Eldritch Blast + Mortalbane [Archive] - Wizards Community

Eldritch Blast + Mortalbane [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dalthbar
07-12-07, 05:29 PM How Mortalbane (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Mortalbane,) seems to read to me, is that when you take the feat, you can apply the effect of it to _all_ of your spell-like abilities 5x/day.

The short description is ambiguous. The reason I believe this to be the case is the language in the "special" section of the feat description:
This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, the creature can apply it to each of its spell-like abilities five additional times per day.
I didn't see an errata file for the BoVD, which is where the Mortalbane feat comes from. I also don't have BoVD on me, so I don't know if the actual book language happens to be different at all from the link above.

Now, some of the essence invocations "modify the damage or other effects of the warlock's eldritch blast" (per the essence invocation secton).

So if you have Mortalbane, would that mean that you can use it 5/day total with eldritch blast plus any times you use an essence invocation with it, or are each of them considered separate spell-like abilities?

Before you answer this, consider the spell Spell Immunity. If you take Eldritch Blast as your spell immunity, does that in turn apply to both the basic EB or EB along with any essence invocations that you use? If it's the latter, then that definitely kicks the warlock in the nuts and makes Spell Immunity more powerful against warlocks.

So is EB + essences considered separate spell-like abilities or are all of them "eldritch blasts" that have just been changed slightly? And if so, how would spell immunity handle EB vs EB + essences?
tarkin
07-12-07, 05:46 PM This looks to me like yet another case of WOTC needing to hire a better Grammar Nazi.

I think that they MEANT the Mortalbane ability to be specific to a single ability. You would rule that each time you take the feat Mortalbane, you have to name a specific ability. It lets you use THAT ability 5 times a day period.

I would feel that I was being generous by allowing you to use it on any ability, but still each limited to no more than 5 x a day, TOTAL, not 5 times a day for each ability (that looks like a grammar mistake to me, the sentences are all worded strangely)

If you have 10 spell like abilities, you could not get 50 uses, by using it 5 times on each ability, unless you first took the Mortalbane feat 10 times.

Now, if you do apply it to a spell like ability that modifies another ability, then the feat does NOTHING.

Mortalbane only helps if you use the spell like ability against a mortal. It does not help if you use the spell like ability to modify one of your other spell like abilities. It does not matter that the other ability is being used against a mortal, you used the feat on the FIRST ability, not the second.
Dalthbar
07-12-07, 05:55 PM I agree that the feat description is nothing short of horrible.

My first take to balance it was that you'd choose a spell-like ability and you can "Mortalbane" it 5x/day and that's it. You can take the feat more than once and apply it to additional spell-like abilities or make the first one work 10x/day, etc.

So changing gears a bit, what do you think about the whole Spell Immunity aspect?
tarkin
07-12-07, 06:41 PM Well, Spell Immunity (Fireball) also works on Fireball with Spell Subsition (Acid) applied to it.

But Spell Immunity (Fireball) does not protect you against a Delayed Fireball.

As such, I would rule that anything that modified something you are immune to does not make you less immune to it.

So yeah, this kicks the warlock in the balls a bit.
Dalthbar
07-12-07, 07:02 PM That basically means that a 4th level spell nullifies basically any offensive capability until a warlock reaches 11th level - the point that they gain their Greater invocations which start being 5th level equivalent abilities.

Yuck.
runestar
07-12-07, 10:23 PM Don't forget that mortalbane is 3.0 material, where meta-SLA feats applied to all your SLAs, rather than a single one. Look up the 3.0 incarnation of the quicken SLA feat - it used to let you quicken each of your SLAs 1/day.

In 3.5, it would probably just apply to a single SLA, and let it deal an extra 2d6 damage to mortal non-outsiders. You would be able to take it multiple times, each time applying to a new SLA or increasing the number of existing uses by 5. I am not sure if there should be any formula (like empower SLA's limit being equal to caster lv/2 -2 or less), so I will not touch on it for now.

Also, I don't think EB is a valid choice for spell immunity. It is not a valid spell from any splatbook you can name anyways.:)
tarkin
07-13-07, 10:39 AM Ah. Yes. I got so caught up in his question that I failed to point out the obvious problems.

