Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tiluvias99 11-26-06, 09:43 PM	A Question... What happens if a creature that only does ability damage on an attack, like a Shadow, gets bonus damage? Does it deal increased ability damage? Though purely impossible, if a Shadow found a way to take 20 levels of rogue, would it deal 11d6 of Strength Damage with an incorporeal touch?
Ryu Katsuragi 11-26-06, 10:17 PM	Why would it? It says on a touch attack, the attack deals 1d4 Strength damage. The Rogue's ability say it deals extra damage. Not 'extra attribute damage'.
Jay_Ibero_911 11-26-06, 10:25 PM	Sneak attack damage is always HP damage, but when combined with a spell or special attack it is of the same type as the effect. Sneak attack on a scorching ray is extra fire damage, in the case of the shadow, it would be negative energy damage, though if you took the crippling strike special ability, it would be an extra 2 strength damage that way...
Tyler Do'Urden 11-26-06, 10:52 PM	Yeah, the touch would deal 1d4 Strength damage and 10d6 negative energy damage, the latter subtracting from your hit points. It's absurdly overpowered to a single level of rogue more than double the effectiveness of a special attack like that.
tiluvias99 11-27-06, 02:56 PM	Alright, so sneak attack is always HP damage. Could I get a SRD quotation on that, just for reference? Also, what about other types of Damage boosters? I don't recall ever seeing anything that specified that the damage was HP damage, but I have seen a lot of things like "+2 on damage roll". And if your damage roll was for strength damage, then wouldn't the +2 apply to the strength damage?
Ryu Katsuragi 11-27-06, 03:04 PM	Alright, so sneak attack is always HP damage. Could I get a SRD quotation on that, just for reference? Also, what about other types of Damage boosters? I don't recall ever seeing anything that specified that the damage was HP damage, but I have seen a lot of things like "+2 on damage roll". And if your damage roll was for strength damage, then wouldn't the +2 apply to the strength damage? According to the PHB, 'Blah, blah, or when the Rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at first level...' Now, refer to page 304 of your PHB. Look at 'ability damage'. Then, turn to page 307, and look at 'damage'. They are two seperate things. 'Damage: a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, nonlethal damage and ability damage' Returning to the Rogue class feature, it says you can either deliver this extra damage as lethal with a lethal weapon, or you can use a sub-dual weapon to make it non-lethal. This would mean it is one of the first - ability damage and damage are two seperate things.
mvincent 11-27-06, 04:23 PM	Alright, so sneak attack is always HP damage. Could I get a SRD quotation on that, just for reference?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. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage."
tiluvias99 11-27-06, 04:28 PM	Returning to the Rogue class feature, it says you can either deliver this extra damage as lethal with a lethal weapon, or you can use a sub-dual weapon to make it non-lethal. This would mean it is one of the first - ability damage and damage are two seperate things.Actually, the only passage in the Rogue's Sneak Attack class feature that suggests that the extra damage must be lethal damage (not non-lethal or ability damage) is when it says: "With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage." This would suggest that the norm for Sneak Attacking is lethal damage- but that is extremely open for interpretation. And, based on your own quote which says "Damage: a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character...", an increase in damage can be an increase in ability damage. And, the Rogue's Sneak Attack class feature simply says (in the first paragraph): "...she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." Nothing says it has to be "lethal damage", it just says "damage". Considering this, why would a Shadow Rogue making a Sneak Attack not deal extra ability damage with his attack? Also, moving away from that particular subject, again by the quotation saying that damage is a decrease in hit points or an ability score or etc., wouldn't damage boosting effects increase a Shadow's Ability Damage? edit: mvincent seems to have found the ruling that completely destroys my arguement about Sneak Attack. Sorry bout 'that. edit edit: Then again, aren't the various "Rules of the Game" articles considered suspect in terms of RAW, anyway? Aren't they considered a secondary source which contradicts the rules in the PHB (in this case), and therefore moot? edit edit edit: Reading the Article, the section is only about spells as sneak attacks. Considering this thread isn't asking about spells, but a Shadow's Incorporeal Touch attack, it doesn't even apply. A connection could be made between the two, but it certainly isn't RAW- just a educated guess about continuation of pattern.
tiluvias99 11-28-06, 05:17 PM	bumpage... still looking for either some confirmation or something that disproves what I put forth.
risner 11-28-06, 06:13 PM	"Rules of the Game" articles considered suspect in terms of RAW, anyway? If PHB p134 "DAMAGE" doesn't clear up your confusion, then nothing will. Rules of the Game is pretty solid from my view. There are quite a few sections where they put up house rules, but in virtually all of those cases they make it clear it is a house rule.
Ryu Katsuragi 11-28-06, 06:21 PM	Look. We've pointed out that it doesn't work that way. If you really want to go around say such, though... I'll DM for you. Just watch out for my 1d4+11d6 Con damage Rogue10 snakes.
tiluvias99 11-28-06, 06:24 PM	If PHB p134 "DAMAGE" doesn't clear up your confusion, then nothing will.Um... on Page 134 of the PHB, all it says about ability damage is this: "Certain creatures and magical effects can cause temporary ability damage (a reduction to an ability score). The Dungeon Master's Guide has details on ability damage." What am I supposed to get out of that, concerning bonus damage on a Shadow's Incorporeal Touch attack?Rules of the Game is pretty solid from my view. There are quite a few sections where they put up house rules, but in virtually all of those cases they make it clear it is a house rule.Okay then. Let's say the Rules of the Game article is straight up RAW and works perfectly with the rules, and using them isn't houseruling at all. It still doesn't apply to a Shadow's Incorporeal touch attack, because a Shadow's Incorporeal touch attack isn't a spell.Look. We've pointed out that it doesn't work that way.No, you haven't. You've provided some excellent information regarding sneak attacks with spells that don't deal hit point damage. But there hasn't been a single quote or even paraphrase of a rule from any source discussing what happens when damage to an ability score gets a damage boost (which doesn't have to be from sneak attack).If you really want to go around say such, though... I'll DM for you. Just watch out for my 1d4+11d6 Con damage Rogue10 snakes.The difference with that is that the Sneak Attack applies to the bite, which deals hit point damage. The Con damage is a secondary poison effect. With the shadow, he never deals hit point damage, he only deals ability damage on a strike. And again, that's straying from the original idea. Sneak attack is just one type of damage booster- there are many, many ways to boost damage through other means. I'm sorry if I'm coming off hostile in any way, It's not intentional. You've pointed out what you think is true... but I haven't seen any rules references to back it up. Damage can be ability damage, as seen from the rules- why would it need to say which type of damage something deals whenever something deals extra damage? It doesn't ever say "hit point damage", just "damage".
