Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KainBathory 02-14-07, 02:39 PM	Evasion, according to the SRD, says that if a character makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Are Negative Levels considered "damage" in such an instance? So, if a Rogue succeeds on a Save against a Shadow Dragon's breath weapon, would she take 0 negative levels instead of half of the negative levels? --Kain
mvincent 02-14-07, 03:01 PM	Yes, that seems to be the intent. From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a): ""damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain"
Zherog 02-14-07, 03:24 PM	I can't find it now, but I recall reading something from WotC that used this exact scenario, and the conclusion was that evasion did not apply. I'll keep trying to remember where I saw it. But I'm old, so there's not much chance I'll actually remember - and I could've completely imagined it from the start. ;)
OGS-Remix 02-14-07, 05:55 PM	I believe you're correct Zherog, evasion would not apply in this situation. The trick is that you "gain negative levels"; you're not taking damage from energy drain. Since you're not taking damage, evasion does not apply.
mvincent 02-14-07, 06:40 PM	The trick is that you "gain negative levels"; you're not taking damage from energy drain.From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a): "Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage." and ""damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. " Note: the terms "energy drain" and "negative level" are synonyms in D&D
OGS-Remix 02-14-07, 07:11 PM	From the Rules of the Game: "Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage." and ""damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. " If you take your quote and include all those types of damage as "damage" then we get this: Attack: Incorporeal touch +3 melee (1d6 Str) Weapon Specialization [General] Benefit You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. If a Shadow were to get Weapon Spec with their natural weapon touch attack, would they deal 1d6+2 Str damage? And if that is valid, then Power Attack is valid as well (if such a creature existed that did no physical damage, only ability damage and had a str of 13). Basically if you allow energy drain/ability damage to count as "damage" then you open yourself up to Druids power-attacking their Poison spells for 1d10+30 Con damage. Here is the final note from d20SRD: Damage When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. There is room for interpretation in the phrase "reduces a target's current hit points" but you can read it however you want KainBathory.
mvincent 02-14-07, 07:17 PM	If a Shadow were to get Weapon Spec with their natural weapon touch attack, would they deal 1d6+2 Str damage? And if that is valid, then Power Attack is valid as well (if such a creature existed that did no physical damage, only ability damage and had a str of 13). Basically if you allow energy drain/ability damage to count as "damage" then you open yourself up to Druids power-attacking their Poison spells for 1d10+30 Con damage.The quote I provided said: "Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage." Besides which: ability damage is damage (and could be eliminated by evasion if a reflex save were allowed for 1/2 damage), but you seem to misunderstand what power attack can be used for. Your post doesn't seem related to the discussion.
OGS-Remix 02-14-07, 08:15 PM	Ok, so the discussion is: Does evasion work against the Shadow Dragon's Breath weapon? You say yes, I say no. Your reasoning is that the damage referred to in the description of evasion includes normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Since the breath causes energy drain, which is a type of damage (by your definition), evasion applies. My reasoning is that energy drain is not a type of damage at all. You gain negative levels, which is different then taking damage from energy drain. Therefore evasion would not apply. So the point of contention is, does energy drain count as damage? If we go by your example and energy/ability drain do count as damage, they are valid to be boosted by all other effects which boost damage; eg. power attack and weapon spec. My interpretation says power attack and weapon spec do not apply since energy/ability drain is not a form of damage. The examples I presented are to show that making ability/energy drain "damage" would be overpowered.
Lord Nedd 02-15-07, 12:23 AM	So the point of contention is, does energy drain count as damage? If we go by your example and energy/ability drain do count as damage, they are valid to be boosted by all other effects which boost damage; eg. power attack and weapon spec. My interpretation says power attack and weapon spec do not apply since energy/ability drain is not a form of damage. The examples I presented are to show that making ability/energy drain "damage" would be overpowered. Quoted from the SRD: POWER ATTACK [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Str 13. Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn. End Quote (my emphasis) You couldn't use the Power Attack feat, as by default, you don't make an melee attack roll with a breath weapon attack. The defender has to make a defence roll (see Reflex save) to avoid it. Quote from the SRD: WEAPON SPECIALIZATION [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th. Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. End Quote Similarly, as you don't make an attack roll with a breath weapon, you can't get Weapon Focus for it. Without weapon focus, you can't get weapon specialization. Clarification: It seems to me that although everything from the likes of poison, energy/ability drain, psychic trauma, physical wounds, etc are in fact damage, but not all damage are alike. Damage seems to be classified into two groups. Primary and Secondary Effects. Primary effects are things that do hp damage. They could be from spells (see Magic Missile), or from a rapier thrust, but they cause a random amount of damage to be done to the defending party. There are a host of feats that allow you to alter this random amount of damage, including physical changes, such a Power Attack, metamagic feats such as Maximize, and other feats or spells that buff such as Rage, Bull's Strength, etc. Secondary effects include things that are 'damaging' but strickly don't do hp damage. These could include diseases, poisons, ability drain, level drain, etc. The number of feats that allow changes to secondary effects is *significantly* smaller, though it is growing. Libra Mortis has a bunch of feats that allow alteration or enhancement to the level draining abilities of the undead. However, none of them that I am aware of allow for making the level draining capabilities to become a random number, and none of them allow you do to more negative damage. They add more tertiary effects like spell drainage upon negative level damage. Let us make a vampire fighter who was weapon focus (slam), weapon Spec: Slam as well as Power Attack. It would be +1 to hit with its slam attack and do an additional +2 melee damage, taking a -5 to hit and adding a +5 to melee damage. (i.e, 1d6 + 2 + 5, + 2 levels of energy damage). Hope this clarifies it. From what little I remember, without the books before me, -LN
KingMarl 02-15-07, 08:38 AM	I think the Rules of the Game was a little too all-encompassing in the definition of damage. Consider ability damage. Why would they need to specify a difference between ability drain and ability damage if they were the same? Clearly they're not. Thus, since I see no mention anywhere of "level damage", clearly level drain is not the same as level damage. Thus, I'd rule that Evasion does not apply in this case. After all, Evasion doesn't say you get to avoid any spell that uses a Reflex save. It says you get to avoid any spell that does half damage on a successful save. It does mean that all those Metabreath feats are a LOT nastier on a Shadow Dragon, since Evasion won't let you avoid them like it would for many other dragons' breath weapons.
Merestil Haye 02-15-07, 09:22 AM	I think the Rules of the Game was a little too all-encompassing in the definition of damage. Consider ability damage. Why would they need to specify a difference between ability drain and ability damage if they were the same? Clearly they're not. Thus, since I see no mention anywhere of "level damage", clearly level drain is not the same as level damage.The only difference - the only one - between ability damage and ability drain is that one can be healed by rest and the other cannot. Because they have different effects, they have different names. Because they have different names, both have to be specified when they work the same way, or you'll get people claiming the omission is significant. There is no such thing as "level damage". Just negative levels and level drain - the loss of a level that cannot be restored by rest (just as ability drain cannot be restored by rest). Thus, I'd rule that Evasion does not apply in this case. After all, Evasion doesn't say you get to avoid any spell that uses a Reflex save. It says you get to avoid any spell that does half damage on a successful save. It does mean that all those Metabreath feats are a LOT nastier on a Shadow Dragon, since Evasion won't let you avoid them like it would for many other dragons' breath weapons.Energy drain, by definition of the ability, inflicts negative levels.That is what it does. mvincent's quotes include Energy Drain as a damaging effect, therefore the negative levels do indeed count as damage (although any extra damage - from any source - is hp damage) and can therefore be evaded.
Zherog 02-15-07, 11:07 AM	I believe you're correct Zherog, evasion would not apply in this situation. The trick is that you "gain negative levels"; you're not taking damage from energy drain. Since you're not taking damage, evasion does not apply. This is exactly the reasoning I recall reading. Damn it! I wish I could find it. I'm certain it was from a WotC source. Basically, here's the difference. The shadow dragon's breath weapon doesn't inflict damage; it inflicts negative levels. I know I've read it somewhere; however, I also know that without providing a quote my memory doesn't mean much of anything.
Epicweaver 02-15-07, 11:43 AM	I don't think it's a stretch to allow someone to use evasion to take no negative levels... The monk/rogue is definately leaping out of the way of the billowing cloud of shadowy-negative energy.
Zherog 02-15-07, 11:44 AM	The monk/rogue is definately leaping out of the way of the billowing cloud of shadowy-negative energy. I disagree.
Merestil Haye 02-15-07, 11:54 AM	I don't think it's a stretch to allow someone to use evasion to take no negative levels... The monk/rogue is definately leaping out of the way of the billowing cloud of shadowy-negative energy. I disagree.I'm on the Big Z's side here. A Reflex save does not let the creature making it move out of the area affected by the effect (normally - some say they do). Thus a creature caught in a breath weapon's effect (or any other allowing a Reflex save for ½) must be finding the "cool spot" in the inhomogeneous field. A bit of further research - my Draconomicon was handy. The breath weapon allows a Reflex save to reduce the number of negative levels inflicted by one half. I think it's reasonable to rule that Evasion does work, unless Zherog manages to track down his memory.
