coup-de-grace

[Nish]

Nish: that's *not* debatable:

That's an interesting statement, 'cause here we are. This is also not the first time this has been debated. Remember where you are, we find a way to debate everything here.

 

[kreynolds]

many people at one point interpreted the fact that the spell description specifically lists the effects of the spell, seperate from the definition of negative levels, omiting any reference to hp loss as the spell not resulting in hp loss.

Ummm...you're the only one to bring it up so far, at least in this thread. Though no doubt you are going to tell me that it has been brought up in dozens of threads before.

Look, use logic here. Use common sense. I swear to god if the spell description for fireball didn't actually state that it dealt fire damage, most people like you would scream Well that must mean that it's groin-kicking damage! Cool! Groin-kicking damage bypasses Damage Reduction too! Oooo...does that mean that you can bypass a Barbarian's DR 4/- with groin-kicking damage?", and so the meaningless banter would begin.

Some things in the books are inconclusive, and it's great to have so many people on these boards to help you out in a crunch. But for crying-out-loud don't take it so far.

 

[Nish]

Ummm...you're the only one to bring it up so far, at least in this thread. Though no doubt you are going to tell me that it has been brought up in dozens of threads before.

Look, use logic here. Use common sense. I swear to god if the spell description for fireball didn't actually state that it dealt fire damage, most people like you would scream Well that must mean that it's groin-kicking damage! Cool! Groin-kicking damage bypasses Damage Reduction too! Oooo...does that mean that you can bypass a Barbarian's DR 4/- with groin-kicking damage?", and so the meaningless banter would begin.

Some things in the books are inconclusive, and it's great to have so many people on these boards to help you out in a crunch. But for crying-out-loud don't take it so far.

Only one thread that I know of, and from what I remember the general concesus was that it did not cause the hp loss.

Why must you assume that because I'm being detail oriented, that I'm just dense? I said before that I agree with you on your interpretation. But until it is officially clarified all I would like you to recognize is that it is an interpretation, a very logical one at that.

And yes, if Fireball did not have the [fire] descriptor it would be an interpretation that it did fire damage. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't agree that the spell would do fire damage.

 

[kreynolds]

Why must you assume that because I'm being detail oriented, that I'm just dense? I said before that I agree with you on your interpretation. But until it is officially clarified all I would like to recognize is that it is an interpretation, a very logical one at that.

And yes, if Fireball did not have the [fire] descriptor it would be an interpretation that it did fire damage. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't agree that the spell would do fire damage.

I didn't say you were dense. Not once. Not ever. Not anywhere in my post. And being detail oriented isn't a problem. BUT, raping the crap out of a spell IS a problem. Do you think The Sage (Skip) has the time for stupid questions like this? Granted, some questions are relevant and believe me when I tell you, I've sent some really stupid ones of my own, but that doesn't change a thing.

So many on these boards make like they know it all, like they know balance. Let me ask you this. If the majority of the people here knew balance, do you think we would be here? No. Losing a negative level causes hit point loss. NOW, if enervation does not cause hit point loss, the spell needs to be lowered by 1 level. Why? Because that would balance the spell. I know this. I don't need to rape the spell to know that it causes hit point damage. I know because I can take one quick glance at it and know that Enervation belongs in it's spell level, and it belongs there because it deals negative levels. It doesn't deal hicky damage, it doesn't deal jock itch damage, it doesn't deal, of all things healing damage and it doesn't deal any other kind of damage what-so-ever. How do I know this? Because if it didn't cause hit point loss it wouldn't be a 4th level spell.

 

[Nish]

I didn't say you were dense. Not once. Not ever. Not anywhere in my post.

I didn't say that you said I was dense. I said that you had made that assumption. Not that I believe that you even genuinely made that assumption, its just that you seem unusually baffled by my issue with an unclear rule.

And being detail oriented isn't a problem. BUT, raping the crap out of a spell IS a problem.

Interesting metaphor.

Do you think The Sage (Skip) has the time for stupid questions like this?

Yes. That's his job.