mvincent 11-28-06, 06:26 PM	Look. We've pointed out that it doesn't work that way.Agreed
tiluvias99 11-28-06, 06:38 PM	mvincent, Ryu Katsuragi, everyone else, would it be possible for you to reiterate the evidence you have of what your saying? I don't understand it. Again, not baiting, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but the only rules references I've seen were 1) about sneak attacks, and 2) about spells.
mvincent 11-28-06, 07:23 PM	mvincent, Ryu Katsuragi, everyone else, would it be possible for you to reiterate the evidence you have of what your saying? I provided a fairly clear (and official) clarification to what everyone was already saying earlier. It is credible and applicable to things other than spells. I likely cannot help you if you think otherwise (but this does not indicate a failing on our part). If you do not trust us, please ask customer service, your DM or a fellow gamer that you do trust (rather than asking us to do more work that really isn't needed). Alternately, you could search the WotC site (when it comes back up) for examples of ability draining creatures with levels in rogue (to see how WotC handles their damage).
tiluvias99 11-28-06, 07:59 PM	Alternately, you could search the WotC site (when it comes back up) for examples of ability draining creatures with levels in rogue (to see how WotC handles their damage).That's a good idea. Do you have any ideas on how I would find such a thing? I checked the Elite Opponents and the Fight Club sections for examples, but couldn't find any relvant ones.I provided a fairly clear (and official) clarification to what everyone was already saying earlier. It is credible and applicable to things other than spells. I likely cannot help you if you think otherwise (but this does not indicate a failing on our part). Its perfectly probable that this misunderstanding is a problem on my end. I just have had problems in the past applying rules for one thing to others. In this case, Extra Damage from sneak attacks dealing extra negative energy (hit point) damage on a weaponlike spell that doesn't deal hit point damage. It certainly could be said that you could extend "sneak attack" to mean any source of bonus damage and "weaponlike spell that doesn't deal hit point damage" to mean any source of damage that isn't hit point damage. But I don't think that that works in terms of RAW. For example, I once mused on multi-armed power attacking. I said that, because when you wield a weapon in 1 hand, you get a 1-1 power attack ratio, and when you wield a weapon in 2 hands, you get a 2-1 power attack ratio, then when you wield a weapon in 3 hands, you should get a 3-1 power attack ratio. I was promptly shot down, because, though the pattern made sense and I thought the hands/power-attack rules could be extended to further degrees, they actually couldn't, by RAW. By RAW, it didn't matter how many extra hands you threw on there, it wouldn't further increase your power attack ratio beyond 2-1, and it would only increase your strength modifier to damage. This is the same situation. Even though sneak attack damage on a weaponlike spell that doesn't deal hit point damage deals negative energy damage (and not damage of the same type as the spell), by RAW, that does not extend to other damage boosters and other effects that deal non hit point damage.
mvincent 11-28-06, 08:09 PM	I just have had problems in the past applying rules for one thing to others.Maybe this will help then. From the 3.5 FAQ: "Does a rogue apply sneak attack damage when throwing alchemist fire or casting a spell such as acid splash? Yes. The bonus damage from sneak attack, skirmish, or sudden strike applies to any attack that requires an attack roll, even touch attacks."
tiluvias99 11-28-06, 08:24 PM	Interesting... But I don't understand what that adds to this- I thought it was a given that Sneak Attack damage could be applied on such things. I don't think any of that is in question. It's obvious that a Shadow could Sneak Attack with his touch attack, the question is whether or not the extra Sneak Attack damage is the same type of damage as the touch/weapon/thing (in this case, Strength Damage). What am I missing?
Nezkrul 11-28-06, 10:39 PM	Combat Strength Damage (Su) The touch of a shadow deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living foe. A creature reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow dies. This is a negative energy effect. aka a sneak attack with its incorporeal touch would deal extra negative energy damage, just like an enervation spell.
Ryu Katsuragi 11-29-06, 08:11 AM	Also, you're ignoring one of the main parts of the Rogue's ability - It deals extra -damage-. Look in the book, look under the terms. -Ability- damage is something far different from -damage-.
tiluvias99 11-29-06, 03:11 PM	Also, you're ignoring one of the main parts of the Rogue's ability - It deals extra -damage-. Look in the book, look under the terms. -Ability- damage is something far different from -damage-.Not entirely true. Ability damage is a -type- of damage. "Damage: a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character..." Ability Damage is a type of damage, as is hit point damage, as in non-lethal damage, etc.
risner 11-29-06, 05:41 PM	Ability Damage is a type of damage, as is hit point damage, as in non-lethal damage, etc. For your position to be true (and it isn't in my view), you need to find a section where WotC used "damage" and not "ability damage" to describe an effect that doesn't subtract from hit points. In other words, you prove your side (since it is the most far fetched.) You find a section where it describes ability damage without the use of the two words "ability damage" together. If you can't do that, I am done here.
tiluvias99 11-29-06, 06:48 PM	In other words, you prove your side (since it is the most far fetched.)Why is it that I'm the one that has to prove my side? Ability Damage is listed in the glossary under "damage", and if you look under the Damage section in the PHB on page 134, you'll see that Ability Damage is under the heading of "damage". Thus, anything that increases "damage" also increases "ability damage". Consider this. "Ability Damage" is an Apple. "Hit Point Damage" is an orange. "Non Lethal Damage" is a bananna. "Damage" is a fruit. Something that applies to Fruits applies to apples, oranges, and bannanas, not just apples, not just bannanas, and not just oranges- all of them. The RotG article rules on sneak attack and spells are thus an exception to this rule, and not the standard.For your position to be true (and it isn't in my view), you need to find a section where WotC used "damage" and not "ability damage" to describe an effect that doesn't subtract from hit points.You find a section where it describes ability damage without the use of the two words "ability damage" together. If you can't do that, I am done here.Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that I can :D . However, I'm still not convinced that I even need to. Regardless, I'll do my best to find it. You'll have to give me a little time to do so though.