Caliborn 02-15-07, 01:28 PM	The rules, and examples of said rules, seem to indicate that Evasion does apply.
Zherog 02-15-07, 02:05 PM	I think it's reasonable to rule that Evasion does work, unless Zherog manages to track down his memory. Fat chance of that happening. It's been gone for a long time. It and my mind left me years ago. If you see them, would you send them to me? I miss them both. :D
Merestil Haye 02-15-07, 02:15 PM	Fat chance of that happening. It's been gone for a long time. It and my mind left me years ago. If you see them, would you send them to me? I miss them both. :DIf I remember. :P
Sim_antix 02-15-07, 02:54 PM	The problem with this entire debate is that one side is looking at this as if it were a game of Magic the Gathering and not D&D. Stop looking for loopholes in the wording as to what constitutes damage and look at the situation logically. A Shadow Dragons breath weapon is a cone of negative energy that deals negative energy damage which results in negative levels if you are struck by it. A character with evasion takes no damage with a successful save having rolled, jumped or otherwise gotten out of the way of the negative energy. Debate over.
Zherog 02-15-07, 04:13 PM	:bored:
Sim_antix 02-15-07, 04:29 PM	:bored: Roll your eyes all you want but you cant prove it wrong.
mvincent 02-15-07, 04:29 PM	Debate over.Note: removing this last bit would go a long way in adding credibility to your statements.
Zherog 02-15-07, 04:52 PM	Roll your eyes all you want but you cant prove it wrong. This is the rolling eyes smilie: :rolleyes: Aside from that... your post provided nothinig to the discussion at hand. Hence the :bored: look.
Sim_antix 02-15-07, 04:57 PM	This is the rolling eyes smilie: :rolleyes: Aside from that... your post provided nothinig to the discussion at hand. Hence the :bored: look. My post provided a logical look at the situation as well as the answer to the question that was asked.
Lord Nedd 02-15-07, 11:13 PM	My post provided a logical look at the situation as well as the answer to the question that was asked. Hmm. The problem is that both sides have their own logic constructs of how the rules apply, and unfortunately, both are valid constructs. Opposing viewpoints, but valid constructs, nonetheless. As for my opinion, I would adjudicate similarly as Merestil Haye and 'Big Z' have defined it. Incidentally, the 'debate over' comment you shared seemed didactic and perhaps a bit supercilious, hence the wierd mouth thingie that Z showed.
Sim_antix 02-16-07, 02:19 AM	Hmm. The problem is that both sides have their own logic constructs of how the rules apply, and unfortunately, both are valid constructs. Opposing viewpoints, but valid constructs, nonetheless. As for my opinion, I would adjudicate similarly as Merestil Haye and 'Big Z' have defined it. Incidentally, the 'debate over' comment you shared seemed didactic and perhaps a bit supercilious, hence the wierd mouth thingie that Z showed. The problem being that this isnt MtG this is D&D and one side is looking at it as though there are loop holes in what constitutes damage when really it is the intent and not the technical wording that counts in D&D. A Shadow Dragons cone of negative energy allows for a save vs reflex and therefor can be affected by evasions ability to negate the damage with a successful save.
CaoSlayer 02-16-07, 09:24 AM	I'm on the Big Z's side here. A Reflex save does not let the creature making it move out of the area affected by the effect (normally - some say they do). Thus a creature caught in a breath weapon's effect (or any other allowing a Reflex save for ½) must be finding the "cool spot" in the inhomogeneous field. Well, you can avoid the breath by just going prone so it passes over your head or do a high jump just when it pass or do a matrix movement... Evasion is abstract by the rules for fiting each character type.
Merestil Haye 02-16-07, 09:54 AM	Well, you can avoid the breath by just going prone so it passes over your head or do a high jump just when it pass or do a matrix movement... Evasion is abstract by the rules for fiting each character type.And if you are in the square which is the centre of the Fireball? If you make a Reflex save, you do not move. You stay in the same space. If that space is entirely contained within the volume affected by the affect how are you going to get out of the affected volume? Answer : you are not. Your save represents you finding the area in your space that is not so hot, has less charges per cubic inch, or has a lower level of negative energy, thus taking less damage or no damage. It does not represent you getting out of the way of the effect. Such spells as do allow that have a save of Reflex negates - Blade Barrier, for example.
Zherog 02-16-07, 10:47 AM	Sim - you are so misrepresenting what I've said it's not even funny.
CaoSlayer 02-16-07, 11:14 AM	And if you are in the square which is the centre of the Fireball? If you make a Reflex save, you do not move. You stay in the same space. If that space is entirely contained within the volume affected by the affect how are you going to get out of the affected volume? Answer : you are not. Yes, it makes no sense I know it, the only pausible thing I can say is that you throw yourself to the ground before the explosion covering yourself and then you roll a little. Anyway you must move, rules say that if you dont have enough space to move you cant use evasion. I have actually wrote a houserule about evasion here in the houserules board being my idea to change evasion for moving out the area of spells as an inmediate action if you get the reflex save.
KingMarl 02-16-07, 11:38 AM	Well, there's two aspects of all of the discussions such as this. The first is "how exactly are the rules written, and how should they be interpreted?" This is a very rules-lawyerish activity, but sometimes a necessary one especially for certain players or DMs. The seconds is "how ought things to work". In some cases this ends up just being a matter of choice in how to interpret the rules, and in other cases it ends up being a matter of concluding that the rules are broken or lacking in some way, and a 'house ruling' should be used instead. Most often during my games, I'll make up whatever seems reasonable. I'm certainly not going to stop a cool battle dead in order to spend 30 minutes poring over the rule books to settle a fine point. But it is nice to know what the actual rules say, especially if you like to be consistent. I agree that from a spirit of the rules point of view, Evasion can be interpreted as being Neo - you "move in a cool way" and avoid the effect entirely. But the rules specifically say that you can avoid damage. Thus the discussion about whether energy drain is 'damage'. This is even more relevant if you consider a special ability such as Mettle, a Crusader special ability: ... If you succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an attack that would normally produce a lesser effect on a successful save (such as a spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), you instead negate the effect. Note that Mettle specifically says 'effect' rather than 'damage.' Is it flavor? A specific ruling that it does more than Evasion? Yet another thing that is subject to interpretation. Clearly, I'm the DM and I can say whatever I want. If I decide that energy drain is not damage, then it's not. If you decide that Evasion should apply to any damage-like effect because that matches the flavor, then it does. While The Rules of the Game is good material, it's not necessarily canon, and discussions such as this one help people decide how and why to interpret the rules as they do - which is all that many of the posted WoTC columns and customer service postings do. But you have to keep in mind that they're interpreting the rules too, and often many people don't agree with that (especially some of the egregious or conflicting customer service rulings - search for the thread on Crusader granted maneuvers, for an example).
Zherog 02-16-07, 11:47 AM	Well said, Marl.
mvincent 02-16-07, 12:00 PM	While The Rules of the Game is good material, it's not necessarily canonIt is excellent for resolving things that appear subject to interpretation, and it is written by one of the original designers of 3.x (so at the very least, his rulings on the WotC site are more official than our own conjecture... even mine). Mind you, I have no vested interested in how someone else rules in their game, I merely try to share information and thought processes.
Merestil Haye 02-16-07, 01:27 PM	Yes, it makes no sense I know it, the only pausible thing I can say is that you throw yourself to the ground before the explosion covering yourself and then you roll a little. Anyway you must move, rules say that if you dont have enough space to move you cant use evasion.I don't think you understand what I meant. By "move" I meant that you change your position on the board with respect to other creatures and objects. I most certainly did not mean that you shift around in the square when you move. I repeat - you do not move. You cannot use a Reflex save against a Fireball to get out of the area of the Fireball's effect. Now that we understand you must remain in the area of effect at the time it occurs, how then does a Reflex save actually work? Answers must take into account that a paralysed or otherwise helpless creature still gets a Reflex save.
