Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 11:26 AM	Mortalbane (from Book of Vile Darkness): Mortalbane is a damaging spell-like ability that deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to living nonoutsiders, but only half damage to outsiders, constructs, and undead. Mortalbane can be applied to the creature’s spell-like abilities a total of five times per day, but it can be applied to any of a creature’s spell-like abilities. This feat does not allow a creature to exceed its daily uses of any spell-like ability. I'm playing a Warlock in a 3.5 campaign, and I told my DM I'm interested in getting this feat. I obviously felt I needed approval, since BoVD is 3.0 and the Warlock is 3.5. Also, it's a huge damage increase for my character, essentially letting him double his Eldritch Blast five times per day at 3rd level. Some arguments for allowing it: other feats such as Empower SLA and Maximize SLA scale with character level, whereas this one is 2d6 and will never increase Mortalbane has limited effectiveness vs. certain targets, MSLA and ESLA work against everything, not just mortals Some arguments against allowing it: all the other feats that modify an SLA (Ability Focus, Quicken SLA, etc.) all require a caster level minimum, and Mortalbane doesn't taken at 1st level, it effectively triples damage, and 3rd, doubles damage five times per day. Taken at a low level seems to allow a Warlock a broken amount of damage increase, even if only 5 times per day. The creature type limitation pretty much isn't one at levels below six, you're encountering very few outsiders and constructs the other feats that modify SLAs are limited to 3 times per day, whereas Mortalbane can be used five times per day Some ideas I've had for "fixing" Mortalbane: limit usage to 3 times per day, to bring it in line with other feats that modify SLAs scale the damage, but limit it to 2d6. Example: one extra die at 1-3rd levels, two extra dice at 6+, no more than two dice no "half" damage for constructs, etc. Outsiders, undead, and constructs take no damage from Mortalbane dice
RobbyPants 09-06-07, 11:51 AM	I guess I'll have to look at my BoVD when I get home. Maybe I'm confusing parts of Mortalbane with the PrC in the book. Do you have to be an outsider to take it? Does it apply to abilities (as Eldritch Blast isn't a spell)? Again, maybe I'm remembering the feat wrong, but I was under the impression that a typical PC warlock couldn't take it.
Someone 09-06-07, 12:36 PM	Yeah, I'm with Robby on this, I doubt Mortalbane can be taken by a mortal, nor as early as 1st level. Not to mention you have to be really, really evil for most of the stuff in BoVD.
LazyNinja 09-06-07, 01:01 PM	Yeah, I'm with Robby on this, I doubt Mortalbane can be taken by a mortal, nor as early as 1st level. Not to mention you have to be really, really evil for most of the stuff in BoVD. Except that mortals can take it. The feat has no prerequisites. And it's a General feat, with no alignment descriptor. I guess I'll have to look at my BoVD when I get home. Maybe I'm confusing parts of Mortalbane with the PrC in the book. Do you have to be an outsider to take it? Does it apply to abilities (as Eldritch Blast isn't a spell)? Again, maybe I'm remembering the feat wrong, but I was under the impression that a typical PC warlock couldn't take it. Actually, Mortalbane only applies to spell-like abilities, not spells. I'm no expert, but Mortalbane's actually a recommended feat in the CharOp Warlock Handbook. Was thinking about grabbing it for my Cleric'lock (C'lock?) and am also interested in what people think about its utility. Personally, I don't think it's broken. Compare it to a Warblade's Punishing Stance, which adds 1d6 to every melee attack at first level. At that point, though, pretty much everything dies in one hit anyway.
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 01:14 PM	I don't personally own a copy of BoVD, but my DM does, so I'm not entirely sure. Everything I've read about Mortalbane is stuff I've found online, which I'll admit is circumspect. From here (http://www.devinweb.com/featlisting.htm): Magic - Mortalbane - +2D6 damage to damaging spell-like abilities 5/day - Prerequisites: None - BoVD So, no pre-reqs, racial requirements, alignment requirements, etc. that I've read, and it seems to get brought up on the boards here and there as a "must-have" for Warlock builds (again making it suspect).
Puca 09-06-07, 01:19 PM	It's 2d6 – average of 6 points of damage, and its limited use. Yeah, at level 3, double damage seems really great, but you are also routinely missing ranged touch-attacks at that level. It is a pretty big boost at precisely the time when warlocks are most powerful relative to other classes. But long run, with a feat-hungry class like the warlock, I really dont see it as an issue.
