Energy Ability Damage

[moritheil]

If, and only if, you can do the sneak attack damage, then you may do the ability damage.

So, in this case, can you do the sneak attack damage? Answer that and you've answered the ability damage question.

Sounds good. I take it that this is the distinction you draw between SA and things like the death knight's touch (negative energy damage + 1 con damage, and thus still does abillity damage against someone with death ward)?

 

[Artoomis]

The player isn't exalted - it's the character. And the character isn't the one trying to determine how rules work in this simulated world. That's the player. The character would know beforehand whether or not something was acceptable.

What's the intent behind the rule? Exalted characters are more than a step above a regular characters in behavior, morals, etc. If in doubt in any way, rule in favor of the more restrictive approach.

 

[moritheil]

What's the intent behind the rule? Exalted characters are more than a step above a regular characters in behavior, morals, etc. If in doubt in any way, rule in favor of the more restrictive approach.

My point is that it's hardly fair to punish the character for a legitimate player concern ("Does this combination of feats/abilities work?")

That said, ruling in favor of restriction is certainly a viable approach.

 

[Artoomis]

My point is that it's hardly fair to punish the character for a legitimate player concern ("Does this combination of feats/abilities work?")

That said, ruling in favor of restriction is certainly a viable approach.

Punish the character? Wouldn't that be the player getting "punished" by over-restricting the character (if indeed this was happening)?

 

[moritheil]

Punish the character? Wouldn't that be the player getting "punished" by over-restricting the character (if indeed this was happening)?

Character goes about his day.

Player - "OOC: By the way, it seems that according to the rules, I can do this."

DM - "OOC: That's crazy abusive. Your character is no longer exalted."

*poof*

Character - "What the heck? I wasn't doing anything!"

 

[Artoomis]

Sounds good. I take it that this is the distinction you draw between SA and things like the death knight's touch (negative energy damage + 1 con damage, and thus still does abillity damage against someone with death ward)?

Yes and no.

You need to look at each situation. For the Death Knight's touch you'd have to ask yourself if the Con damage came from negative energy and was thus thwarted by Death Ward. Another way of viewing this would be to ask, "Do you get the Con damage if you do not get the base negative energy damage?"

I lean towards denying the Con damage, but I think that a very, very strict rules reading might allow it as the Con damage is not actually specified as coming from negative energy.

 

[Artoomis]

Character goes about his day.

Player - "OOC: By the way, it seems that according to the rules, I can do this."

DM - "OOC: That's crazy abusive. Your character is no longer exalted."

*poof*

Character - "What the heck? I wasn't doing anything!"

If you did that, you'd be punishing the player.

The character, in theory, knew all along what they were doing was not exlated, the player did not.

It's all neither here not there. Players and DMs obviously need to agree on such things ahead of time whenever possible.

 

[pawsplay]

Wait a second. If ability damage is not of any energy type, that implies that an azer can be sneak-attacked with a scorching ray that deals no hit point damage (immune to fire) but somehow still deals strength damage.

Did you have a specific spell in mind? When spells and abilities do ability damage in this fashion, it's usually dependent on doing damage first. There may be some (badly written) examples out there somewhere where that isn't true. Just as an example, a rogue's crippling strike requires that it do damage, whereas a weapon of wounding need only hit.

 

[moritheil]

If you did that, you'd be punishing the player.

The character, in theory, knew all along what they were doing was not exlated, the player did not.

It's all neither here not there. Players and DMs obviously need to agree on such things ahead of time whenever possible.

I respectfully disagree with your concept of punishment. The player has just thought of something and asks the DM out of character whether or not it will be allowed. The DM responds by nerfing the character. It seems unfair to impose an actual in-character punishment just for asking. This will only discourage all players from asking questions.

 

[moritheil]

Did you have a specific spell in mind? When spells and abilities do ability damage in this fashion, it's usually dependent on doing damage first. There may be some (badly written) examples out there somewhere where that isn't true. Just as an example, a rogue's crippling strike requires that it do damage, whereas a weapon of wounding need only hit.

I do not; I'm just getting a very exact understanding of how it works.

Thanks!