KingMarl 02-16-07, 01:48 PM	... Now that we understand you must remain in the area of effect at the time it occurs, how then does a Reflex save actually work? Answers must take into account that a paralysed or otherwise helpless creature still gets a Reflex save. This is the kind of thing I stay away from like the black hole that it is. D&D is a game, not a simulation. There are no guarantees that it's trying in any way to simulate something that might actually happen, so attempts to justify game rules solely on the basis of "how does it work" are doomed from the outset. Ask me to explain the real-world mechanics of dodging all damage from a fireball (of any kind, not necessarily the spell fireball) and I'll politely decline, just like I'll politely decline to explain how a DC100 Balance check lets you walk on a cloud or how you can be thrown 5 range increments of 150 ft. over a cliff Fling Enemy (20d6 max), fall 500 ft. down (20d6 max), land on a slab of stone, and walk away. After all, 40d6 damage averages to 140 hp. Doesn't take much buff in order to be able to walk away from that.
mvincent 02-16-07, 02:02 PM	Your save represents you finding the area in your space that is not so hot, has less charges per cubic inch, or has a lower level of negative energy, thus taking less damage or no damage. It does not represent you getting out of the way of the effect. Such spells as do allow that have a save of Reflex negates - Blade Barrier, for example.From the 3.5 FAQ: "A Reflex save usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from meeting an untimely fate." Basically, reflex saves are abstracted in D&D. A reflex save could be described as attemping to jump out of the area just as a bomb/grenade/etc. goes off (just like in the movies), but taking only half damage as the blast pushes you along (as if you had just jumped on a mini-trampoline)... despite the fact the PC is still represented in the same square. Or it could be described in dozens of other ways. Heck, according to D&D mechanics anything that blocks line of effect (tower shield, wall corner, door, cubicle wall, pile of debris, curtain, heavy cloak, summer blouse, etc...) technically protects you from just about any area affect* (that isn't specifically a 'spread')... so a vigilant and experienced character could usually find something to protect him, even if it isn't drawn on the map. * yes, a tower shield can protect you from a silence spell, per the D&D rules
Merestil Haye 02-16-07, 02:33 PM	Reflex saves are abstracted, yes I agree. But they don't let you move. They don't let you move for simplicity and playability. In general, Reflex saves are made when it's not your turn. If you moved to avoid the effect, how do we adjudicate that? Movement normally requires a move action. What move action have you got when it's not your turn? Would you provoke AoOs? There are some cases where a creature can be moved when it's not their turn; it is always some choice made by the creature who's action it is that results in the creature being moved. Examples include Bull Rushing and being pulled around in a grapple. Another would be a spell cast with the Explosive Spell feat. Given that they created a feat the effect of which is to knock creatures in the area of spells around, I cannot see any grounds for arguing that AoE spells move their victims around.
mvincent 02-16-07, 04:03 PM	I cannot see any grounds for arguing that AoE spells move their victims around.Game mechanics/battleboard-wise: they absolutely do not. Descriptively; use whatever works for your group or scenario. Also note that evasion does require you to have the ability to move around a bit in order to be used.
Sim_antix 02-16-07, 11:54 PM	Sim - you are so misrepresenting what I've said it's not even funny. How have I misrepresented what you said? I dont mean to dredge up a conflict or anything but I would like to know what I failed to understand if that is the case. Also paralyzed characters getting a reflex save may just be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my life. Thats like a blind character getting a Spot check...
Zherog 02-17-07, 11:21 AM	How have I misrepresented what you said? I dont mean to dredge up a conflict or anything but I would like to know what I failed to understand if that is the case. All I've said on the matter in this thread is that I remember WotC saying somewhere that evasion doesn't apply. But since I can't find it, I agree that by the looking at various rules, evasion should apply. Also paralyzed characters getting a reflex save may just be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my life. Thats like a blind character getting a Spot check... No, not really. A blind creature has no chance of seeing something. A paralyzed character still has a chance for "luck" or "fate" or whatever to intervene. Perhaps the paralyzed character find a cool spot in the fireball. Or whatever. The chance of them being successful is really low, since they use -5 instead of their own Dex mod.
Sim_antix 02-17-07, 11:00 PM	All I've said on the matter in this thread is that I remember WotC saying somewhere that evasion doesn't apply. But since I can't find it, I agree that by the looking at various rules, evasion should apply. Ahhh ok I understand where the confusion is now, I never meant to make it seem like I was singling anyone out, just that one side seemed to have taken a more magic the gathering view of the rules. I apologize if you thought I meant you since clearly you took no strong stance on the issue and instead simply stated that you might have read an article or FAQ stating that evasion would not apply. No, not really. A blind creature has no chance of seeing something. A paralyzed character still has a chance for "luck" or "fate" or whatever to intervene. Perhaps the paralyzed character find a cool spot in the fireball. Or whatever. The chance of them being successful is really low, since they use -5 instead of their own Dex mod. Ok I have to argue this one though because reflexes are the ability to move and react to various things. No movement = no reflex save or at least it should.
Merestil Haye 02-19-07, 11:45 AM	Ok I have to argue this one though because reflexes are the ability to move and react to various things. No movement = no reflex save or at least it should.Except that that is incorrect. Any condition that denies a creature something they would normally be allowed states that restriction in the explanation of the condition. Nowhere does it specify that being unable to move denies you a Reflex save. Therefore you receive the Reflex save. For example, the Paralyzed condition reads.Paralyzed A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can’t swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares.No mention of being denied a Reflex save. By contrast, being Snatched and held in the mouth of a dragon that uses its breath weapon does deny Reflex saves. The feat says.Snatch [General] Prerequisite Size Huge or larger. Benefits The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack. If the creature gets a hold on a creature three or more sizes smaller, it squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage. A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one.(Bolding mine). Thus you gain a Reflex save because the effect grants one, and nothing says you don't get one if you cannot move. The correct conclusion is that Reflex saves are not wholly dependant on the creature's ability to move.
Sim_antix 02-19-07, 03:36 PM	But that doesnt make any SENSE! I dont care what the guys at WotC say if it doesnt make sense then it doesnt belong in my game and I would argue anyone elses either.
Zherog 02-19-07, 04:00 PM	The problem, Sim, is you're choosing to view a Reflex save solely as a creature's ability to actively dodge an attack. However, it's also intended to account for stuff such as luck, divine intervention, and so on. Exactly when can a character make a Reflex saving throw? The saving throw section on the Player’s Handbook says Reflex saves depend on a character’s ability to dodge out of the way. Does that mean you can’t make Reflex saves if you can’t move? A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from meeting an untimely fate. In most cases, you make Reflex saves normally, no matter how bad your circumstances are, but a few conditions interfere with Reflex saves: • If you’ve suffered Dexterity damage or Dexterity drain, you must use your current, lower Dexterity modifier for your Reflex saves. • If you’re cowering, you lose your Dexterity bonus (if any). The maximum Dexterity bonus you can have while cowering is +0, and that affects your Reflex saves accordingly. • If you’re dead, you become an object. Unattended objects can’t make saving throws. • If you’re entangled, your effective Dexterity score drops by –4, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves. • If you’re exhausted, your effective Strength and Dexterity scores drop by –6, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves. • If you’re fatigued, your effective Strength and Dexterity scores drop by –2, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves. • If you’re frightened or panicked, you have a –2 penalty on all saving throws, including Reflex saving throws. • If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively 0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep. Of course, you're free to view a Reflex save as nothing more than dodge stuff matrix-style. But it's clear the rules intend for it to be more than that.
mvincent 02-19-07, 04:03 PM	But that doesnt make any SENSE!Quite a lot of things in D&D don't make sense*: many things are abstracted, and it is after all a fantasy world. Nonetheless, thems the rules. *Examples: - armor makes you harder to hit - experience allows you to absorb more damage - str helps you make touch attacks (but dex does not) - The bigger the creature the harder it is to indentify it etc. I dont care what the boneheads at WotC say if it doesnt make sense then it doesnt belong in my game and I would argue anyone elses either.Now you are being rude. We aren't telling you how to run your game (unlike you, apparently), just what the rules say. We have no vested interest in how you run your game, and no particular concern if you disagree with the rules. I'm certain that this rule doesn't make sense to other players also, even after reading why (above). Simply house-rule the issue for your own game (and ensure to make this known to players) and carry on.
Sim_antix 02-19-07, 04:03 PM	Ok so explain to me how the miraculous factors that save a character lying paralyzed on the ground cease to work when that same character is held in a dragons hand? @ mvincent I didnt mean to sound like I would presume to tell others how to play their game, just that I would make an arguement for why they might wish to change how reflex works based off of my own logical conclusions.
