes to the wind -- good luck touching that dead body so you can cast raise dead. So no, this isn't overpowered. The only benefit it has over what any boy scout can do is that it only takes 1 minute. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Okay, here's the lowdown on barghest's feast... it's a necromancy spell with the Evil descriptor that is on the spell list of the cleric (level 6) and the sorcerer/wizard spell list (level 7). Instead of being negated by Fortitude, it's negated by Will, and its casting time is 1 round instead of 1 minute, but other than that, it's the same as this spell, with a couple exceptions. One is that barghest's feast requires a material component - a diamond worth 5,000 gp. The other is that with barghest's feast, verbatim quote from the spell description, "there is a 50% chance that a wish, miracle, or true resurrection spell cannot restore to life a victim consumed by a barghest's feast spell. Check once for each destroyed creature. If the d% roll fails, the creature cannot be brought back to life by mortal magic." And this is spell level 6 on average (it's spell level 5 for witch doctors). And did I mention that barghest's feast is evil? I think that's for a good reason - it anally violates the very concept of hope. I think a spell that does what barghest's feast does, minus the potential preclusion of mortal resurrection magic, shouldn't be level 1, even especially with a 1-minute casting time. It should be level 2 or 3 at the very minimum - I'm not really comfortable with the thought of a 1st-level wizard or sorcerer being able to so much as think about metaphysically flipping the bird to a 9th-level cleric (level 9 being the minimum level for a cleric to cast 5th-level spells). Using mundane methods, fine. Those can be worked around. But a 1st-level spell being able to completely clobber a 5th-level spell (namely, raise dead) is just ridiculous. I mean, if you burn a body to ashes, you still need gust of wind (a 2nd-level spell) or something similar to scatter those ashes about... This spell flips the bird to raise dead and then drinks its tears, in only one minute (the same time it takes to cast raise dead), and that's just wrong if it's level 1. This spell is a touch overpowered for its level... I'm calling game balance shenanigans. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you burn a body, you need Resurrection. Raise Dead only closes mortal wounds; heck, cutting off the head prevents raise dead from working.

"Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life."

Burning a body to ashes negates raise dead. On the other hand, resurrection needs much less? --Leziad (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Another point, scattering ashes over the wind is relatively easy. No need to use a spell for that. You just need wind and high elevation. --Leziad (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pick up the ashes and toss them about. Or just chop the corpse into manageable pieces, pick them up, and run away with them. Floating disk is like sooo overpowered: at higher levels, you can get away with several corpses using a single 1st level spell slot. --Foxwarrior (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Barghest's feast is just overleveled unless it's got some other feature to propel it to higher level. - TG Cid (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's it; it just adds a 50% chance for even the advanced resurrection spells to fail (and be completely ineffective to boot). --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So it's a slightly cheaper version of the bag of holding/portable hole method without the hundred other alternate uses. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Concerning barghest feast, it's overleveled for its effect but I understand why it's at 6th and 7th... that's when its counter, resurrection, comes into play.

Concerning this spell, while the wording still sits odd with me the effect is fine. As others brought up, this is easily achieved without a spell. As long as it's not actively fighting against rez attempts that can work with dust or less, it's no stronger than a good match and some kerosine. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you could make the argument that level 1 necromancy / transmutation magic is not strong enough to achieve this sort of effect, but I don't think you get anything useful out of it. You're not going to prepare this spell in a 1st level slot on an adventuring day until you're 7th level or so, because you need more direct spells to pull your weight and this is a very niche utility spell. And on your days off, the only thing this gets you over matches and a nice pyre is basically time. Making it higher level just reduces the chances of you casting it ever because you care about those slots more. So if you wanted to argue that level 1 magic doesn't do this much with 1 minute investment, you could maybe argue for a slightly longer (10 minute) cast time or something. Which makes it slightly more out-of-combat than it already was I guess. But a higher level? I'm not seeing it.

I get the comparison concerns, but Barghest's Feast is a poor comparison in this case. It's a disintegrate that only works on dead things and half the time gives you an awesome effect like a stripped down soul bind or trap the soul. So half the time it's substantially worse than a 6th level spell, and half the time it's substantially worse than an 8th or 9th level spell. And that's honestly a mess that should be ignored or fixed rather than pointed at as an indicator of the way things should be. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Barghest's feast eliminates the body entirely. Not even ashes are left. Resurrection doesn't work. Just thought I'd clear that up, Eiji. And personally, I think anything that can kick wish in the metaphorical 'nads needs to be at least 6th level. Maybe 5th, if it needs a lot of effort to defeat wish. And once barghest's feast has passed its anti-resurrection check, that's it. Soul bind and trap the soul are reversible if the gem is smashed and the soul is freed. Barghest's feast? Nope. You're going to need direct divine intervention in order to come back from that. There's a reason it's one of Mysto's favorite spells... (What's this bag of holding/portable hole method you speak of, Foxwarrior?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, two things.

Saying, "WotC placed a similar spell at 6th level and gave it exorbitant costs, therefore that is the proper thing to do," is rather like saying, "A retarded schizophrenic toddler told me that all elephants are purple, so now I'm going to correct anyone who colors one gray." You just can't trust their judgment. If there is a gospel on correct game balance, WotC are not the ones who wrote it.

Raise dead has some significant limitations (only fixes certain wounds, range touch, 1 minute concentration, must have remains), and those are deliberately easy limitations to encounter. All of its limitations can be produced mundanely with little effort. You can cut off a head, you can physically keep the body away from the person intending to raise it, you can interrupt them while they cast the spell, you can burn the body so there are no remains left to touch... All of these are things a level 1 Commoner can do. So why is it unreasonable for a level 1 Wizard to do it a little faster?

Also, if you put a bag of holding in a portable hole, both items and their contents are "sucked into the void and forever lost." You can dispose of bodies that way. Although the void in question is the Astral Plane, so that might just be an instance of clumsy phrasing, since you're fully capable of going there. --DanielDraco (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. Barghest's Feast is a spell that raises the "bring back from dead" requirement to 9th level spells, sometimes. Which is probably ok at it's 6th/7th spell level given the ease with which you can come back at that level and it's (difficult but not impossible) combat cast time. It's not much more effective than a disintegrate + gust of wind combo / destruction half the time (which have the advantage of using lower level spell slots or actually killing your foes), but whatever. It's still a terrible thing to prepare when you first get 6th/7th level slots, and the only thing that justifies putting it at that level is the cast time and the 50% never coming back thing. And I honestly consider the lack of reversability a drawback, not a perk, on top of being potentially inappropriate in the genre... so yeah, I remain unimpressed with the spell and its comparison.

Still, the set "bring back from dead" requirement to 9th level spells here may not be as good a fit for this level as I thought. The bonfire and scattering does the same thing, mostly, but those take a not-insignificant amount of time. This is enough better than my previously compared dead body disintegrate that I'm reconsidering my position on its level. Or more likely its effect, since I think boosting the level too much just makes you unlikely to cast it when it's meaningful. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's weird, I could have sworn Dust to Dust said it turns them to ash... I suppose I assumed that cause of the name. This does give the 100% obliteration thing going on for it. In this case, I can see the problem since while mauling is easy to do to a body, complete expunging of mass isn't.

Dunno what level that makes it, but easy fix: Ideasmith, say it turns the body to ash. That makes it on par with what's expected then. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Spell now leaves behind "a trace of fine dust"--Ideasmith (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, points made. Raise dead is easy to defeat, even for a 1st-level spell. (Actually, now I'm wondering how it ever works at all.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)