Warlocks and Rapid Shot, And Gear Questions

[RigaMortus2]

Show how mechanically that is fluff.

Do you mean "show how it is fluff"? I don't understand the use of your word "mechancially" in that sentence.

If I understand what you are asking, it's simple really...

In order to figure out how things work, you need rules to guide you. Within these rules, there are game terms with very specific meanings. Nothing about "demand part of your essence" is game terminology. How do you define "essence"? Does essence = Con score? Does essence = Con modifier? Does essence = you soul?

You can't define what this sentence means. By itself, it doesn't mean anything. It is just "fluff". So we have to look at the rest of the paragraph. Basically what it is saying is that if you don't have a Con score (which we do, so ignore this) or you are immune to Con damage [in general] (which we aren't) then this ability doesn't work on you.

 

[Matdeception]

To Rigamortus2, Pawsplay, Nifft, and Hammerhead

Damn it, I wanted to avoid this argument all together. First and foremost, by raw rules Strongheart Vest works, I think everyone can actually agree on that. Does Strongheart vest comply with the spirit of the rules? No. I'm feasibly sure when they wrote the text in question they didn't consider Strongheart vest.

Because the text actually says 'Because the diabolical forces demand part of your essence' you can even argue the fact that since you don't take any con damage, it shouldn't work. Really, it depends on the GM and his interpretation of the rules.

Everyone agrees on the Binder/Bind Naberius option simply because that doesn't resist damage, you actually take the con hit, but then you heal up one con damage a round.

Anyway, let's quickly end this argument in the bud and say 'Open to DM interpretation'.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It's right there in front of you. 1 point of Con damage. See the previous sentence in that same paragraph for the definition as it applies in that sentence.

Oooo look, I did.

Cheers, -- N

Good try, but no.

What you are claiming is that any time you take 1 point of Con damage, you are giving up part of your essence to a diabloical force. I don't think so Tim.

You are mixing up two different sentences. The second doesn't relate to the first. There is:

1) You take 1 point of Con damage
and
2) If you lack a Con score, or if you are immune to Con damage, you can't use this ability.

The "giving up your essence to diabloical forces" relates to the 2nd one, as it is part of the same sentence even.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Anyway, let's quickly end this argument in the bud and say 'Open to DM interpretation'.

Hmmm...

Fine with me

 

[Nifft]

Good try, but no.

What you are claiming is that any time you take 1 point of Con damage, you are giving up part of your essence to a diabloical force. I don't think so Tim.

You are mixing up two different sentences. The second doesn't relate to the first. There is:

1) You take 1 point of Con damage
and
2) If you lack a Con score, or if you are immune to Con damage, you can't use this ability.

The "giving up your essence to diabloical forces" relates to the 2nd one, as it is part of the same sentence even.

You seriously think that there's not a single coherent thought running through two sentences, in a paragraph of two sentences, both of which discuss Con damage? Do you have any idea how stupid ALL the rules become if you cut them into unrelated sentences?

In case that wasn't clear: you are wrong, and I'll show you how.

Sentence 1: Description of ability requirement.
Sentence 2: Expansion and explanation of requirement.

You're asking that half of a sentence be deemed "fluff" -- the center of a paragraph of rules text -- because that sentence ruins an exploit. Neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules are on your side, though the letter is less clearly against you.

However, if this whole "long sentence" thing is too much to grok, let's just talk about the end of that sentence. If your DM tells you to take one point of Con damage, and you tell him you're immune to that effect, you're going to have a hard time explaining that you aren't really "somehow immune" to Con damage at the precise moment that you don't take Con damage.

But I'd like to hear you try to dance around it. Go on, tell me how were you not "somehow immune" to Con damage at the moment when you didn't take any?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Zurai]

However, if this whole "long sentence" thing is too much to grok, let's just talk about the end of that sentence. If your DM tells you to take one point of Con damage, and you tell him you're immune to that effect, you're going to have a hard time explaining that you aren't really "somehow immune" to Con damage at the precise moment that you don't take Con damage.

First, there's no need to start throwing insults.

Second, reducing damage is not the same as being immune to damage, or trolls with resist energy cast on them would lose their regeneration. It doesn't matter what type of damage is being reduced - reduction is not and cannot be immunity unless all possible values of that type of damage are reduced to zero. Which has a specific game definition, coincidentally called "immunity". If something is not immune to a type of damage, it is therefore amazingly not immune to that type of damage.

Now, that's very obviously against the intent and spirit of the rule. If a player were to bring that up to me, I'd cheerfully say, "Yes, indeed, you have the rules as written correct. However, Rule 0 says I can interpret the rules however I see fit, and I say the clear intent and spirit of the rules are what I'm going to follow. No con damage, no hellfire. Wanna play a Hellfire Warlock? Multiclass to Binder, take the xp penalty, and bind Naberius."

 

[Nifft]

To Rigamortus2, Pawsplay, Nifft, and Hammerhead

Damn it, I wanted to avoid this argument all together. First and foremost, by raw rules Strongheart Vest works, I think everyone can actually agree on that. Does Strongheart vest comply with the spirit of the rules? No. I'm feasibly sure when they wrote the text in question they didn't consider Strongheart vest.

IMHO by the RAW it doesn't work, but if you're going on spirit, then it's even clearer. (BTW, the WotC CharOp board agrees with this position -- and they are absolute experts on finding where the RAW can be mercilessly violated.)