Zherog 02-19-07, 04:33 PM	They don't cease when held in a dragon's hand. Only when held in it's mouth. :P
Merestil Haye 02-19-07, 08:47 PM	Ok so explain to me how the miraculous factors that save a character lying paralyzed on the ground cease to work when that same character is held in a dragons hand?As Zherog said, the Snatch feat denies the creature a reflex save (a) while it is in the dragon's mouth, and (b) against the dragon's breath weapon only. The creature still gets Reflex saves against anything else - such as, for example, a Fireball that affects the part of the creature's space containing the mouth. This might suggest one of the factors that would allow a paralysed or other unmoving creature a saving throw in the general case, but not in the specific one of being held immobile right at the source of the effect. An area effect such as a fireball or dragon's breath is not homogeneous. There are patches in it that have greater impact, and patches that have lesser. The mechanism the game has for determining whether a creature finds itself in one of these relatively cool patches is the saving throw. By denying paralysed creatures a save you deny the possibility that the creature might, by good fortune, the intercession of some deity - call it what you will - find himself in that cool spot. Denying this (it seems to me) goes against the spirit of D&D. There is some support for this in issues of Dragon discussing the 3.0 ruleset, in which the designers stressed that they made a conscious decision to bias ties in favour of the defender. Being held in the mouth of a dragon as it uses its breath means the victim is being held still at the exact point where the effect of the breath is most concentrated, before it has a chance to spread out and develop those "cool spots" that grant other creatures saving throws. It also explains why the held creature gets a save against external effects - they have had that chance to "spread out". Another example that occured to me - the Meteor Swarm spell allows no save to a creature struck by one of the spheres, again because the creature struck is at "ground zero" and receives the concentrated effect before it gets dispersed and inhomogeneous. Hope that gives you some insight as to why the rules may allow it when you don't.
weasel0 02-19-07, 11:41 PM	I see the point about "luck". I see the rule in the book. But it still feels like it's on crack. *Examples: - armor makes you harder to hit - experience allows you to absorb more damage - str helps you make touch attacks (but dex does not) - The bigger the creature the harder it is to indentify it -Armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to damage. Dex makes you harder to hit. -If you think of HP in %, it makes sense that the more xp in battle you have, the harder it will be to effectivly cause dmg against you(thinking of wep dmg as taking a % of HP). It's simply less confusing and easier to utilize whole numbers instead of %. -Dex is the ability to bend or move farther. Strong muscles just make the movements faster..... okay, I'll concede this one. -Bigger creatures are more rare and less likely to be known.
Merestil Haye 02-20-07, 05:01 AM	-Armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to damage. Dex makes you harder to hit.Armour does in fact make you harder to hit. "Hit" in D&D does not mean "make contact with" it means "make an attack roll and equal or exceed the DC of the check".hit Make a successful attack roll. The DC of an attack roll is the target's Armour Class. The armour provides a bonus to that armour class. Therefore the armour increases the DC of the attack roll, making you harder to hit. (Unless of course your attack bypasses armour, in which case all it's doing is providing a cap on the Dex bonus to AC, and making the target easier to hit.)
Sim_antix 02-20-07, 01:17 PM	They don't cease when held in a dragon's hand. Only when held in it's mouth. :P touche (sp?)
Phrennzy 02-20-07, 03:04 PM	My two cents: Evasion works against the energy draining effects because if you make your save, you take only half the level loss. So you should be able to evade the whole thing. It may not make complete sense in rules of what is or is not damage, but it is consistent with evasion and half-damage saving throws. This game makes my head hurt. What's my THAC0 again?
Merestil Haye 02-20-07, 03:50 PM	What's my THAC0 again?Are you a warrior type, wizard type, priest type or rogue type? Assuming rogue, it'd be 20-Int((level-1)/2). :P
KainBathory 02-20-07, 04:53 PM	My two cents: Evasion works against the energy draining effects because if you make your save, you take only half the level loss. So you should be able to evade the whole thing.While your end conclusion may or may not be correct, the method of arrival certainly isn't. The halving of the effect is only one third of what is required for Evasion to trigger. That effect must also have allowed a Reflex Save (which the Evading character passed) and the effect must deal damage. I don't know of a specific example, of the top of my head, but if some creature had, say, a breath weapon which caused the target to be Entangled for four rounds on a failed Reflex save, but only for two rounds on a passed Reflex save, Evasion would not help the target at all. So the crux of the issue, I suppose, is the question: "Is energy drain considered damage?" Unfortunately, I've been unable to find anything which gives a clearly definitive "Yes" or "No" on the subject in the SRD. However, I have found that the SRD defines damage as, "A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect." Since energy drain bestows negative levels which, in turn, decrease hit points (not to mention the decreases in "other aspects of the character"), I'm rather sure that energy drain counts as damage. --Kain
weasel0 02-21-07, 12:32 AM	So the next question then is, "Is energy drain an injury, illness, or magical effect?"
KainBathory 02-21-07, 08:58 AM	So the next question then is, "Is energy drain an injury, illness, or magical effect?"Given that Energy Drain is most usually the result of a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability, I'd have to believe it falls under the category of "magical effect." Anyone know of an instance where energy drain is brought about through non-magical means? --Kain
KingMarl 02-21-07, 02:28 PM	So the crux of the issue, I suppose, is the question: "Is energy drain considered damage?" Unfortunately, I've been unable to find anything which gives a clearly definitive "Yes" or "No" on the subject in the SRD. However, I have found that the SRD defines damage as, "A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect." Since energy drain bestows negative levels which, in turn, decrease hit points (not to mention the decreases in "other aspects of the character"), I'm rather sure that energy drain counts as damage. --Kain Where's damage defined that clearly in the SRD? I've been looking for it, and I can't find it. Then again, I'm looking on d20srd.org, perhaps I should look directly in the SRD. I'm always a little leary of all-encompassing definitions, however, and that one is pretty darn encompassing.
KainBathory 02-21-07, 03:32 PM	Where's damage defined that clearly in the SRD? I've been looking for it, and I can't find it. Then again, I'm looking on d20srd.org, perhaps I should look directly in the SRD. I'm always a little leary of all-encompassing definitions, however, and that one is pretty darn encompassing.My apologies-- it's the PHB glossary entry for Damage (also found in the Online Glossary at the D&D homepage). I had assumed that, since it was in the PHB, it would also be available in the SRD. However, after having looked through both d20srd.org and the Raven/Stephen H. collection on systemreferencedocuments.org, I was unable to find this definition. But, yeah, it's rather all-encompassing. For example, if one character uses Dispel to get rid of an opponent's Bear's Endurance, that results in a decrease in the opponent's Hit Points when his Con returns to normal. By this definition, that constitutes "damage." How many people would have figured you could damage an opponent by casting Dispel? --Kain
mvincent 02-21-07, 03:40 PM	My apologies-- it's the PHB glossary entry for Damage (also found in the Online Glossary at the D&D homepage). Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=D)
KingMarl 02-21-07, 05:16 PM	Awesome. So here's the key part for me: Damage points are deducted from whatever character attribute has been harmed -- lethal and nonlethal damage from current hit points, and ability damage from the relevant ability score). Damage heals naturally over time, but can also be negated wholly or partially by curative magic. First, it talks about damage points and how they're deducted from hp or from the relevant ability. Nothing there to imply it's talking about negative levels. Second, it says it heals naturally over time - negative levels do not heal naturally over time. You're allowed one save, but then they're permanent unless restored. So, based on the definition of damage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=D) from the WoTC glossary, I'd still stick by my decision that negative levels are not damage.
KainBathory 02-22-07, 09:11 AM	First, it talks about damage points and how they're deducted from hp or from the relevant ability. Nothing there to imply it's talking about negative levels....except that one component of a negative level is a decrease of five hit points. Second, it says it heals naturally over time - negative levels do not heal naturally over time. You're allowed one save, but then they're permanent unless restored.Negative levels can and do heal naturally over time. The fact that there is a further save which might result in permanence doesn't negate the fact that, after 24 hours, the body naturally attempts to counteract the effect. --Kyuzo
JustinA 02-22-07, 10:49 AM	Quite a lot of things in D&D don't make sense*: many things are abstracted, and it is after all a fantasy world. Nonetheless, thems the rules. *Examples: - armor makes you harder to hit - experience allows you to absorb more damage - str helps you make touch attacks (but dex does not) - The bigger the creature the harder it is to indentify it etc. Armor makes you harder to hit for damage. This makes perfect sense. (Note: You're attempting to conflate the precise definition of "hit" in the D&D system with a colloquial use of the word. This is silly. Don't do it.) Experience allows you to mitigate damage taken, which is represented by higher hit points. This makes perfect sense. The other two I'll give you. Basing knowledge of a monster on its HD is a ridiculous and busted mechanic. And touch attacks should almost certainly be resolved with Dex as a modifier. Awesome. First, it talks about damage points and how they're deducted from hp or from the relevant ability. Nothing there to imply it's talking about negative levels. Actually, what it says is: "Damage points are deducted from whatever CHARACTER ATTRIBUTE has been harmed..." (emphasis added) The term "attribute" isn't conveniently defined anywhere, AFAICT. But doing a quick search through the SRD turns up the following uses: "Bonus Types: Many spells give their subjects bonuses on ability scores, Armor Class, attacks, and other attributes." "Stacking Effects: Spells that give bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves." It also appears in the Item Ego table (used as a catch-all to describe ability bonuses and special abilities an intelligent item might possess). In addition to the glossary entry, therefore, we have "attribute" being used to include hit points, ability scores, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, AC, and (possibly) special abilities. The use of the term, therefore, seems clear to me: At the very least, it seems designed to include any numerical value used to describe a character's abilities. It most likely is meant to be a catch-all term for "any value which can be used to describe a character or manipulated to effect a character". In either case, it's clear that a character's level would be considered one of their attributes. And that negative levels, which subtract themselves from the character's level, thus constitute damage. And, since they constitute damage, they can be avoided using the evasion ability.