Ryu Katsuragi 11-29-06, 06:51 PM	Yeah. I give up, too. If you can't see how blatently ridiculous a 11d6 Strength drain attack is, then maybe you should look up the Vigilante class? Just ignore the misprint, and have 30 spells at 7th level!
tiluvias99 11-29-06, 06:59 PM	Well, actually, strength drain isn't a type of damage, so you don't have to worry about that :D Besides, it's far less of a stretch (but still a stretch) to say that the extra damage from sneak attack being negative energy only applies to spells actually applies to everything. Or, you could stretch the RotG rules to say to say that the extra damage from sneak attack being negative energy only applies to spells actually applies to to any damage boosters, meaning something like weapon specialization on a ray spell that dealt strength damage would deal negative energy damage. But it's still a stretch. And stretches aren't RAW. And it's a huge stretch to say that, since the extra damage from sneak attack being negative energy only applies to spells, any extra damage to any non-hit point damage effect deals negative energy damage.
tiluvias99 11-29-06, 09:41 PM	Hey, I found that quote you were talking about, by the way:…If an attack that causes ability damage scores a critical hit, it deals twice the indicated amount of damage (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice)…There. Straight up, they used "damage" in place of "ability damage". It doesn't say "twice the amount of ability damage", it says "twice the amount of damage". It doesn't say "if the ability damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice", it says "if the damage is expressed as a die range, toll two dice". And hey hey, here's another, just for fun:Many undead creatures have the ability to damage or drain their foes' ability scores. For some creatures (particularily incorporeal ones), this serves as their primary method of dealing damage.edit: I can't believe I missed this one. Straight out of the glossary:Ability Damage: A temporary loss of 1 or more ability score points. Lost points return at a rate of 1 point per day unless noted otherwise by the condition dealing the damage.
risner 11-30-06, 09:00 AM	And not a one of those prove your case. I am done here. You are right, the sky is always purple or orange. Yes, it is never blue.
tiluvias99 11-30-06, 03:17 PM	And not a one of those prove your case. I am done here. You are right, the sky is always purple or orange. Yes, it is never blue.What's left? I have multiple pieces of evidence showing what I'm saying to be true. I found the rules quotes you asked for, and they support my position. How does that not prove it? If both A and B are subset of X, then anything that modifies X therefore also modifies A and B. I don't think there's any logic problems in that. Can you see any? From the Glossary: ""Damage: a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character..." Because Ability Score Damage is listed within "Damage", it is a subset of Damage. Again, from the Glossary; "Ability Damage: A temporary loss of 1 or more ability score points. Lost points return at a rate of 1 point per day unless noted otherwise by the condition dealing the damage." Note that Ability Damage is called "damage". From Libris Mortis: "Many undead creatures have the ability to damage or drain their foes' ability scores. For some creatures (particularily incorporeal ones), this serves as their primary method of dealing damage." This quotation also says that ability damage/drain can be considered damage. From the Monster Manual: "…If an attack that causes ability damage scores a critical hit, it deals twice the indicated amount of damage (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice)…" This also shows that Ability Damage is a type of damage. How can that not be enough evidence to show that Ability Damage is a type (or subset) of damage? And, given that ability damage is a type of damage, why would something that modifies damage (note: something that modifies damage, not just hit point damage, or just non-lethal damage, etc.) not also modify all of the subsets of damage, including Ability Damage? The only evidence that anyone has been able to bring up against this is that Sneak Attack damage deals negative energy damage when used in conjuction with a weaponlike spell that deals non-hit point damage instead of dealing extra non-hit point damage. And that is a very specific case, with very, very specific conditions (those being sneak attack and a spell), that in no way applies to anything that does not fulfill those conditions. So, given all of the following (unless you have something more to add- or if my logic is flawed. If it is, please point it out to me), Why wouldn't effects that add or subtract from a damage roll also apply to a damage roll for an attack that deals only ability damage instead of hit point damage?
Ryu Katsuragi 11-30-06, 03:20 PM	Then if you're not going to accept any of our arguements, simply ask CustServ.
tiluvias99 11-30-06, 03:28 PM	I won't accept your arguements? What are your arguements? All I've heard is "It is because it is", aside from the quotation taken from the RotG article, which doesn't apply. What evidence do you have to prove your side, given that there is plenty of evidence (see my previous post) supporting my own side? The burden of proof is now on your end. As for asking CustServ, that's gotta be a joke. Ask a question twice and you'll get completely different answers, or answers that directly contradict what has been stated in the RAW.
Ryu Katsuragi 11-30-06, 03:36 PM	As most have said, I have to agree. I'm just simply not going to bother to argue anymore. If you really don't see any problem with anything dealing extra 10d6 of it's ability damage by a couple of levels of Rogue, then by all means, rule it that way.
mvincent 11-30-06, 03:37 PM	I won't accept your arguements?Correct What are your arguements? Mine is the RotG. aside from the quotation taken from the RotG article, which doesn't apply.That is incorrect The burden of proof is now on your end.No. You are simply incorrect (and evidently mind-locked at this point, despite our attempts to aid you). As mentioned, we simply cannot help you now. I would ask you to please quit bumping this thread. I've tried to avoid doing so myself, and I've tried avoid the thread entirely (as well as unsubcribe), but it seems to keep popping back up to the top of thread list. I will avoid posting here again myself (unless you keep bumping it needlessly, then I will report the behavior).
tiluvias99 11-30-06, 03:45 PM	The RotG says nothing about the topic other than dealing damage with sneak attacks and spells. How can that possibly apply to everything else, by RAW?