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 01:30 PM	Personally, I don't think it's broken. Compare it to a Warblade's Punishing Stance, which adds 1d6 to every melee attack at first level. At that point, though, pretty much everything dies in one hit anyway. That's one of the points I made to my DM, I quoted Fiery Fist from PHB2 which allows a monk to add +1d6 of fire damage in lieu of using Stunning Fist. However, a monk can't get Fiery Fist until he has a BAB of +8. Fists of Iron (Complete Warrior) is a better example, it's +1d6 normal damage and only requires a BAB of +2, and they can get that bonus all day long. There's also Rapid Assault - +1d6 melee damage in the 1st round of combat, it only requires a BAB of +1.
RobbyPants 09-06-07, 01:50 PM	It's 2d6 – average of 6 points of damage, and its limited use. Yeah, at level 3, double damage seems really great, but you are also routinely missing ranged touch-attacks at that level. It is a pretty big boost at precisely the time when warlocks are most powerful relative to other classes. But long run, with a feat-hungry class like the warlock, I really dont see it as an issue. It's actually an average of 7, but still I see your point. At lower levels this will be huge. At higher levels it won't be such a big deal. Still, in terms of "banes" mortal bane has a pretty broad spectrum of what is and what is not effected.
chucky 09-06-07, 02:00 PM	Its not that broken if you look at the life of the char. At low lvl it will be uber but as you get higher you will barly notice it. The real problem comes when its applied to the game your playing in. There is a reason it was put into the BOVD. Warlocks allready have people mistrusting them just by being warlocks. When you add a feat called Mortal bane your just asking for trouble. Its like the sceptre that adds a profane bonus to your Eb damage. Extra damage is allways nice but the first "good" person who detects evil in your dir probably wont be very happy your using it :)
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 02:15 PM	Its not that broken if you look at the life of the char. At low lvl it will be uber but as you get higher you will barly notice it. The real problem comes when its applied to the game your playing in. There is a reason it was put into the BOVD. Warlocks allready have people mistrusting them just by being warlocks. When you add a feat called Mortal bane your just asking for trouble. Its like the sceptre that adds a profane bonus to your Eb damage. Extra damage is allways nice but the first "good" person who detects evil in your dir probably wont be very happy your using it :) As I tell the cleric in our party repeatedly, I'm not evil, I'm just a tortured soul! My character doesn't deserve revulsion for the evil in his heart, he deserves pity and compassion :devil:
Puca 09-06-07, 02:31 PM	Your character doesnt even have the metagame concept of "feats," so it is unlikely that the name will trouble him or anyone else much. In effect, it works equally well, poorly, on evil outsiders as it does on good ones, and the extra damage is untyped.
chucky 09-06-07, 04:16 PM	If there is no noticable effets then your right. But if its linked to any kind of special effect that goes off when you use it might be a problem. The op might want to read over the feat and see where exactly that extra damage is comming from :) Alot of the feats in the BOVD come with visible effects/side effects that are not easy to hide. But if ite not noticale and does not leave any nasty evil side effects i would definitly get it for my next warlock i make :)
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 04:50 PM	Back to the original discussion, if it's broken, how best is it fixed? All three of my compromises? One or two of them? Anyone have suggestions on how best to fix this feat so it's not overpowering and my DM doesn't cringe every time I use the ability (or flat out disallow me to take it)? I want the feat, believe me, but I also understand my DM's concerns about brokenage. Compared to all the other 3.5 feats that alter SLAs, Mortalbane does seem to be overpowering. I doubt I'll be able to convince my DM to allow my character to take the feat in it's original form, but some sort of scaled down version he'll probably find acceptable.
Puca 09-06-07, 05:10 PM	Its not broken, but: Some ideas I've had for "fixing" Mortalbane: limit usage to 3 times per day, to bring it in line with other feats that modify SLAs Your problem at low levels is that it can end an encounter too quickly. Seven extra points of damage kills the bad guy in one round. Depending on the number of encounters, this wont have much of an impact. But, when you get to higher levels, where the feat matters less and the clerics and wizards are going nova, you have even less bang for your buck. This doesnt do much to help when the feat is good, and makes it worse when the feat is sort of meh. scale the damage, but limit it to 2d6. Example: one extra die at 1-3rd levels, two extra dice at 6+, no more than two diceThis could work, but I dont think it is necessary. You only have two feats at that level. You could have taken Point Blank and Precise Shot and youd be doing more damage by virtue of hitting more often. no "half" damage for constructs, etc. Outsiders, undead, and constructs take no damage from Mortalbane dice It is pretty campaign dependant. You might not face any undead. And again, at low levels, you face few outsiders and constructs, though skeletons and zombies are more common. So this "fix" doesnt hurt you as much at level 3 as it will at level 15. When the feat is powerful, it is still just as powerful, but when it is marginal, it is now worse.