KingMarl 02-22-07, 12:45 PM	Sure! I understand the logic that's being used in a myriad of posts to define negative levels as level 'damage'. I just don't think it's quite so clear as it's made out to be. At this point, by your definition, damage is "anything that lowers any characteristic of a character." You could argue that a slow spell caused damage using that same logic - after all, it lowers your movement, and your movement rate is an attribute of your character, therefore it's clear that slow causes damage. We'll just call it "movement damage." Or consider a spellthief - since a spellthief can steal a spell-like ability (so can a hellbreaker, for that matter), which is an 'attribute,' I guess the spellthief would be causing "spell-like ability damage". In the general sense of the English language, I'll allow that your ability to move or use your spell like abililty has been 'damaged', but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is damage in the specific sense that Evasion is referring to. I don't think that making a Reflex save to avoid a tanglefoot bag will cause Evasion to kick in (after all, if you make your save, your 'movement damage' is reduced to half), and I don't think that it's obvious that just because a numerical item (your level) is being lowered by an effect (shadow dragon breath) that Evasion automatically counts.
KainBathory 02-22-07, 01:33 PM	I don't think that making a Reflex save to avoid a tanglefoot bag will cause Evasion to kick in (after all, if you make your save, your 'movement damage' is reduced to half), and I don't think that it's obvious that just because a numerical item (your level) is being lowered by an effect (shadow dragon breath) that Evasion automatically counts.Negative levels don't just lower your effective level, however. Hit point damage is one of the components of a negative level. The effects are as follows: -1 on all skill checks and ability checks. -1 on attack rolls and saving throws. -5 hit points. -1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level). --Kyuzo
KingMarl 02-22-07, 08:30 PM	Right. But all of this reads to me like an argument made by a player who wants to turn Evasion into an uber-feat. Yes, a side effect of negative levels is loss of hit points. That does not make negative levels equal to hit point damage, any more than a tanglefoot bag is equal to a reduced movement rate. It's a side effect of the actual thing.
KainBathory 02-23-07, 01:17 AM	Right. But all of this reads to me like an argument made by a player who wants to turn Evasion into an uber-feat. Yes, a side effect of negative levels is loss of hit points. That does not make negative levels equal to hit point damage, any more than a tanglefoot bag is equal to a reduced movement rate. It's a side effect of the actual thing.It's not a side effect. It's part of what defines a negative level. A "side effect" is something that occurs indirectly as a result of something else. For example, a side effect of Dexterity damage is that one's Reflex Save is diminished. However, the fact that the character's Dexterity score is diminished is not a side effect of Dexterity damage-- it IS Dexterity damage. Similarly, the -5 hp of a negative level is not a side effect of the negative level. It is a direct effect the negative level. It's not like you got a negative level and your HP just happened to decrease, as well. The decrease in HP is a distinct component of the negative level. --Kain
Zherog 02-23-07, 11:49 AM	I'll point out, I guess, that your hit points aren't damaged, they're reduced. Damage can be healed.
KainBathory 02-23-07, 12:20 PM	I'll point out, I guess, that your hit points aren't damaged, they're reduced. Damage can be healed.Ah-ha! There's a fine point! You are absolutely correct! There's the text that I've been glossing over this whole time: it is a -5 penalty to HP. It is not a loss of 5 hit points, as I had thought. As such, King Marl was correct. The HP damage is a side effect of negative levels, not a direct effect. This realization helps to turn the scales, for me. Though I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that I am once again unsure if energy drain constitutes damage, heheheheh... --Kain
JustinA 02-24-07, 03:17 PM	I don't think that making a Reflex save to avoid a tanglefoot bag will cause Evasion to kick in (after all, if you make your save, your 'movement damage' is reduced to half), Actually, that seems like a perfectly reasonable use of Evasion to me. Looking at the Evasion ability, it's pretty clear what it's designed to represent: The rogue's ability to sneak their way through a battlefield and narrowly avoid area of effect attacks. I don't see any reason why the rogue shouldn't be more adept at avoiding tanglefoot bags than the fighter. And since that's the conclusion one is forced to accept as the by-the-book ruling, it would take a strong argument that having rogue's avoid getting their feet glued down by tanglefoot bags is inherently unbalancing to convince me to ignore the book and change the rule. Now perhaps one can quibble that the definition of damage in the PHB is overly broad. But I don't see any reason to say so other than a personal predisposition.
KainBathory 02-26-07, 09:46 AM	I'll point out, I guess, that your hit points aren't damaged, they're reduced. Damage can be healed.I know I commented on this once, but I've realized a few further things which have settled my mind on the issue, now. As I mentioned in my last post, Zherog is absolutely correct-- negative levels impose a penalty upon HP, they do not directly damage the target. In fact, all the numerical effects of a negative level are penalties. None are actual reductions. As such, they do not qualify as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character," and are therefore unable to be considered damage by the RAW. So, I now have my answer. Evasion will not aid a PC against a Shadow Dragon's breath weapon. Thanks, everyone! You've been incredibly helpful! --Kain
Sim_antix 02-26-07, 11:35 AM	I know I commented on this once, but I've realized a few further things which have settled my mind on the issue, now. As I mentioned in my last post, Zherog is absolutely correct-- negative levels impose a penalty upon HP, they do not directly damage the target. In fact, all the numerical effects of a negative level are penalties. None are actual reductions. As such, they do not qualify as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character," and are therefore unable to be considered damage by the RAW. So, I now have my answer. Evasion will not aid a PC against a Shadow Dragon's breath weapon. Thanks, everyone! You've been incredibly helpful! --Kain But thats the WRONG ANSWER. Seriously ask sage advice and tell me he gives you a different answer than me.
mvincent 02-26-07, 11:59 AM	This is silly. Don't do it.Telling people what to do appears presumptuous, so 'don't do it'. ;) Experience allows you to mitigate damage taken, which is represented by higher hit points. This makes perfect sense.To you perhaps, but not to everyone (same with the topic of this thread). Note: I am considered fairly experienced in real life combat (military, police work, martial arts, medical experience, etc.), and still certainly consider D&D cinematic/abstract (i.e. not realistic) in this respect, but I'm nonetheless glad it works for you.
KainBathory 02-26-07, 12:08 PM	But thats the WRONG ANSWER. Seriously ask sage advice and tell me he gives you a different answer than me.To be honest, I went back and read over the different posts you made in this thread, and I really didn't find anything that bore any greater substance than one person arguing that the rules of the game shouldn't matter because he didn't feel they "made sense." In fact, throughout this thread, you haven't quoted anything from the actual rules of the game-- not even once-- in order to support your position. Not only that, in a few different posts, you incorrectly claimed that the Shadow Dragon's breath weapon is a cone of negative energy, when it is in fact a cone of energy drain-- two completely different things. However, in the interest of fairness, I'll definitely put forward the challenge that if you can show me how, by the Rules-as-Written, energy drain is to be considered "damage" for the purpose of game effects, I will most certainly recant my position. --Kain
mvincent 02-26-07, 12:18 PM	But thats the WRONG ANSWER. Seriously ask sage advice and tell me he gives you a different answer than me.While I would allow KainBathory his literal interpretation, I would have to agree that the Sage is unlikely to agree with it. As mentioned in the 2nd post of this thread, the original Sage (and designer of 3.0 D&D), has specifically stated (in a Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) article about sneak attacks) that energy drain (aka negative levels) counted as 'damage' that sneak attacks can be added to. This is an established concept in D&D that I rarely see contested (and never by experienced rules lawyers).
mvincent 02-26-07, 12:19 PM	you incorrectly claimed that the Shadow Dragon's breath weapon is a cone of negative energy, when it is in fact a cone of energy drain-- two completely different things.That is actually incorrect. In D&D, energy drain is indeed negative energy. This is also clarified in the article I provided a link to. When making a sneak attack with energy drain, the extra sneak attack dice are added as negative energy damage. As mentioned, I have no vested interest in how you play the game, but you should have access to accurate information. I am considered an experienced rules lawyer here. Check out my post count... the majority come from objective and well researched rules answers... you could do a google search to see examples of some of my previous answers to confirm this.
Sim_antix 02-26-07, 12:40 PM	I was a little dumbfounded that I was being told i was wrong for calling it negative energy but hey whatevers clever...
JustinA 02-26-07, 12:40 PM	However, in the interest of fairness, I'll definitely put forward the challenge that if you can show me how, by the Rules-as-Written, energy drain is to be considered "damage" for the purpose of game effects, I will most certainly recant my position. This has been done: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11556210&postcount=62 As such, they do not qualify as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character," and are therefore unable to be considered damage by the RAW. Perhaps part of your problem is that you're misreading the RAW. Perhaps what you're "quoting" there can actually be found in the RAW somewhere, but it's not the definition of damage given in the RAW. Specifically: "Aspects of a character" is a vague phrase with absolutely no meaning in terms of the rules. But even given that misquote, I fail to see how you can conclude that negative levels (which decrease the character's current level) do not "decrease [an] aspect of a character". What definition of "other aspect of a character" are you proposing here?