TheDarkLord 11-30-06, 03:46 PM	First. Houserule so sneak attack can't be used as ability damage. It clears things up nicely. Second. I'm a firm believer that DMG,PHB,MM, and errata are the only set of core rules there are. Some people might not have the other books so they cannot be said to be Core rules. Same with the Rules of the Game. While it may help with intent, unless it is in the errata, it's a houserule. And yes, for the most part, the FAQ is nothing but a set of houserules, IMHO.
tiluvias99 11-30-06, 03:52 PM	I actually agree. If someone tried to do this in any game I ran, I would houserule it immediately. The amount of ability damage you could get with this is a little insane, and more than a little broken. However, this is a discussion of RAW, and houserules don't apply to the RAW. And, by the RAW, from the evidence I've shown, damage boosters do apply to Ability Damage.
risner 11-30-06, 10:26 PM	However, this is a discussion of RAW, and houserules don't apply to the RAW. And, by the RAW, from the evidence I've shown, damage boosters do apply to Ability Damage. I believe (and most it would seem also agree) that you are misreading RAW. I will post more questions to you: 1) Plunging Shot does 1d6 STR damage also from that Incorp undead? 2) Sacred Strike makes your Sneak Attack 1d6 and Good aligned. Can you have a Good aligned STR damage effect? 3) No one is saying Ability Damage isn't damage, but you have yet to show any place in any WotC book where they use Damage (without "ability") to describe an effect that does not deal Hit Points damage. Using your flawed reading of RAW, any Feat, Special Ability, or Item that adds to damage you deal would add to Ability Damage.
tiluvias99 12-01-06, 03:01 PM	1) Plunging Shot does 1d6 STR damage also from that Incorp undead?I'm unfamiliar with Plunging Shot. What's it from? Could you give me a description?2) Sacred Strike makes your Sneak Attack 1d6 and Good aligned. Can you have a Good aligned STR damage effect?While flavor-wise it doesn't seem to make much sense, I can't imagine why not within the RAW. Actually, given that Ability Damage doesn't always have to be from a negative energy effect (like with a Shadow), it would work flavorwise, too. Then again, I'm not entirely sure that there are any Ability Score damaging (primary) effects that could benefit from sneak attack that aren't negatively aligned. None come to mind, but I think there are some things that do that. Actually, come to think of it, though it doesn't really contribute anything at all, Ravages are ability score damaging effects, and they are good aligned, if I remember correctly.3) No one is saying Ability Damage isn't damage, but you have yet to show any place in any WotC book where they use Damage (without "ability") to describe an effect that does not deal Hit Points damage.What's wrong with the three quotes I used before, from the PHB, Monster Manual, and Libris Mortis? Each of them describes an effect that does not deal hit point damage (in this case, the effect is ability damage), and each of them specifically describes the effect as damage (without "ability").Using your flawed reading of RAW, any Feat, Special Ability, or Item that adds to damage you deal would add to Ability Damage.That is exactly the point that I am trying to prove. Note that there would be a few exceptions to this though, a main example being Sneak Attacks with Spells, as you have pointed out to me many times. I am trying to determine the general rule on this matter. If you could find and point out to me the flaws in my logic, the flaws in my arguements, and the flaws in my reading of the RAW, then that would be excellent, because it would close this potential loophole. Realize that if we can prove that this loophole doesn't exist, then I feel that's a good thing, because it means that there is one less way to break the game. I just enjoy playing Devil's Advocate (and as far as I can tell, the "Devil" is actually right in this case). However, I'm still waiting for you to explain where these flaws are, because I'm misunderstanding what your saying. If you feel your arguement is sound, then the problem is probably on my end, but until you detail exactly what's wrong with my arguements (meaning not just saying "the rules say so"), why should I think that my arguements are flawed? I might not be smart enough to figure it out on my own, and there's a good chance you're a great deal smarter than I am (especially when you factor in my age). So enlighten me, please.
risner 12-02-06, 02:22 AM	What's wrong with the three quotes I used before, from the PHB, Monster Manual, and Libris Mortis? If you could find and point out to me the flaws in my logic, the flaws in my arguements, and the flaws in my reading of the RAW, then that would be excellent, because it would close this potential loophole. I just enjoy playing Devil's Advocate (and as far as I can tell, the "Devil" is actually right in this case). Aside from the fact that all three of your cases you found in PHB, MM, and LM didn't prove your case? All three made it crystal clear they were talking about ability damage. We can't help you, because we point out the flaws in your logic and you ignore the evidence. There is a point where Devil's Advocate can be taken too far. I will try again (and I am sure fail): 1) The authors intended to limit Sneak Attack to hit point damage (Case: RotG written by one of the authors of the PHB.) 2) They phrased Sneak Attack the same as they phrased every other hit point damage ability. You rarely find the use of "hit points" in any ability. So your use of non "hit point" for the Sneak Attack damage is inconsistent with 100% of existing PHB/DMG/MM feats, abilities, and spells. (Case: I could only find one example of an ability that deals damage that used "hit points" and it was Profane Lifeleach LM p29. And it was to limit the damage to take the target to a minimum of 0 hit points.) 3) They clear up the issue in a FAQ article that you disregard because it is a spell. Where is your justification for rejecting handling the issue the same way for a spell vs a natural weapon? Where in the RAW does it say this (or any thing) should work differently via a spell than a supernatural or Ex ability? 4) Do you believe they intended to make Sneak Attack an 100% chance of kill every hit for any ability damaging creature? I assume you don't care for intent? Meaning from what I can tell, you don't seem to care what was intended.