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 06:47 PM	In regards to scaling the damage: This could work, but I dont think it is necessary. You only have two feats at that level. You could have taken Point Blank and Precise Shot and youd be doing more damage by virtue of hitting more often. In my case I'm playing a Human Warlock and took Point Blank and Precise Shot at 1st level. So, the sliding scale of damage doesn't mean anything to a character who takes it at 6th, but mitigates the extra damage for someone who took it at 1st-5th.
Jaxgaret 09-06-07, 07:25 PM	I am entirely in favor of editing this feat. As written, it is too much of a boost at low levels, and too little of a boost at higher levels. Adding on to this problem is the fact that the Warlock's sweet spot on the power curve is at level 5; add in Mortalbane, and we might hear your DM on these boards come that time complaining "Warlocks w/Mortalbane = Overpowered Killing MY Game OMGHAXWTFBBQ what do i do". I would favor ditching its damage curve completely and making it scale from level 1 to 20. An easy damage curve I came up with is to make it deal an extra +1d4 points of damage at every level you normally gain a feat; +1d4 at 1st level, +2d4 at 3rd, +3d4 at 6th, etc. This is more balanced at both low and high levels. You can leave everything else the same.
AngryMatt 09-06-07, 07:52 PM	I am entirely in favor of editing this feat. As written, it is too much of a boost at low levels, and too little of a boost at higher levels. Adding on to this problem is the fact that the Warlock's sweet spot on the power curve is at level 5; add in Mortalbane, and we might hear your DM on these boards come that time complaining "Warlocks w/Mortalbane = Overpowered Killing MY Game OMGHAXWTFBBQ what do i do". I would favor ditching its damage curve completely and making it scale from level 1 to 20. An easy damage curve I came up with is to make it deal an extra +1d4 points of damage at every level you normally gain a feat; +1d4 at 1st level, +2d4 at 3rd, +3d4 at 6th, etc. This is more balanced at both low and high levels. You can leave everything else the same. The problem with that argument is that then all feats like this should scale. Iron Fist, Flaming Fist, etc. as mentioned above don't scale beyond a single d6, and I don't think Mortalbane should scale beyond 2d6. True, they work against any opponent, but that's why Mortalbane should be 2d6 vs. 1d6: more effective vs. some opponents and not effective vs. others. I definately lean towards bullet 3: no "bane" effect should have partial damage vs. a non-bane type. As far as the other two, I'm not sure if both are necessary, but definately one of them.
Jaxgaret 09-06-07, 08:02 PM	I was talking about your specific situation, that of a Warlock taking Mortalbane. Warlocks are at the peak of their power curve at low levels, and particularly at level 5. The Mortalbane feat is incredibly good at low levels, and diminished in usefulness at higher levels. The combination of the two makes for a very high powered low level character, and a relatively weak one at high levels. My fix suggestion took this into account. But, do what you want. The problem with that argument is that then all feats like this should scale. Well, yeah. They should.
Tedronai 09-06-07, 08:02 PM	Those feats, however scale in number of uses at higher levels (by virtue of being based off Stunning Fist attempts), Mortalbane does not. Changing the feat to be useable 2+1/4 levels / day might solve that problem (since the feat as written is available at 1st level usuable 5 times/day, simply changing it to 1/4 levels would make the feat strictly less valuable until epic levels, at which point it is nearly irrelevant anyway)
Puca 09-06-07, 08:39 PM	In my case I'm playing a Human Warlock and took Point Blank and Precise Shot at 1st level. So, the sliding scale of damage doesn't mean anything to a character who takes it at 6th, but mitigates the extra damage for someone who took it at 1st-5th.Regardless of the specific example, the point holds true for any number of feats. You could have been better in some other way by virtue of having some other feat. Like all feats, its a trade off. Like many trades, this one depreciates in relative value. Well, yeah. They should.I dont think it possible to make every feat as good at level one as it is at level 20. I think there are inevitably going to be unintended consequences in attempting to do so. As for DMs who freak out to the point of banning warlocks and/or this feat because it increases the warlocks average damage on a successful hit by 7 a limited number of times per day, this type of myopia is not likely limited to this case alone. I dont think restructuring the game is the best way of dealing with them.