Everyone agrees on the Binder/Bind Naberius option simply because that doesn't resist damage, you actually take the con hit, but then you heal up one con damage a round.

Yep, that works. But it also costs you a level rather than just a feat -- so it's less of a spiritual violation, as well as being legal RAW.

Anyway, let's quickly end this argument in the bud and say 'Open to DM interpretation'.

How about we take the RAW discussion to the WotC CharOp board? They're better at this than anyone in this thread, me included.

Cheers, -- N

 

[RigaMortus2]

You seriously think that there's not a single coherent thought running through two sentences, in a paragraph of two sentences, both of which discuss Con damage? Do you have any idea how stupid ALL the rules become if you cut them into unrelated sentences?

Nah, you're wrong. Hard to explain my interpretation to someone who doesn't know the basic defintion of rules terminology. Look up immunity for me.

In case that wasn't clear: you are wrong, and I'll show you how.

Sentence 1: Description of ability requirement.
Sentence 2: Expansion and explanation of requirement.

1) Ok, I follow you. No arguement here.
2) Ok... What I am saying is that the only thing useful we can take from this part is the mechanics aspect. The rest is just the in-game reason it works. They could just as easily said "a bit of your soul must be sacrificed" or "your health is weakened" or "your stamina is a bit drained". None of that "fluff" matters when it comes down to what they are getting at. And what they are getting at is the last part of the paragraph where it discusses (a) not having a Con score and (b) not being somehow immune to Con damage. And as I HOPE we can agree on, Strongheart Vest doesn't make you IMMUNE to ability point damage, no more than Damage Reduction makes you immune to damage (if they damage doesn't exceed the DR) and same for Energy Resistance.

You're asking that half of a sentence be deemed "fluff" -- the center of a paragraph of rules text -- because that sentence ruins an exploit. Neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules are on your side, though the letter is less clearly against you.

"sprit" of the rules = designer intent = unless you are the designer, your opinion about it is just as valid as mine.
"letter" of the rules = mechanics (using specific game terms and rules) = the facts, something you can't argue about unless you don't know the rules and are arguing for the sake of arguing.

However, if this whole "long sentence" thing is too much to grok, let's just talk about the end of that sentence. If your DM tells you to take one point of Con damage, and you tell him you're immune to that effect,

Let's stop right there for a minute. Of course i wouldn't tell him I am immune to the effect. That is my point. I would tell him that the 1 point of Con damage I take is reduced to 0 from my SHV.

But I'd like to hear you try to dance around it. Go on, tell me how were you not "somehow immune" to Con damage at the moment when you didn't take any?

Thanks, -- N

I am agreeing with you here. I am not immune to Con damage. I take the Con damage, and reduce any of that Con damage by 1 point. In this case, the damage I take is reduced to 0. No need to dance around something we agree on. But if you want, feel free to call it a pirouette.

And as Matdeception requested let's quickly end this argument in the bud and say 'Open to DM interpretation'.

Which I tried to do. But if you insist to keep on it, so be it. It is clear I am not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so what's the point? But if you want to waste time, go ahead, I have time to waste as well.

 

[Aestolia]

I'd like to just point out that you can not take Quicken Spell-Like Ability to eldritch blast, it doesn't qualify:

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s spell-like abilities, subject to the restrictions described below. The creature can use that ability as a quickened spell-like ability three times per day (or less, if the ability is normally usable only once or twice per day).

Using a quickened spell-like ability is a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The creature can perform another action—including the use of another spell-like ability—in the same round that it uses a quickened spell-like ability. The creature may use only one quickened spell-like ability per round.

The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to half its caster level (round down) –4. For a summary, see the table below.
In addition, a spell-like ability that duplicates a spell with a casting time greater than 1 full round cannot be quickened.

An eldritch blast is the equivalent of a spell whose level is equal to one-half the warlock's class level (round down), with a minimum level of 1st and a maximum of 9th, when the warlock reaches 18th level or higher.

So, as a 12th level Warlock your blast is a 6th level spell as a 12th level Warlock, you could quicken an ability equal to level 2.
(12/2 -> 6-4 -> 2)

You wouldn't be able to quicken eldritch blast until you were. level 26.
(9th level +4 -> 13 x2 -> 26)

 

[AnonymousOne]

I'd like to just point out that you can not take Quicken Spell-Like Ability to eldritch blast, it doesn't qualify:

So, as a 12th level Warlock your blast is a 6th level spell as a 12th level Warlock, you could quicken an ability equal to level 2.
(12/2 -> 6-4 -> 2)

You wouldn't be able to quicken eldritch blast until you were. level 26.
(9th level +4 -> 13 x2 -> 26)

If I recall this got changed in the Complete Arcane Errata but I'm not sure. Might want to check it out.

EDIT

Here is the Errata:

Page 7: Eldritch Blast
Second paragraph of the Eldritch Blast ability
description:
Change “An eldritch blast is the equivalent of a spell
whose level is equal to one-half the warlock’s class
level (round down), with a minimum spell level of 1st
and a maximum of 9th when the warlock reaches 18th
level or higher” to “An eldritch blast is the equivalent
of a 1st-level spell. If you apply a blast shape or eldritch
essence invocation to your eldritch blast (see page 130),
your eldritch blast uses the level equivalent of the shape
or essence.”
Any other references to eldritch blast being something
other than the equivalent of a 1st-level spell should be
disregarded.
Any other references claiming that eldritch blast is not
an invocation should be disregarded.
A warlock can use eldritch blast at will.