tiluvias99 12-02-06, 09:11 AM	However much people hate it, Rules As Intended doesn't always equal Rules As Written. And when it comes to Rules debates, we have to use the RAW.Aside from the fact that all three of your cases you found in PHB, MM, and LM didn't prove your case? All three made it crystal clear they were talking about ability damage.The point was that each of them substituted "Ability Damage" for "Damage". I mean, by your own words, (Post #36) "No one is saying Ability Damage isn't damage". If Ability Damage is Damage, then can't certain Damage sometimes be Ability Damage? Though it may not exist, could you give me an example (just make one up) of what kind of rules quotation you'd like me to find? Damage is clearly a broad range if things, from Hit Point Damage to Non-Lethal Damage to Ability Damage to whatever else there is. Thus, unless something specifically specifies that the type of Damage it deals is "Hit Point Damage", couldn't it be any kind of Damage? To go along with the fruit example, as used before: Damage is Fruit. Ability Damage is an orange, which is a type of fruit. If someone wants a Fruit, can I not hand them an orange? If someone finds a way to genetically modify fruit so they they are much tastier (or, deal more damage), then wouldn't the orange be much tastier too (deal more orange/ability damage)? Now, if someone said, "I found a way to make Apples (Hit Point Damage) much tastier (more damage)", then my orange wouldn't be any tastier. But there are very, very few cases where the Rules say "Apple" as opposed to "Fruit".I will try again (and I am sure fail): 1) The authors intended to limit Sneak Attack to hit point damage (Case: RotG written by one of the authors of the PHB.)I perfectly agree with this assumption. However, as this is a Rules debate, we must go by what is written.2) They phrased Sneak Attack the same as they phrased every other hit point damage ability. You rarely find the use of "hit points" in any ability. So your use of non "hit point" for the Sneak Attack damage is inconsistent with 100% of existing PHB/DMG/MM feats, abilities, and spells. (Case: I could only find one example of an ability that deals damage that used "hit points" and it was Profane Lifeleach LM p29. And it was to limit the damage to take the target to a minimum of 0 hit points.)Okay, there's something weird going on here. How do you know that every other "Hit Point Damage Ability" is actually a "Hit Point damage Ability", and not simply a "Damage Ability"? Especially considering that, as you have said, they almost never specify "Hit Point damage Ability"?3) They clear up the issue in a FAQ article that you disregard because it is a spell. Where is your justification for rejecting handling the issue the same way for a spell vs a natural weapon? Where in the RAW does it say this (or any thing) should work differently via a spell than a supernatural or Ex ability?Because a spell isn't a natural weapon. It's a spell. They don't work the same way, and they have different rules for each of them. Because a spell isn't a supernatural ability. It's a spell. They don't work the same way, and they have different rules for each of them. And spells definitely are not incorporeal touch attacks that deal 1d6 strength damage. You know this. They are completely different things. Rules for one thing do not apply to the other, unless specifically mentioned. What applies to Fords (Spells) does not apply to Chevys (Incorporeal Touch Attacks). If they had said Cars (Effects or Abilities with the Potential to deal Ability Damage), it would have. But they said Fords, not Cars.4) Do you believe they intended to make Sneak Attack an 100% chance of kill every hit for any ability damaging creature? I assume you don't care for intent? Meaning from what I can tell, you don't seem to care what was intended.I care about Intent. I try to use Intent whenever I play. Things are less broken that way, and the game tends to run smoother. But again, the Rules as Intended are sometimes different from the Rules As Written. They are not the same thing. And I am arguing about the Rules As Written.
risner 12-02-06, 12:00 PM	Thus, unless something specifically specifies that the type of Damage it deals is "Hit Point Damage", couldn't it be any kind of Damage? No and you should blame the problem on common use of English language. Hit point damage is the most common type of damage type. When there is no specified type, you have only a choice of iinterpreting it as hit point damage. You do not have the luxury of interpreting it as "any type" of damage. You can't find a single reference to an ability that matches your view. You need to find something like this for your view to have any legitimacy: This ability does 1d4 additional damage. This damage is the same as the original damage (hit points, ability, or otherwise.) Your argument in this thread leads to problem: Player says "my Longsword does 1d6 damage, so I would like that to be 1d6 CON damage since it doesn't say it is hit point damage. DM (forced into your rules interpretations) says "I have no way to prevent you from this interpretation, so ok, your weapon now does CON damage." This whole RAW thing is crap. When they write rules, they try to write them in such a way that the intent is preserved. They try to prevent uses counter to their intent. When you read RAW discover a loophole in the exact use of words that one could interpreted (however twisted) counter to the "general" interpretation and discover there is a FAQ that says in effect "the words used to describe this ability mean this", but you still use the twisted interpretation. To me that isn't RAW that is something else. Some might call it cheating. Some might call it something else. I don't know what I would call it, but I sure don't call it RAW. Just like the legal system doesn't use the legal system's laws by your strict RAW. They use intent. They rule based on the INTENT of the author of the laws. Intent (of the law makers) is the law in the eyes of the judges. I don't think this argument can be won. Unless we can find a section in the PHB that says "tiluvias99, sneak attack is hit point damage" we can't win this argument with you. We have shown where your view is not how the ability works.