Spell Immunity is for SPELLS, not "anything similar to a spell".
Dalthbar
07-13-07, 10:41 AM Ok, so I could cast Spell Immunity for Fireball and I'd still be immune to a fireball that's cast as a SLA, but I can't specify Eldritch Blast as a Spell Immunity since there's no actual spell of that type, it's 100% SLA.

I can certainly live with that.

And Mortalbane definitely needs to get 3.5-ified.
BloodDragon
07-13-07, 12:04 PM May also want to point out that Mortalbane doesn’t specificlly discriminate between damage dealing and non-damage dealing SLAs. Thus a Tiefling could tack it on to his Darkness SLA and enjoy an area effect mortalbane for free, Mind Flayer (Non-Psonic) onto his Mind Blast, or even "Bluff" spells can be affected since the only requirement is that is has to be a Spell-like Ability.
Tectorman
07-15-07, 01:52 AM Ah. Yes. I got so caught up in his question that I failed to point out the obvious problems.

Spell Immunity is for SPELLS, not "anything similar to a spell".

Actually, I think the full text is (from the SRD) "protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures."

Nothing a Warlock has by virtue of being a Warlock can be considered "innate".
runestar
07-15-07, 02:07 AM Only problem is...
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

Regardless of whether the spell comes in the form of a spell cast by a mage, a SLA used by a demon, or an effect activated from a wand, my impression is that it must still be a valid spell which is found on a spell list. Any spell list will do, but it must ultimately be a spell list. Eldritch blast and other invocations are not spells, not are they found on any spell list, and as such, they would not be legal spell targets to be named as such for purposes of said spell.

That its SLAs are not considered innate (since they are granted by virtue of a class) is another unfortunate incident, but not quite the same as the point I was trying to drive across. Good catch though.:)
Dalthbar
07-15-07, 08:14 AM See, these two points of view are the heart of a disagreement my friend and I are having over EB and Spell Immunity (which I posted in greater detail in the warlock FAQ thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=405215&page=15).

Basically, I see the first 3 sentences of the Spell Immunity description as telling you what you can choose to gain the benefits of Spell Immunity (e.g., just spells). That that 5th sentence describes what the benefits are after you've chosen the spells to gain immunity from.