Auramancer 09-06-07, 09:32 PM	I definately lean towards bullet 3: no "bane" effect should have partial damage vs. a non-bane type. As far as the other two, I'm not sure if both are necessary, but definately one of them. The feat description has been mangled regarding outsiders, undead and constructs. Not only does the +2d6 damage not apply to those creature types, but the actual spell-like ability's damage is halved. There's an explicit example in the feat description for this (a Gelugon's Mortalbane Cone of Cold dealing either 45+2d6 or 22, depending on the target's type). Of course, it's not really much of a drawback, since you won't waste a 5/day ability on a creature who'll take less damage (provided you can recognize its type). Also: The effects of the feat are available 5/day for EACH of a character's spell-like abilities. This is probably where it's broken.
runestar 09-06-07, 10:26 PM	The feat can be problematic in the wrong hands at low levels. For example, a tiefling could apply it to his darkness SLA and deal 2d6 damage to everyone caught in the spell's radius (mortalbane is very liberal in its application, thus, even spells which do not normally deal damage can benefit from it). Don't warlocks get an invocation replicating darkness as well? When do they get it?
Jaxgaret 09-07-07, 04:11 AM	I dont think it possible to make every feat as good at level one as it is at level 20. I think there are inevitably going to be unintended consequences in attempting to do so. As for DMs who freak out to the point of banning warlocks and/or this feat because it increases the warlocks average damage on a successful hit by 7 a limited number of times per day, this type of myopia is not likely limited to this case alone. I dont think restructuring the game is the best way of dealing with them. I was talking about this specific feat with Warlocks. I said nothing about restructuring the entire game, nor of making every feat scale from 1 to 20. I said that "all feats like this" should scale, not 'all feats'.
AngryMatt 09-07-07, 08:54 AM	The feat can be problematic in the wrong hands at low levels. For example, a tiefling could apply it to his darkness SLA and deal 2d6 damage to everyone caught in the spell's radius (mortalbane is very liberal in its application, thus, even spells which do not normally deal damage can benefit from it). Don't warlocks get an invocation replicating darkness as well? When do they get it? They not only get Darkness, they get Summon Swarm. By that interpretation, would they take the 2d6 Mortalbane damage every round or just the first round? If every round, then a Mortalbane Swarm would deal 3d6 every round, area effect. Yuck.
RobbyPants 09-07-07, 11:46 AM	The feat can be problematic in the wrong hands at low levels. For example, a tiefling could apply it to his darkness SLA and deal 2d6 damage to everyone caught in the spell's radius (mortalbane is very liberal in its application, thus, even spells which do not normally deal damage can benefit from it). Don't warlocks get an invocation replicating darkness as well? When do they get it? IIRC (I finally got a chance to read the feat in its entirety yesterday), Mortalbane can only be applied to a SLA that already deals damage. Also, I somehow missed the 5x uses per day in the OP's quote. Looking at the whole feat in the BoVD, I don't think it's overpowered. It will certainly be useful to the warlock, but on a 5x per day basis. So at 1st level, he can pea-shoot monsters for 1d6, and if he feels he needs a bit of a boost, he can blast mortals for 3d6, but only 5x per day.
Puca 09-07-07, 12:36 PM	Couple things: The text of the feat doesnt specifically limit it to SLAs that deal damage. It does say that it “deals 2d6 points of additional damage” so it could be interpreted that way, and probably should be. It could also be read as it applies additional damage regardless of how much damage was done before, 100 points or zero. (When applied to something like Darkness or Summon Swarm, it would only do damage to a creature once, not every round they were in the dark. That much is certain.) Also, seem to have been in error. I read the feat as being useable only 5 times a day total, and, while I think that is still the better interpretation, the one that applies it to each and every SLA you have 5 time per day each is more consistent with the text. As a DM, I would not allow it like that. A key part of my argument that it isnt broken hinges on its limited use. This ups that limit quite a bit. I said that "all feats like this" should scale, not 'all feats'.I would still not think it worth it to restructure a feat like this. The fact that it is good now, worse later makes its selection an informed choice players are free to make or not.