tiluvias99 12-02-06, 01:00 PM	Hmmm... you may have a point... however, there are still quite a few counters.Your argument in this thread leads to problem: Player says "my Longsword does 1d6 damage, so I would like that to be 1d6 CON damage since it doesn't say it is hit point damage. DM (forced into your rules interpretations) says "I have no way to prevent you from this interpretation, so ok, your weapon now does CON damage."To this, I would say that the Longsword deals 1d6 slashing damage, which is inherently lethal damage. I don't believe there is any effect in the game that deals its primary damage (as in, a longsword's 1d8) without specifying what type of damage its primary damage. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am. And I think Bonus damage (as in, the +1 of a Longsword's 1d8+1) is left unspecified because it always deals the same type of damage as the primary damage, except in special circumstances. Things like Fire Damage, Slashing Damage, Cold Damage, Negative Energy Damage (note: not negative energy effects), Piercing Damage- all of these are types of damage that affect your hit points (hit point damage). Non-Lethal Damage is a type of damage that affects your... um.. amount of non-lethal damage :p . And Ability Damage is a type of damage that affects your ability scores.You need to find something like this for your view to have any legitimacy: This ability does 1d4 additional damage. This damage is the same as the original damage (hit points, ability, or otherwise.)Alrighty, I thought you were looking for something completely different. I'll see if I can find it. I already thought it was a given that extra damage dealt the same type of damage as the original damage. For example, a longsword wieldied by a character with 12 strength deals 1d8+1 slashing damage. But I'll see if I can find the exact quote (or, if not that, some examples of it).This whole RAW thing is crap. When they write rules, they try to write them in such a way that the intent is preserved. They try to prevent uses counter to their intent. When you read RAW discover a loophole in the exact use of words that one could interpreted (however twisted) counter to the "general" interpretation and discover there is a FAQ that says in effect "the words used to describe this ability mean this", but you still use the twisted interpretation. To me that isn't RAW that is something else. Some might call it cheating. Some might call it something else. I don't know what I would call it, but I sure don't call it RAW. Just like the legal system doesn't use the legal system's laws by your strict RAW. They use intent. They rule based on the INTENT of the author of the laws. Intent (of the law makers) is the law in the eyes of the judges.I can't argue with this. No mockery at all, this is excellent. I feel a little bad about trying to continue this debate. I concede that what I am trying to prove is completely against what was intended by the authors. But by what they wrote, not what they intended to write, I think this loophole does indeed exist. However, I ask if you have ever heard of the Oberoni Fallacy. I think declaring a loophole to not exist because the rules are actually as intended (instead of as written) is very similar to that.
DarkRhystar 12-02-06, 01:15 PM	Erm... Ryu, mvincent, and risner all have it right. Sneak Attack deals nice, normal, ordinary damage. I'll never understand why people try to make this stuff so complicated. No house rules are needed here, just common sense.
tiluvias99 12-02-06, 01:51 PM	Tell me, DarkRhystar, what is nice, ordinary damage? Does it go through DR/Piercing? How about DR/Magic? I thought sneak attacks dealt the same type of damage as they weapon used in the sneak attack- for example, when used with a long-sword, the sneak attack damage is slashing damage. Tell me something. If you have Weapon Specialization (Long-sword), and you hit someone with a long-sword, do you deal 1d8 slashing damage, and 2 "normal" damage, or does it deal 1d8+2 slashing damage? Because I don't think "normal" damage goes through DR X/slashing.
Tyraxus 12-02-06, 02:15 PM	*sigh* Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=592166) Notably: This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim. This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves. The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless. If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded. I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ. It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late. It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent." The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it. Now, that having been said, there is a simple point in the favour that sneak attack is standard lethal damage. With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. Seems to me that this says that sneak attack damage is, by default, lethal damage. Not nonlethal damage, not ability damage, not any other kind of damage, but ordinary lethal damage, and you need the rules to explicitly change that for a given attack to make it anything else.
tiluvias99 12-02-06, 02:31 PM	Seems to me that this says that sneak attack damage is, by default, lethal damage. Not nonlethal damage, not ability damage, not any other kind of damage, but ordinary lethal damage, and you need the rules to explicitly change that for a given attack to make it anything else.Sounds fine to me. Now, what about damage boosters from other sources?
risner 12-02-06, 02:39 PM	Sounds fine to me. Now, what about damage boosters from other sources? Like? What other sources?
tiluvias99 12-02-06, 02:57 PM	Like? What other sources?Power Attack Weapon Specialization Greater Weapon Specialization Skirmish Damage Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike Arcane Strike Divine Favor Magic Fang Greater Magic Fang Magic Weapon Greater Magic Weapon Psionic Fist Greater Psionic Fist Offensive Presience Extra Damage from a Critical Hit etc.
risner 12-02-06, 07:30 PM	Power Attack ... Extra Damage from a Critical Hit etc. What are you asking? Is it lethal damage as well? Yes
tiluvias99 12-03-06, 03:18 PM	What are you asking? Is it lethal damage as well? YesFrom what do you determine that? At least in my books, each of those only say that they deal extra "damage", not extra "lethal damage". Oh, and just because you quoted "Extra damage from a critical hit":"…If an attack that causes ability damage scores a critical hit, it deals twice the indicated amount of damage (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice)…"A Person that has a longsword and deals 1d8+3 damage on a hit doesn't deal 1d8 slashing damage and 3 "lethal" damage, it deals 1d8+3 slashing damage. Or else he would only deal 1d8 damage against anyone with DR 3/Slashing or higher, because the 1d8 would get through but the 3 "lethal" damage wouldn't. Do you have any problem with this? The Damage Boosting effect deals the Same Damage type as the effect/item/weapon used to deliver the damage, except in special cases (like with sneak attack). The Damage Booster does not add a seperate type of damage (except in cases like the flaming enhancement and with sneak attack), it adds to the base damage. In the case of the Shadow, the weapon that delivers the damage deals strength damage. Thus, any damage boosting effect, because it increases the damage of the weapon used to deal the primary/base damage, deals extra strength damage.
strenoth 12-03-06, 04:41 PM	The Default meaning for damage is Hit Point Damage. Sneak attack does not in any way shape or form suggest that it does any other sort of damage. There for, unless an ability specifically says otherwise, SA damage is always hit point damage. The fact that the shadow's attack does Strength damage is irrelevent, the ability does NOT say that it converts sneak attack damage into ability damage.
tiluvias99 12-03-06, 04:55 PM	Strenoth... we've moved on from Sneak Attack. I conceded that Sneak Attack would probably always deal hit point damage. But we're not discussing sneak attack anymore, we're talking about other types of damage boosters which do not have the same restrictions or limitations that Sneak Attack does, like Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Skirmish Damage, Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike, Arcane Strike, Divine Favor, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon, Psionic Fist, Greater Psionic Fist, Offensive Presience, and Extra Damage from a Critical Hit (which specifically allows for extra ability damage, as said in the MM).