Granted, some questions are relevant and believe me when I tell you, I've sent some really stupid ones of my own, but that doesn't change a thing.

No such thing as a stupid question.

So many on these boards make like they know it all, like they know balance. Let me ask you this. If the majority of the people here knew balance, do you think we would be here? No. Losing a negative level causes hit point loss. NOW, if enervation does not cause hit point loss, the spell needs to be lowered by 1 level. Why? Because that would balance the spell. I know this. I don't need to rape the spell to know that it causes hit point damage. I know because I can take one quick glance at it and know that Enervation belongs in it's spell level, and it belongs there because it deals negative levels. It doesn't deal hicky damage, it doesn't deal jock itch damage, it doesn't deal, of all things healing damage and it doesn't deal any other kind of damage what-so-ever. How do I know this? Because if it didn't cause hit point loss it wouldn't be a 4th level spell.

I'm glad you are confident in your knowledge. However, you still have to establish your ethos more before I can really use you as definitive source of DnD rules knowledge.

I have to go to work now, I'll finish this later.

 

[Uller]

Can some one _please_ point me to where it says in the PHB or DMG that gaining a negative level includes a lose of 5 hit points? I can't find it...not in the PHB glossary entry for negative levels, not in the DMG Energy Drain definition. The _only_ place I can find it is in the SRD...I even looked in the errata for both the DMG and PHB and couldn't find it.

Anyway...I think this was discussed a long time ago and Caliban's answer was that a crit with a spell that does _any_ kind of damage doubles the damage. This included ablity score damage, hp damage and negative levels. So if you crit with enervation, you do 2d4 negative levels(at least that's how I remeber it).

As for as Enervation and what it does: It inflicts 1d4 negative levels and all that that entails. If gaining a negative level means losing 5 hp, then it also includes that, even if it doesn't mention it in the spell description. You can't rely on spells to give you the complete description of the conditions they inflict. If a spell stuns a creature, you should look up the stunned description in the DMG Conditions section or PHB glossary.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Can some one _please_ point me to where it says in the PHB or DMG that gaining a negative level includes a lose of 5 hit points?

In my PH it's on page 280, but I have a second printing.

 

[Mark]

In my PH it's on page 280, but I have a second printing.

Yup. PH 280 line 23-

In the first printing the phrase is "...ity checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, plus a -1 effective level..."

In the second printing the phrase is "...ity checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, -5 hp plus a -1 effective..."

They simply slipped it right in there without so much as a "by your leave..."

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. It's in the first printing. Of course, we must be lying since nobody knew that, right? Give me a frickin' break. Ok. You got me. Insider information that only me and 'o Skoteinos knew about. Yep. WotC came to us and told use the secret. C'mon people!

I'm having trouble wading through the sarcasm to get to your point.

I have a first printing, and as Mark says, there's no mention of the -5hp/level.

If I read the Player's Handbook Rules Corrections PDF and the Clarifications PDF - which are supposed to contain any changes between the first and second printings - there's no mention of -5hp/level.

When the subject first came up, I was completely confused as to where people were getting this rule from.

To someone without a second printing, it simply doesn't exist.

Summing up :

First Printing PHB Enervation: No mention.
First Printing PHB Energy Drain: "As Enervation". No mention.
First Printing PHB Glossary, "negative levels": No mention.
DMG Special Abilities, "energy drain" : No mention.
DMG Condition Summary, "energy drained" : No mention.
MM Special Attacks, "energy drain" : No mention.
MM Individual Monster entries : No mention.

To me, -5hp per negative level is secret WotC Insider Information, because it isn't mentioned in any of the three Core Rules manuals I own, or the errata for the PHB, or the errata for the DMG. Supposedly, this is all I need to play the game - the errata'd First Printing PHB is supposed to be the same as the Second Printing PHB.

Can you see why some of us go "Huh?" when the subject of hit point loss for negative levels comes up?

-Hyp.

 

[Mark]

Can you see why some of us go "Huh?" when the subject of hit point loss for negative levels comes up?

-Hyp.

Yup! I'm amazed it was never added to the errata. They obviously knew enough to add it to the second printing...