He also found a random passage in the Lords of Madness book about Spell Immunity and the mind flayer's Mind Blast, but I don't have LoM, so I just posted what he was saying.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 05:29 PM	How Mortalbane (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Mortalbane,) seems to read to me, is that when you take the feat, you can apply the effect of it to _all_ of your spell-like abilities 5x/day. The short description is ambiguous. The reason I believe this to be the case is the language in the "special" section of the feat description: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, the creature can apply it to each of its spell-like abilities five additional times per day. I didn't see an errata file for the BoVD, which is where the Mortalbane feat comes from. I also don't have BoVD on me, so I don't know if the actual book language happens to be different at all from the link above. Now, some of the essence invocations "modify the damage or other effects of the warlock's eldritch blast" (per the essence invocation secton). So if you have Mortalbane, would that mean that you can use it 5/day total with eldritch blast plus any times you use an essence invocation with it, or are each of them considered separate spell-like abilities? Before you answer this, consider the spell Spell Immunity. If you take Eldritch Blast as your spell immunity, does that in turn apply to both the basic EB or EB along with any essence invocations that you use? If it's the latter, then that definitely kicks the warlock in the nuts and makes Spell Immunity more powerful against warlocks. So is EB + essences considered separate spell-like abilities or are all of them "eldritch blasts" that have just been changed slightly? And if so, how would spell immunity handle EB vs EB + essences?
tarkin 07-12-07, 05:46 PM	This looks to me like yet another case of WOTC needing to hire a better Grammar Nazi. I think that they MEANT the Mortalbane ability to be specific to a single ability. You would rule that each time you take the feat Mortalbane, you have to name a specific ability. It lets you use THAT ability 5 times a day period. I would feel that I was being generous by allowing you to use it on any ability, but still each limited to no more than 5 x a day, TOTAL, not 5 times a day for each ability (that looks like a grammar mistake to me, the sentences are all worded strangely) If you have 10 spell like abilities, you could not get 50 uses, by using it 5 times on each ability, unless you first took the Mortalbane feat 10 times. Now, if you do apply it to a spell like ability that modifies another ability, then the feat does NOTHING. Mortalbane only helps if you use the spell like ability against a mortal. It does not help if you use the spell like ability to modify one of your other spell like abilities. It does not matter that the other ability is being used against a mortal, you used the feat on the FIRST ability, not the second.
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 05:55 PM	I agree that the feat description is nothing short of horrible. My first take to balance it was that you'd choose a spell-like ability and you can "Mortalbane" it 5x/day and that's it. You can take the feat more than once and apply it to additional spell-like abilities or make the first one work 10x/day, etc. So changing gears a bit, what do you think about the whole Spell Immunity aspect?
tarkin 07-12-07, 06:41 PM	Well, Spell Immunity (Fireball) also works on Fireball with Spell Subsition (Acid) applied to it. But Spell Immunity (Fireball) does not protect you against a Delayed Fireball. As such, I would rule that anything that modified something you are immune to does not make you less immune to it. So yeah, this kicks the warlock in the balls a bit.
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 07:02 PM	That basically means that a 4th level spell nullifies basically any offensive capability until a warlock reaches 11th level - the point that they gain their Greater invocations which start being 5th level equivalent abilities. Yuck.
runestar 07-12-07, 10:23 PM	Don't forget that mortalbane is 3.0 material, where meta-SLA feats applied to all your SLAs, rather than a single one. Look up the 3.0 incarnation of the quicken SLA feat - it used to let you quicken each of your SLAs 1/day. In 3.5, it would probably just apply to a single SLA, and let it deal an extra 2d6 damage to mortal non-outsiders. You would be able to take it multiple times, each time applying to a new SLA or increasing the number of existing uses by 5. I am not sure if there should be any formula (like empower SLA's limit being equal to caster lv/2 -2 or less), so I will not touch on it for now. Also, I don't think EB is a valid choice for spell immunity. It is not a valid spell from any splatbook you can name anyways.:)
tarkin 07-13-07, 10:39 AM	Ah. Yes. I got so caught up in his question that I failed to point out the obvious problems. Spell Immunity is for SPELLS, not "anything similar to a spell".
Dalthbar 07-13-07, 10:41 AM	Ok, so I could cast Spell Immunity for Fireball and I'd still be immune to a fireball that's cast as a SLA, but I can't specify Eldritch Blast as a Spell Immunity since there's no actual spell of that type, it's 100% SLA. I can certainly live with that. And Mortalbane definitely needs to get 3.5-ified.
BloodDragon 07-13-07, 12:04 PM	May also want to point out that Mortalbane doesn’t specificlly discriminate between damage dealing and non-damage dealing SLAs. Thus a Tiefling could tack it on to his Darkness SLA and enjoy an area effect mortalbane for free, Mind Flayer (Non-Psonic) onto his Mind Blast, or even "Bluff" spells can be affected since the only requirement is that is has to be a Spell-like Ability.
Tectorman 07-15-07, 01:52 AM	Ah. Yes. I got so caught up in his question that I failed to point out the obvious problems. Spell Immunity is for SPELLS, not "anything similar to a spell". Actually, I think the full text is (from the SRD) "protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures." Nothing a Warlock has by virtue of being a Warlock can be considered "innate".
runestar 07-15-07, 02:07 AM	Only problem is... The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Regardless of whether the spell comes in the form of a spell cast by a mage, a SLA used by a demon, or an effect activated from a wand, my impression is that it must still be a valid spell which is found on a spell list. Any spell list will do, but it must ultimately be a spell list. Eldritch blast and other invocations are not spells, not are they found on any spell list, and as such, they would not be legal spell targets to be named as such for purposes of said spell. That its SLAs are not considered innate (since they are granted by virtue of a class) is another unfortunate incident, but not quite the same as the point I was trying to drive across. Good catch though.:)
Dalthbar 07-15-07, 08:14 AM	See, these two points of view are the heart of a disagreement my friend and I are having over EB and Spell Immunity (which I posted in greater detail in the warlock FAQ thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=405215&page=15). Basically, I see the first 3 sentences of the Spell Immunity description as telling you what you can choose to gain the benefits of Spell Immunity (e.g., just spells). That that 5th sentence describes what the benefits are after you've chosen the spells to gain immunity from. He also found a random passage in the Lords of Madness book about Spell Immunity and the mind flayer's Mind Blast, but I don't have LoM, so I just posted what he was saying.