Nezkrul 12-03-06, 06:56 PM	what do you want from us tiluvias? from all this useless bumping of your thread, I'd think you'd have thought of sending an email to custserv on the situation. seriously man let this die and get an official answer, since you're ignoring everything we've been telling you.
tiluvias99 12-03-06, 08:09 PM	Custserv is known for making mistakes more often than giving right answers. You accuse me of ignoring everything you've been telling me. Why couldn't the same be said of you? As I've shown, there's a considerable amount of evidence supporting my position, certainly enough to warrant that the rules definitely aren't crystal clear on the subject. This is a side part of my position, that I am significantly less strong on, and am probably wrong about. Regardless, for the sake of Devil's Advocate: I found some new evidence, actually. For all of you saying that because Sneak Attacks with Spells always deals hit point damage, I counter that Sneak Attacks with Weapons always deal the same type of damage as the weapon (aside from weapon-like spells). From the RotG, All About Sneak Attacks (Part 3): "A successful sneak attack increases the damage dealt. When you make a sneak attack against a foe with damage reduction, roll the sneak damage and add it to the damage from the hit before applying the effects of damage reduction. Sneak attack damage is always the same type of damage as the weapon used to make the sneak attack. For example, if you make a sneak attack with a sword (a slashing weapon), all the damage from the sneak attack is slashing damage (also see the Spells as Sneak Attacks section in Part Four)." I think it's obvious that a Shadow's Incorporeal Touch Attack qualifies as a weapon, rather than a spell. In the Shadow's case, the Weapon deals Ability Damage, as opposed to Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning Damage- thus the Sneak Attack damage actually would be Ability Damage.
Nezkrul 12-04-06, 03:39 PM	As most have said, I have to agree. I'm just simply not going to bother to argue anymore. If you really don't see any problem with anything dealing extra 10d6 of it's ability damage by a couple of levels of Rogue, then by all means, rule it that way. This is what you've ignored, now please stop bumping this thread, especially if you refuse to ask custserv. Good day.
Ryu Katsuragi 12-04-06, 03:42 PM	Hate to bump it, but... ... Damn, I really want to play a Vampire in your game. =D 1+10d6 negative levels FTW!
tiluvias99 12-04-06, 04:14 PM	Hate to bump it, but... ... Damn, I really want to play a Vampire in your game. =D 1+10d6 negative levels FTW!*sigh*. I never said that. In the Vampire's case, the energy drain attack is a secondary effect of his slam attack. The energy drain is added onto it. What I'm saying is that the Sneak Attack damage always applies to the primary damage (which, in the Vampire's case, is bludgeoning damage), much like a the 1d8 a long-sword deals. The Shadow is singular, in that his incorporeal touch's primary damage is ability damage.
risner 12-04-06, 04:37 PM	The Shadow is singular, in that his incorporeal touch's primary damage is ability damage. I think your biggest problem is you are looking at this all wrong. Unless the ability/feat/attack says it does ability damage, it will not do ability damage when done by a shadow. Think of the shadow's attack like this: 0 damage and 1d4 STR ability damage All these abilities do lethal damage because unless there is text saying the damage could be lethal, ability or some other type of damage, it is lethal damage. Slashing is a form of lethal damage. You can't find a single reference of a single ability that says it's damage could be hitpoint OR ability damage. Without a reference showing that, you can't even remotely say you have found a shred of evidence that any ability will do ability damage instead of lethal damage when used by a Shadow. Not a shred of evidence.
tiluvias99 12-04-06, 06:08 PM	All these abilities do lethal damage because unless there is text saying the damage could be lethal, ability or some other type of damage, it is lethal damage.Source, please? If you can find a direct quotation of rules text saying this, then I'll give up immediately.Think of the shadow's attack like this: 0 damage and 1d4 STR ability damageWhy would it be like like that? My Monster Manual doesn't say anything like that. It just says in the stat block, under Shadow: "Incorporeal touch +3 melee (1d6 Str)" Not "Incorporeal Touch +3 melee (0 + 1d6 Str)". A lot of other monsters do say things like "1d4 + 1d6 Str", or "2d6+5 + Poison", or other things of the same nature, but the Shadow's does not.You can't find a single reference of a single ability that says it's damage could be hitpoint OR ability damage. Without a reference showing that, you can't even remotely say you have found a shred of evidence that any ability will do ability damage instead of lethal damage when used by a Shadow. Not a shred of evidence.Why would I need to? Ability Damage is a type of damage. Lethal Damage is a type of damage. If something boosts "Damage" without specifying "Lethal Damage", then it could be Lethal Damage or Ability Damage (or non-lethal damage and whatever other kinds of damage types there are). Think about it like this. It's basic logic. A Car (damage) could be a Ford (lethal damage) or a Chevy (ability damage). Fords and Chevies are both types of cars, so if all cars can suddenly go 5 mph faster, then Fords, Chevies, and whatever other kinds of cars will all go 5 mph faster. What you're saying is that when the Rules say "Cars", they actually meant to say Fords. But the rules don't say "Fords", they say Cars. Which means Chevies are included.
ShinAkuma2 12-04-06, 07:23 PM	It'd be more accurate to say that Ford makes trucks (hit point damage) and cars (ability damage). They come up with a new engine that increases the power of trucks (sneak attack). This does nothing for cars, but you claim, since the new advert doesn't specifically point out that cars don't benefit from the new engine, they should.
tiluvias99 12-04-06, 10:26 PM	It'd be more accurate to say that Ford makes trucks (hit point damage) and cars (ability damage). They come up with a new engine that increases the power of trucks (sneak attack). This does nothing for cars, but you claim, since the new advert doesn't specifically point out that cars don't benefit from the new engine, they should.I can see that. Sneak Attack does say that the Rogue can coose to do non-lethal instead of lethal, suggesting (but again, not outright saying) that those are the only two options. I can see that there is definite evidence against allowing Sneak Attack Ability Damage. However, what kind of engines are Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Skirmish Damage, Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike, Arcane Strike, Divine Favor, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon, Psionic Fist, Greater Psionic Fist, Offensive Presience, and Extra Damage from a Critical Hit? None of those types of Damage Boosters contain that "non-lethal instead of lethal" clause, and just say "extra damage". What are your feelings on those?