RobbyPants 09-07-07, 12:45 PM	The text of the feat doesnt specifically limit it to SLAs that deal damage. It does say that it “deals 2d6 points of additional damage” so it could be interpreted that way, and probably should be. Are you talking about the entire feat text from the BoVD or just what the OP posted? The OP posted one paragraph, but the BoVD has about three, IIRC. I thought that in the first paragraph it stated it could only be applied to a SLA that dealt damage. It then went on to give an example with a Gulgeon with Cone of Cold.
AngryMatt 09-07-07, 01:01 PM	Are you talking about the entire feat text from the BoVD or just what the OP posted? The OP posted one paragraph, but the BoVD has about three, IIRC. I thought that in the first paragraph it stated it could only be applied to a SLA that dealt damage. It then went on to give an example with a Gulgeon with Cone of Cold. Yeah, apologies to all, I don't own a copy of BoVD so I was reposting basically what I was finding on the boards and elsewhere. That brings up another point, my DM pointed out that "Warlocks didn't exist when BoVD was written", and that's a valid point. The example they give is for a creature with spell-like abilities, not a class with one. Splitting hairs, maybe, but it should be taken into consideration. A possibly large point for the argument against it: the Baneful Blast invocation (+2d6 to specified creature type) from Complete Mage. There are some pros and cons in the comparison: Pros: Baneful Blast can be used an unlimited number of times per day, whereas Mortalbane is limited to five times per day Cons: BB doesn't allow anything so broad as "mortal" to be the defined type. It'd have to be "humanoid", "animal", "undead", etc. Mortalbane is incredibly broad in definition by comparision A Warlock can't get BB until 6th level at the earliest, whereas Mortalbane can be taken at 1st Granted, this is a myopic view and it's comparing a feat to a Warlock invocation; it's not exactly apples to apples. There are things invocations can do that you could never achieve with a feat (there's no feat you can take to give a character Darkvision 60' and See Invisibility at will at 1st level, but there's an invocation that does), and vice versa, so comparing them so directly may not be completely fair.
Puca 09-07-07, 01:09 PM	My BoVD is at home. The secondary source Im using reads: “A mortalbane ability is a damaging spell-like ability that deals 2d6 points of additional damage when used against living non outsiders, but only half damage (rounded down) against outsiders, undead, and constructs.” And then goes on to give that same example. Admittedly, there might be a difference in the actual published text, but that would surprise me a little. I believe that “additional damage” assumes some damage to start with, and would interpret it that way in my games, but like I said, I can see someone “adding” that 2d6 to 0.
RobbyPants 09-07-07, 02:28 PM	That brings up another point, my DM pointed out that "Warlocks didn't exist when BoVD was written", and that's a valid point. The example they give is for a creature with spell-like abilities, not a class with one. Splitting hairs, maybe, but it should be taken into consideration. Your DM has a point and I wouldn't consider that an unfair ruling. It seems reasonable to assume at the time BoVD was written, Mortalbane was created with creatures in mind. Also, the Baneful Blast invocation seems like a safe way to go. Still, being capped at 5x uses per day, I don't consider Mortalbane to be that powerful. It's a nice boost (espescially at low levels when it's a large proportional gain), but it's not that nice. Another important consideration is that this takes a feat; something most warlocks are in need of. Even 3d6 at first level isn't that much. The average damage on 1d6 is 3.5, and another way to look at 3d6 is 2d6 + 3.5. Realistically, what 1st level, greatsword-wielding fighter or barbarian isn't doing that much or more every hit? Granted, there are some other abilities (other than Eldritch Blast) that can use this to bet more milage, but I still don't know of anything super broken.
AngryMatt 09-07-07, 03:20 PM	Still, being capped at 5x uses per day, I don't consider Mortalbane to be that powerful. It's a nice boost (espescially at low levels when it's a large proportional gain), but it's not that nice. Another important consideration is that this takes a feat; something most warlocks are in need of. Even 3d6 at first level isn't that much. The average damage on 1d6 is 3.5, and another way to look at 3d6 is 2d6 + 3.5. Realistically, what 1st level, greatsword-wielding fighter or barbarian isn't doing that much or more every hit? Devil's advocate: the fighter or barbarian in question isn't using touch AC, enemies are getting their full AC and the fighter/barbarian is having to engage in melee. A Warlock is using touch AC and he's firing safely away from range. A slightly above average melee type with a Greatsword is swinging 2d6 + 6 (18 strength for +4, using a two-handed weapon adds two for +6) for an average of 13, whereas the Warlock with Mortalbane at 3rd can do 4d6 for an average of 14 per hit. Pretty close, and what mitigates it is that the Mortalbane feat is limited to 5 times per day. The rest of the time he's hitting more often, but only doing 7 points on average.