JustinA 02-26-07, 12:44 PM	Telling people what to do appears presumptuous, so 'don't do it'. ;) Your hypocrisy isn't rendered cute with a smiley face. Feel free to do it again if you want to, but do it knowing exactly what you look like to other people. To you perhaps, but not to everyone (same with the topic of this thread). Some people think 2 + 2 = 5. That doesn't make it a topic people can legitimately agree to disagree about. It makes them wrong. Note: I am considered fairly experienced in real life combat (military, police work, martial arts, medical experience, etc.), and still certainly consider D&D cinematic/abstract (i.e. not realistic) in this respect, but I'm nonetheless glad it works for you. Well, duh. At high levels hit points represent an ability to mitigate and avoid damage which is superhuman. This doesn't mean that the mechanic "doesn't make sense". Similarly, at high levels characters can achieve a proficiency with the Jump skill which allows them to perform superhuman jumps which no one in the real world will ever be capable of achieving. This doesn't mean that the Jump skill "doesn't make sense" -- it means that high level D&D characters are capable of superhuman feats. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
KainBathory 02-26-07, 12:46 PM	That is actually incorrect. In D&D, energy drain is indeed negative energy. This is also clarified in the article I provided a link to. When making a sneak attack with energy drain, the extra sneak attack dice are added as negative energy damage.While I certainly respect Skip Williams, I had always been under the impression that his "Rules of the Game" articles were helpful, but not able to effect official changes to the Rules-As-Written. Am I wrong about that? If so, then his altered definition of damage-- which specifically includes Energy Drain-- is certainly all the convincing I need. It's simply not something which seems to be supported by the SRD. As regards the sneak attack damage, Skip never says that Energy Drain actually is Negative Energy. He only says that spells which confer energy drain or ability damage should deal any extra sneak attack damage as negative energy, instead. --Kain
Sim_antix 02-26-07, 12:51 PM	As regards the sneak attack damage, Skip never says that Energy Drain actually is Negative Energy. He only says that spells which confer energy drain or ability damage should deal any extra sneak attack damage as negative energy, instead. --Kain Sneak attack damage does the same type of damage as the base attacks damage type therefor if the sneak attack damage should be negative energy then the base damage must be what? To put it more simply 2 + 2 = ?
Zherog 02-26-07, 01:09 PM	I know I commented on this once, but I've realized a few further things which have settled my mind on the issue, now. As I mentioned in my last post, Zherog is absolutely correct-- negative levels impose a penalty upon HP, they do not directly damage the target. In fact, all the numerical effects of a negative level are penalties. None are actual reductions. As such, they do not qualify as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character," and are therefore unable to be considered damage by the RAW. So, I now have my answer. Evasion will not aid a PC against a Shadow Dragon's breath weapon. Thanks, everyone! You've been incredibly helpful! --Kain I want to be clear, again, about my position. Because I don't want a misunderstanding of what I'm saying to cause one of your players to die a gruesome death (I'm not against gruesome PC deaths; just ones caused by misunderstanding me :D ). I vaguely recall reading somewhere that evasion does not apply to a shadow dragon's breath weapon, because the breath weapon does not deal damage; it inflicts negative levels. However, I have been unable to dig up even the slightest hint of that anywhere, so it's possible I'm imagining it. Given the lack of a quote that I can point to, my inclination would be to lean in favor of the PC in this case, and allow evasion to work. You're certainly free to lean the other direction. Just make sure your players understand exactly how you're going to rule. Actually, that seems like a perfectly reasonable use of Evasion to me. No, it's not. [b]Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. Note the underlined part. Nothing at all about a tanglefoot bag inflicts damage. Therefore evasion doesn't work. I don't see any reason why the rogue shouldn't be more adept at avoiding tanglefoot bags than the fighter. The rogue already is more adept at avoiding tanglefoot bags, because her base Reflex save is higher than the fighter's. Your hypocrisy isn't rendered cute with a smiley face. Feel free to do it again if you want to, but do it knowing exactly what you look like to other people. *shrug* I found it slightly amusing. To each their own, I suppose.
KainBathory 02-26-07, 01:11 PM	Perhaps part of your problem is that you're misreading the RAW. Perhaps what you're "quoting" there can actually be found in the RAW somewhere, but it's not the definition of damage given in the RAW.Actually, it is. Take a look at page 307 of your PHB. That was an exact quote of the RAW. Specifically: "Aspects of a character" is a vague phrase with absolutely no meaning in terms of the rules.Completely agree, here. Would have been nice if they'd given a slightly clearer definition. But even given that misquote, I fail to see how you can conclude that negative levels (which decrease the character's current level) do not "decrease [an] aspect of a character". What definition of "other aspect of a character" are you proposing here?Negative levels do not decrease the character's current level. They impose penalties on Attack Rolls, Saving Throws, Skill Checks, Hit Points, and rolls based on the character's effective Level. And, according to the RAW (PHB p310) a penalty is simply another term for a negative modifier to a die roll. None of the character's statistics is being decreased. EDIT: I need to thank JustinA for doubting the definition of Damage that I posted earlier as being from the RAW. While that definition was, indeed, correct, I found that the definition I've been purporting for negative levels was incorrect. I had stated that negative levels impose a penalty on a number of different things, including Hit Points-- a definition which I had gleaned from the Glossary on the D&D Home Page. However, when checking on the PHB page number for the Damage glossary entry, I noticed that the glossary entry for Negative Levels in the PHB differs from that on the website. On page 310 of the PHB, the glossary entry for Negative Levels indeed affirms that Hit Points are lost, and not penalised as the website's glossary indicates. As such, we are once again back to the point where Negative Levels do, indeed, cause a direct decrease in Hit Points. That would directly fit the definition that the PHB gives for "damage," and would make a Shadow Dragon's breath subject to Evasion. Good grief-- my apologies to everyone. I don't usually flip-flop so much in these sorts of rules debates. --Kain
Sim_antix 02-26-07, 01:12 PM	No worries and I apologize for coming off so strong I just care that everyone has correct imformation available for making rulings.
mvincent 02-26-07, 01:26 PM	While I certainly respect Skip Williams, I had always been under the impression that his "Rules of the Game" articles were helpful, but not able to effect official changes to the Rules-As-Written. Am I wrong about that? Like any supplement the RotG can add rules, and it can also clarify (i.e. rule on) items that are subject to interpretation (which this seems to be). Indeed, that's seems to be its (and the FAQ's) primary purpose. It would probably be better if the information were instead placed into the errata, but in practice that happens only rarely. However, the RotG cannot change the actual core rules. In cases where an item is not subject to interpretation and the RotG contradicts the core rules, I generally write in to make WotC aware of the discrepancy (and they usually correct it). Do you believe this issue is not subject to interpretation?
KainBathory 02-26-07, 02:07 PM	Do you believe this issue is not subject to interpretation?Now that I've realized the mistake that I'd make with the definition of negative levels, I don't think it's subject to interpretation-- but then, I no longer think that the Rules of the Game article improperly classified energy drain as damage, either. So, I guess it all works out, hehehehe... Thanks again, everyone! I really appreciate all the input, here. This kind of a debate definitely helps me to get the ol' brain working up to speed. --Kain
KingMarl 02-26-07, 02:33 PM	Now that I've realized the mistake that I'd make with the definition of negative levels, I don't think it's subject to interpretation-- but then, I no longer think that the Rules of the Game article improperly classified energy drain as damage, either. Depends on where you look. I can find references that describe the modifications due to level drain as a 'loss', and references that describe the modfications as a 'penalty.' I note specifically that all definitions I've seen of negative level itself refer to the alteration as a 'penalty.' Only when it's being referred to elsewhere (for example in the online glossary about energy drain) is it referred to as a 'loss'. The PHB entry for negative level, the SRD and the online glossary all agree that the adjustments are penalties, and do not use the vague term 'loss' to describe the adjustment.
KainBathory 02-26-07, 03:09 PM	Depends on where you look. I can find references that describe the modifications due to level drain as a 'loss', and references that describe the modfications as a 'penalty.' I note specifically that all definitions I've seen of negative level itself refer to the alteration as a 'penalty.' Only when it's being referred to elsewhere (for example in the online glossary about energy drain) is it referred to as a 'loss'. The PHB entry for negative level, the SRD and the online glossary all agree that the adjustments are penalties, and do not use the vague term 'loss' to describe the adjustment.Well, that's peculiar. My PHB's glossary entry (with added emphasis) reads: negative level: A loss of vital energy resulting from energy drain, spells, magic items, or magical effects. For each negative level gained, a creature takes a –1 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, loses 5 hit points, and takes a –1 penalty to effective level. (That is, whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce its value by 1 for each negative level.) ...whereas both the website's glossary entry and the SRD read: A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained. -1 on all skill checks and ability checks. -1 on attack rolls and saving throws. -5 hit points. -1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level). That said, it wouldn't make much sense to have a Hit Point Penalty. Penalties are, by definition, negative modifiers to dice rolls. As far as I know, there are no dice rolls based on Hit Points. --Kain
KingMarl 02-26-07, 03:39 PM	Argh. The PHB does use the lame 'loss' descriptor. I missed that because it was in the middle of a list of other things, all of which are penalties. As you noted, both the SRD and the glossary (with are more recent than the PHB) specifically include it in a list of penalties. That said, it wouldn't make much sense to have a Hit Point Penalty. Penalties are, by definition, negative modifiers to dice rolls. As far as I know, there are no dice rolls based on Hit Points. I see no reason why hit point loss can't be a penalty. Ability scores can be subject to both penalties and damage (for example, Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty, while Phantasmal Assailants (Spell Compendium) is damage. As a side note - that means Phantasmal Assailants is far, far nastier, as it would stack, being damage, rather than a penalty. Pretty good for such a low-level spell, even if the save would be easy.