ShinAkuma2 12-04-06, 11:37 PM	Oh, right...I had forgotten we were past Sneak Attack and were more concerned with other things... Well, straight off the bat, I would suggest that Power Attack not do a thing because it shouldn't add damage to a touch attack. Otherwise, it opens the window for PA with a held spell, or with a trip, or something. A critical hit we already know. If it deals ability damage, then a crit deals twice the ability damage. Skirmish should work just like Sneak Attack, in my view. For the other things...I'm inclined to simply say they add +x negative energy damage to the touch. I don't have a good rules-based reason for it, but I just don't feel that adding to the ability loss is, well, fair.
risner 12-05-06, 09:00 AM	Natural Weapons and Unarmed are light weapons. PA doesn't work on light weapons. Skirmish is a form of sneak attack. What else was left? What are your feelings on those? My feelings are that you are a person that simply can't lose an argument no matter now flawed your position is. You would argue to the end of time until a god came down from his resting position to tell you personally you are wrong. Random: What colour is the sky? Random2: It looks blue, but can sometimes be orange. tiluvias99: No, it is green. It is never blue. And you can't prove me wrong.
ShinAkuma2 12-05-06, 11:24 AM	Natural Weapons and Unarmed are light weapons. PA doesn't work on light weapons. But, uh, PA does work on natural weapons and unarmed strikes. Read the feat. I just feel that, even if the natural weapon in question IS the touch attack, PA should never apply to a touch attack.
risner 12-05-06, 01:02 PM	But, uh, PA does work on natural weapons and unarmed strikes. Read the feat. I thought (incorrectly) that Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons were considered light weapons. So instead of saying "read the feat", say "look at Unarmed Strike weapon and MM Natural Weapon."
Nom 12-05-06, 03:06 PM	I thought (incorrectly) that Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons were considered light weapons.No, you thought correctly. So instead of saying "read the feat", say "look at Unarmed Strike weapon and MM Natural Weapon."Read the feat. It contains an explicit exception for unarmed strikes and natural weapons.
tiluvias99 12-05-06, 03:07 PM	For the other things...I'm inclined to simply say they add +x negative energy damage to the touch. I don't have a good rules-based reason for it, but I just don't feel that adding to the ability loss is, well, fair.I agree. However, I am taking this argument from a rules perspective, instead of fairness. Saying something doesn't work simply because it isn't "fair" seems a little... wrong, to me. Well, straight off the bat, I would suggest that Power Attack not do a thing because it shouldn't add damage to a touch attack. Otherwise, it opens the window for PA with a held spell, or with a trip, or something.I just feel that, even if the natural weapon in question IS the touch attack, PA should never apply to a touch attack.That makes sense to me. However, from a Rules perspective, I believe that it does indeed apply to touch attacks, simply because it says "melee attacks" (which includes melee touch attacks, I'm pretty sure), and doesn't specify that it doesn't work with melee touch attacks. Also, as you noted, it does say that it applies to natural weapon attacks, which includes the Shadow's Incorporeal Touch.Skirmish should work just like Sneak Attack, in my view.Skirmish is a form of sneak attack.What? Why? They're completely different abilities, with completely different rules. Also note that the Skirmish Ability doesn't have the "non-lethal instead of lethal" clause.I thought (incorrectly) that Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons were considered light weapons. So instead of saying "read the feat", say "look at Unarmed Strike weapon and MM Natural Weapon."They are considered light weapons. However, the feat specifically says that it applies to them, regardless. Maybe before you say something about the rules you should actually read them. edit: Nom beat me to it.My feelings are that you are a person that simply can't lose an argument no matter now flawed your position is. You would argue to the end of time until a god came down from his resting position to tell you personally you are wrong. Random: What colour is the sky? Random2: It looks blue, but can sometimes be orange. tiluvias99: No, it is green. It is never blue. And you can't prove me wrong.I can lose an arguement, and have many times before. I have no problem admitting defeat if there is enough evidence against me. However, in this case, there isn't. And again, why can't the same be said of you? I have considerable evidence supporting my position, but you will not even consider that I might actually be right.What else was left?Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike, Arcane Strike, Divine Favor, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon, Psionic Fist, Greater Psionic Fist, and Offensive Presience.
mathiu 12-05-06, 03:13 PM	I am more than certain that this matter is covered in one of the Completes, either Adventurer or Arcane. As I am AFB at the moment and it is not core right now, I suppose it doesn't matter overmuch to you, however, I will be more than happy to provide a page reference for you if only to put an end to your flagrant sophistry.
tiluvias99 12-05-06, 03:22 PM	I am more than certain that this matter is covered in one of the Completes, either Adventurer or Arcane. As I am AFB at the moment and it is not core right now, I suppose it doesn't matter overmuch to you, however, I will be more than happy to provide a page reference for you if only to put an end to your flagrant sophistry.Excellent. If you can find enough evidence to close this loophole (which, if this rule that you speak of actually exists, should be enough), then I support that.
Nezkrul 12-05-06, 04:26 PM	hey guys, dont argue with him please. just tell him he is right and he will go away! besides, he already admitted that he finds nothing wrong with a cr 8 monster instantly killing any PC 1 - 20th level.
tiluvias99 12-06-06, 06:42 PM	hey guys, dont argue with him please. just tell him he is right and he will go away! besides, he already admitted that he finds nothing wrong with a cr 8 monster instantly killing any PC 1 - 20th level.*Sigh*. What was the point of that? There are vast amounts of loopholes in this game, most of which are far, far more game breaking, easier to use, harder to defend against, and applicable to more situations. What's the difference between this one and all of the others? The fact that something is potentially game breaking doesn't mean that the game rules don't allow it. I do find something wrong with a CR 8 creature autokilling high level PCs. That's why I houserule it. But just because I do that doesn't mean that within the actual, unaltered rules the loophole doesn't exist. edit: Oh, and mathiu, when you do find that rules quote, please post it. It will make this issue a lot less confusing, and I will cease this debate. ...Unless, of course, the rule doesn't exist.