RobbyPants 09-07-07, 03:40 PM	Devil's advocate: the fighter or barbarian in question isn't using touch AC, enemies are getting their full AC and the fighter/barbarian is having to engage in melee. A Warlock is using touch AC and he's firing safely away from range. A slightly above average melee type with a Greatsword is swinging 2d6 + 6 (18 strength for +4, using a two-handed weapon adds two for +6) for an average of 13, whereas the Warlock with Mortalbane at 3rd can do 4d6 for an average of 14 per hit. Pretty close, and what mitigates it is that the Mortalbane feat is limited to 5 times per day. The rest of the time he's hitting more often, but only doing 7 points on average. As you mentioned, the mitigating factor is 5 times per day, and it's only 7 points of damage extra. Although, without even going nuts, take a level one human barbarian with a 15 Str (using a 25 point point-buy): Give him the Power Attack and Weapon Focus (Greatsword) feats. While touch attacks are nice, at level one, most creatures won't have an AC so high that it will make more than a +5 or 6 difference. Even still, the barbarian will have +4 to hit normally (with WF factored in). He'll get +2 if he rages, and +2 if he charges. His damage will vary depending on the circumstances: Normal: +4 to hit, 2d6+3 (Avg 10) Charge: +6 to hit, 2d6+3 (Avg 10) Rage: +6 to hit, 2d6+6 (Avg 13) Power Attack: +3 to hit, 2d6+5 (Avg 12) Charge & Power Attack: +5 to hit, 2d6+5 (Avg 12) Rage & Power Attack: +5 to hit, 2d6+8 (Avg 15) Charge & Rage: +8 to hit, 2d6+6 (Avg 13) Charge & Rage & Power Attack: +7 to hit, 2d6+8 (Avg 15) That was a bit tedious, but you see that compared to the average damage of the Mortalbane EB at level 1 (10.5 for 3d6), as long as he rages or uses power attack, he comes out ahead, and if not, he's only half a point behind. And that's just using two fairly standard feats for a barbarian at level 1.
LazyNinja 09-07-07, 04:54 PM	That brings up another point, my DM pointed out that "Warlocks didn't exist when BoVD was written", and that's a valid point. The example they give is for a creature with spell-like abilities, not a class with one. Splitting hairs, maybe, but it should be taken into consideration. Ah, but in the text under Warlock Invocations in Complete Arcane, it specifically states that a Warlock can benefit from Ability Focus, Quicken and Empower Spell-Like Ability, all of which are from the Monster Manual, as well as similar feats. All of these feats also refer to a "creature" with spell-like abilities, not a class with one.
RobbyPants 09-08-07, 09:18 AM	My BoVD is at home. The secondary source Im using reads: “A mortalbane ability is a damaging spell-like ability that deals 2d6 points of additional damage when used against living non outsiders, but only half damage (rounded down) against outsiders, undead, and constructs.” And then goes on to give that same example. Admittedly, there might be a difference in the actual published text, but that would surprise me a little. I believe that “additional damage” assumes some damage to start with, and would interpret it that way in my games, but like I said, I can see someone “adding” that 2d6 to 0. You are correct. I looked it up when I got home. It's pretty much worded the way you printed it. So I guess you could try to make an arguement that 2d6 additional damage could be added to 0 damage. I wouldn't allow it in my games, but my game isn't the topic of this thread. :P
Puca 09-08-07, 01:52 PM	I think it must have been intended to apply to only damaging abilities, but it doesnt explicitly say so, so it comes down to a DMs interpretation. Depending on the character and the campaign, I might allow it on a non-damaging SLA. Its only an average of 7 damage after all. But I would also limit it to five times per day total, no matter how shaky that interpretation. That brings up another point, my DM pointed out that "Warlocks didn't exist when BoVD was written", and that's a valid point. No, it isnt really a valid point. Its pretty irrelevant. There are literally dozens and dozens of feats and abilities that were published before dozens and dozens of classes that can take advantage of them came along. No one, I think, bans all such feats for all such classes on that basis alone. They only do so if there is a problem, and if there were a problem, they would act to solve it regardless of what was published first. So it isnt really so much a reason, as a post hoc excuse you can use when cant articulate a good reason.
Jaxgaret 09-08-07, 04:15 PM	So it isnt really so much a reason, as a post hoc excuse you can use when cant articulate a good reason. QFT.