JustinA 02-26-07, 04:13 PM	Note the underlined part. Nothing at all about a tanglefoot bag inflicts damage. Therefore evasion doesn't work. Since the post you're replying to was responding to the question raised by someone else of whether or not reduced movement constitutes damage (based on the definition of damage given in the PHB glossary), you're essentially saying: "That's not true 'cause I say it isn't." That's very nice, I suppose. But not a particularly useful contribution to the discussion, all things considered. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Zherog 02-26-07, 04:18 PM	Your rudeness aside, perhaps you'd like to show me where in the tanglefoot bag's description it mentions inflicting damage?
JustinA 02-26-07, 04:25 PM	Actually, it is. Take a look at page 307 of your PHB. That was an exact quote of the RAW. Mea culpa. I was looking at the quote later in that same entry where the term "character attribute" is used and somehow managed to completely miss the first sentence. That being the case, it would seem that "other aspects of the character" should be treated as synonymous with "character attribute". Negative levels do not decrease the character's current level. They impose penalties on Attack Rolls, Saving Throws, Skill Checks, Hit Points, and rolls based on the character's effective Level. Hmm. I can see how you can argue that position. However, I think you're ignoring the fact that one of the penalties is, in fact, a reduction in the character's effective level. You list it, but you don't seem to be thinking about what that means. By comparison, ability damage reduces your effective ability score. This causes various penalties (depending on the ability score effected) and if you hit an effective ability score of 0 more serious consequences kick in (in the case of Constitution loss, you die). Negative levels similarly reduce your effective level. This causes various penalties and if you hit an effective level of 0 you die. Neither ability damage nor negative levels actually affect your ability score or level (in the sense that, if the damage is repaired, you'll be returned to your normal ability score or level; but things which will repair a damaged ability score or level do not allow you to raise your ability score or levels above their normal value). Good grief-- my apologies to everyone. I don't usually flip-flop so much in these sorts of rules debates. EDIT: You posted your update while my reply was still sitting in draft. Yeah, this issue seems needlessly complicated. I think, all things considered, that energy drain and negative levels were clearly intended to be damage. Similarly, I think it's clear that ability drain was intended to be damage. That being said, I think relying on the PHB Glossary definition of "energy drain" is a mistake. I would argue that the definitive entry would be the DMG entry, which does refer to the hit point loss as a penalty. Hmm... I was going to post that it also makes sense to refer to the hit point reduction as a "penalty" instead of a "loss" because lost hit points can be healed with a cure spell, for example, whereas negative levels should really lower your maximum hit points. But then I flipped over to the description of ability damage and discovered that hit points lost due to Constitution damage are in fact lost and not penalized. So, at this point, I'm not even clear what the distinction between a "penalty" to hit points and a "loss" to hit points would be. Looking at the definition of "penalty" in the glossary reveals a great deal of imprecision here: A penalty is "a negative modifier to a die roll". That's the only definition given (although typing and stacking are also discussed). So, technically, following that definition, there can't be such a thing as a "penalty" to hit points.
KainBathory 02-26-07, 04:26 PM	Your rudeness aside, perhaps you'd like to show me where in the tanglefoot bag's description it mentions inflicting damage?Earlier in the discussion, the PHB's rather all-encompassing definition of "damage" was brought up (specifically the "other aspects of a character" clause). Since Tanglefoot Bags reduce a character's movement value, they were used to illustrate the absurd extremity of such a phrase. Certainly, one's Movement Speed value can be considered an "aspect of a character," and Tanglefoot Bags do decrease Speed, so by strict definition it would be considered damage. --Kain
JustinA 02-26-07, 04:29 PM	Your rudeness aside, perhaps you'd like to show me where in the tanglefoot bag's description it mentions inflicting damage? Perhaps you'd care to read the thread before posting to it? :rolleyes: But since you'd rather rudely throw non sequiturs and bald assertions around than bother to be informed in your contributions, allow me to give you a couple of pointers so that your next reply can actually be a meaningful one: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11556210&postcount=62 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11557227&postcount=63 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11577488&postcount=69 Good luck! :cool:
KainBathory 02-26-07, 04:34 PM	Mea culpa. I was looking at the quote later in that same entry where the term "character attribute" is used and somehow managed to completely miss the first sentence.No worries. It's certainly confusing trying to find things through so many different sources, and I've had my fair share of misread rules in this thread, too. So, at this point, I'm not even clear what the distinction between a "penalty" to hit points and a "loss" to hit points would be. Looking at the definition of "penalty" in the glossary reveals a great deal of imprecision here: A penalty is "a negative modifier to a die roll". That's the only definition given (although typing and stacking are also discussed). So, technically, following that definition, there can't be such a thing as a "penalty" to hit points.I am similarly confused by this. As far as I know, there are no rolls based on Hit Points, so inflicting a penalty to Hit Points would seem useless to me. --Kain
mvincent 02-26-07, 04:43 PM	I don't think it's subject to interpretation-- but then, I no longer think that the Rules of the Game article improperly classified energy drain as damage, either.Interesting. That makes you more assured of my position than I am, but I feel that reasoning puts to much stock in the precision of the core authors. I merely feel that the core rules are subject to some interpretation here (else this thread likely wouldn't exist), and that the RotG is suitable for resolving such ambiguity. It seems like the most clear and specific ruling on the subject.
KingMarl 02-26-07, 04:44 PM	No worries. It's certainly confusing trying to find things through so many different sources, and I've had my fair share of misread rules in this thread, too. Haven't we all :) I am similarly confused by this. As far as I know, there are no rolls based on Hit Points, so inflicting a penalty to Hit Points would seem useless to me. Well, as I illustrated earlier, there are penalties to abilities, such as that caused by a Ray of Enfeeblement. One significant difference between a penalty and damage would be that you can't cure a penalty - it would have to be removed in some other way. One interesting thing I've observed is that all penalties seem to have durations - the Ray of Enfeeblement, for example, lasts 1 min/level. Negative levels last 24 hours. Other spells such as bane, crushing despair and the lot also have durations. Damage, on the other hand, typically has a healing rate associated with it, like that given for hit point damage and ability damage, rather than a duration after which it just 'goes away.'
WizO_Cat 02-26-07, 06:31 PM	Ok, for those taking part in it, let's keep the posts on the subject of the thread and not other guests. That goes to those on both sides of the argument. Otherwise, we're going to have no other choice than to start handing out disciplinary actions, including Official Warns. Fair Warning!
KainBathory 02-26-07, 06:33 PM	Well, as I illustrated earlier, there are penalties to abilities, such as that caused by a Ray of Enfeeblement. One significant difference between a penalty and damage would be that you can't cure a penalty - it would have to be removed in some other way.Sorry, I actually meant to reply to your earlier post about this, but forgot. I had similarly thought of a Dragonfire Adept's Weakening Breath ability. The difference is that a Strength Penalty acts as a negative modifier for Strength-based rolls, and as such makes perfect sense alongside the definition for Penalties. However, there are no rolls which are based on HP, and since a Penalty does not actually reduce the score being penalised, there would be no tangible effect from having an HP penalty. --Kain
Zherog 02-26-07, 07:09 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11556210&postcount=62 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11557227&postcount=63 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11577488&postcount=69 :bored: :rofl: So I guess I'll just go ahead and say it again: It doesn't matter how you spin it, beat it, or dress it up. Evasion does not apply to a tanglefoot bag.
KingMarl 02-26-07, 08:45 PM	Sorry, I actually meant to reply to your earlier post about this, but forgot. I had similarly thought of a Dragonfire Adept's Weakening Breath ability. The difference is that a Strength Penalty acts as a negative modifier for Strength-based rolls, and as such makes perfect sense alongside the definition for Penalties. However, there are no rolls which are based on HP, and since a Penalty does not actually reduce the score being penalised, there would be no tangible effect from having an HP penalty. I think there's a pretty obvious tangible effect - you're down hit points, kind of like the opposite of temporary hit points. Think of them as temporary negative hit points. But anyways, there's a heck of a lot more that a strength penalty affects than your rolls. Like how much you can lift, for example, and how quickly you're encumbered. And consider a dexterity penalty - you could lose some of your feats (true for strength too, for that matter). So it's clearly more than just an effect on die rolls.
KainBathory 02-27-07, 09:10 AM	I think there's a pretty obvious tangible effect - you're down hit points, kind of like the opposite of temporary hit points. Think of them as temporary negative hit points. But anyways, there's a heck of a lot more that a strength penalty affects than your rolls. Like how much you can lift, for example, and how quickly you're encumbered. And consider a dexterity penalty - you could lose some of your feats (true for strength too, for that matter). So it's clearly more than just an effect on die rolls.No, no. Ability Damage and Ability Drain can do this, but not Ability Penalties. That's what separates a Penalty from Ability Damage or Drain. Penalties are very specifically defined as negative modifiers to dice rolls-- they do not affect the actual score, itself. A Fighter with 18 Strength and a -6 Str Penalty still has 18 Strength. However, any rolls he makes based on Strength suffer a penalty as if his Strength were 12. He can still carry just as much without being encumbered as before-- only his Attacks, Climb checks, Jump checks, Swim checks, et cetera are affected. If, instead, that Fighter had taken 6 points of Strength Damage, then his Strength would have been effectively reduced to a 12. In this case, since his Strength is actually a 12, now, his load-limits are decreased and certain Feats may be lost, as well as the natural affect such losses would give to Strength-based rolls. --Kain
Merestil Haye 02-27-07, 10:07 AM	A Fighter with 18 Strength and a -6 Str Penalty still has 18 Strength. However, any rolls he makes based on Strength suffer a penalty as if his Strength were 12. He can still carry just as much without being encumbered as before-- only his Attacks, Climb checks, Jump checks, Swim checks, et cetera are affected.Not true, I'm afraid. A character with a penalty to his Strength has a negative modifier to his Strength. Modifiers to an ability change that ability for all purposes that the modifier does not specifically exclude (this generally comes into play with bonuses but it's equally true of penalties). Does Ray of Exhaustion specify that the penalty does not apply for the purposes of calculating carrying capacity? No. The only restriction is "not below 1". The penalty applies to all aspects of the character's Str, including carrying capacity.
KainBathory 02-27-07, 10:18 AM	Not true, I'm afraid. A character with a penalty to his Strength has a negative modifier to his Strength.No. He has a negative modifier to Strength-based rolls. Penalties are, very specifically, negative modifiers to rolls (PHB, p310). Modifiers to an ability change that ability for all purposes that the modifier does not specifically exclude (this generally comes into play with bonuses but it's equally true of penalties). Does Ray of Exhaustion specify that the penalty does not apply for the purposes of calculating carrying capacity? No. The only restriction is "not below 1". The penalty applies to all aspects of the character's Str, including carrying capacity.Do you mean a Ray of Enfeeblement? It does not need to explicitly state that. It is inherent in the definition of a penalty. If it were meant to affect all aspects of the character's Strength, the Ray would have dealt Strength Damage instead of simply giving a Strength Penalty. The RAW is very specific as to what a Penalty is. It does not actually alter the score which it is penalising. --Kain
Zherog 02-27-07, 10:48 AM	Sorry, Kain. I agree with Merestil. The penalty is applied directly to the Strength score. A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1. The last line also gives a clue that the penalty is being applied directly to the Strength score.
JustinA 02-27-07, 10:52 AM	So I guess I'll just go ahead and say it again: It doesn't matter how you spin it, beat it, or dress it up. Evasion does not apply to a tanglefoot bag. "That's not true 'cause I say it isn't" still isn't a compelling argument, Zherog. Let me know when you actually have something meaningful to contribute to the thread.
Zherog 02-27-07, 10:56 AM	nvm. No worth arguing over...
KainBathory 02-27-07, 11:09 AM	Sorry, Kain. I agree with Merestil. The penalty is applied directly to the Strength score. The last line also gives a clue that the penalty is being applied directly to the Strength score.I agree. The penalty is to Strength. But what is a penalty, in D&D terms? It is not a reduction of the score. It is a negative modifier to a die roll. --Kain
JustinA 02-27-07, 11:12 AM	The RAW is very specific as to what a Penalty is. It does not actually alter the score which it is penalising. The argument you're making is perfectly correct if we accept the glossary entry of what a "penalty" is. But I think it's clear that the glossary definition of "penalty" is in error. For example, from the DMG pg. 290: "Some spells or abilities impose an effective ability score reduction which is different from ability score loss. Any such reduction disappears at the end of the spell's or ability's duration, and the ability score immediately returns to its former value." Now that paragraphy has to be talking about spells like ray of enfeeblement. What else could it possibly be talking about? And, as Zherog points out, ray of enfeeblement specifically refers to the penalty as "dropping" the subject's Strength score. This is a problem I've run into before. Basically, while the PHB glossary can be a valuable resource, it can't be taken as an all-inclusive definition of a term. Particularly when a term is defined somewhere else in the text -- compare the glossary definition of Intelligence with the full definition of Intelligence on pg. 9, for example. But even when the term is not firmly defined anywhere else in the text (like the term "penalty"), the definition in the glossary may still be incomplete compared to the actual usage of the term elsewhere in the text. This is sloppy, but it's also an unfortunate reality. Thus, yes, a penalty is a negative modifier to a die roll which does not have a type and which always stacks unless otherwise stated. But clearly, based on usage, penalties can ALSO be applied directly to character attributes. Similarly, look at the definition of "bonus" in the glossary: Like a penalty, it is described as only applying to a die roll. And yet look at the barbarian's rage ability: He gets a bonus to Constitution and this bonus explicitly causes his hit points to increase. So the definitions of both "penalty" and "bonus" found in the PHB glossary are incomplete based on the actual usage of the terms. Both definitions leave out what a "penalty" or "bonus" means in terms of an ability score. Which brings us back to this point: In actual usage there appears to be no meaningful distinction between an ability score or hit points being "lost", suffering a "penalty", and being "reduced". The terms are, in fact, used interchangeably. So there is no fine distinction to be drawn between whether hit points are "lost" or "penalized" as a result of energy drain because there's no difference between those terms. Which leads us back to the central conclusion: Energy drain is damage and can be avoided with evasion. Although I still feel that the stronger argument is that negative levels effectively reduce your level and, thus, constitute damage.
Zherog 02-27-07, 11:22 AM	Yeah, I agree with Justin (this time :P ). The glossary is really good for a quick look up. But when it conflicts with the rules, priority should be given to what's in the actual rules text, rather than the glossary definition. And the errata documents sort of back this idea up a bit by defining "primary" sources. Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. That same basic blurb appears in most (if not all) of the errata files.
KainBathory 02-27-07, 11:54 AM	I actually agree with both of you on this. I was hoping that my playing Devil's Advocate might aid in finding some conclusive bit of obscure text which would settle the issue, but I guess we're not that lucky... Anyway, I believe the evidence provided by the DMG entry and the Barbarian's Rage are pretty convincing. And, if that's not enough, the SRD entry for the Bear's Endurance spell further shows that the glossary entry for "bonus" is sorely lacking: The affected creature gains greater vitality and stamina. The spell grants the subject a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution, which adds the usual benefits to hit points, Fortitude saves, Constitution checks, and so forth. Hit points gained by a temporary increase in Constitution score are not temporary hit points. They go away when the subject’s Constitution drops back to normal. They are not lost first as temporary hit points are.That definitely suggests that the bonus described equates to a temporary increase in Constitution score. There would be no need for language like "the usual benefits to hit points," nor for the entire clause regarding "hit points gained by a temporary increase in Constitution score" if the bonus was not considered to be a temporary increase. Unfortunately, it doesn't explicitly make the connection, which does still leave room for argument (after all, "no benefit to hit points" could constitute a situation's "usual benefit to hit points"), but I think even the most absurdly by-the-text rules-lawyers would agree that the implication exists and makes much more sense than its alternative. --Kain
Merestil Haye 02-27-07, 12:17 PM	Yes I did mean Ray of Enfeeblement not Ray of Exhaustion earlier. Apologies for that. I thought I'd corrected it as well. I obviously failed to save the changes. :embarrass
KainBathory 02-27-07, 12:21 PM	Yes I did mean Ray of Enfeeblement not Ray of Exhaustion earlier. Apologies for that. I thought I'd corrected it as well. I obviously failed to save the changes. :embarrassWould that be a Will or a Reflex Save? ;) Hehehe, no worries. --Kain
Lord Nedd 02-27-07, 02:15 PM	Would that be a Will or a Reflex Save? ;) Hehehe, no worries. --Kain It was obviously a will save. Did you see how early in the morning he posted that message? Sheesh!! -LN
ravenshrike 03-01-07, 01:12 PM	Note that Mettle specifically says 'effect' rather than 'damage.' Is it flavor? A specific ruling that it does more than Evasion? Yet another thing that is subject to interpretation. Simple, will saves generally don't deal damage. Period. There are, of course exceptions. For that matter, let's say someone came up with a 8th level spell with a will save. not making the save would force your char to be immobilized. Making the save would make you able to move at half speed. No damage involved, but mettle would negate.