Evard's Black Tentacles and DR

[Hypersmurf]

I was going to suggest that perhaps these spells were cut'n'paste holdovers from 3E, where skeletons (for example) took half damage from slashing and piercing... but interestingly, in 3E, Spike Stones and Spike Growth dealt 'damage', rather than 'piercing damage'

Hmm... what about an Ooze's 'Split' ability? Activated by Wall of Thorns / Spike Growth, or not?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

I think I'd be inclined to say that as a rule of thumb, if variable damage can be affected by Empower Spell, it's spell damage. So the damage dealt by a monster Summoned by an Empowered Summon Monster III is not increased; it is not spell damage. The bludgeoning damage dealt by an Empowered Ice Storm is increased; it is spell damage.

<yoik> Damn that's a convenient and easy to remember rule of thumb. Thanks Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

<yoik> Damn that's a convenient and easy to remember rule of thumb. Thanks Hyp.

Of course, it's only convenient if you know what you consider to be Empowerable

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Of course, it's only convenient if you know what you consider to be Empowerable

Without being flippant, and without looking at it closely, I expect that determining what is Empowerable is inherently easier than determining whether a spell is subject to DR or not....

 

[Hypersmurf]

Without being flippant, and without looking at it closely, I expect that determining what is Empowerable is inherently easier than determining whether a spell is subject to DR or not....

Potentially. But how would you rule on Earthquake or Transmute Rock to Mud? Empowerable damage, or not?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Potentially. But how would you rule on Earthquake or Transmute Rock to Mud? Empowerable damage, or not?

<hands over ears> Lalalalalalalalala!! I can't hear you!

I'll guess I'll worry about IF any of our campaigns EVER get that high a level or anyone ever actually uses those spells

But on a quick glance, I would say that Transmute Rock to Mud and Earthquake cannot be empowered (or it's a waste if they do). The damage is a result of the changes to the landscape. If the spells had variable area or volume of effect, then maybe the resulting damage would change. But otherwise I'd say no. (but I could understand why someone else would rule otherwise).

 

[Hypersmurf]

(but I could understand why someone else would rule otherwise).

... and that's the problem

Inflict X Wounds is about as definitive a 'direct damage' spell as you can get. Summon Monster is similarly pretty obvious as 'indirect damage'.

In between those two extremes, there's a sort of grey scale. Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are near the direct end; Earthquake and Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound are near the indirect end. Flaming Sphere, Spiritual Weapon, and EBT fall somewhere in the middle.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

how would you rule on Earthquake

Seeing as how the save DCs are predetermined (i.e. unaffected by the spellcaster’s ability), the details in that seem to just be referencing environmental effects for convenience, not because they are a direct effect of the spell.

or Transmute Rock to Mud?

Same here, because the DC of the avalanche is... oops... that does seem to be determined by the caster's ability. Regardless, the damage still seems to be taken from the generic avalanche rules:
"Characters in the bury zone take 8d6 points of damage"

It appears that the mudslide damage would not actually be affected by empower or maximize.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Same here, because the DC of the avalanche is... oops... that does seem to be determined by the caster's ability. Regardless, the damage still seems to be taken from the generic avalanche rules:
"Characters in the bury zone take 8d6 points of damage"

Only without the fixed DC 15, the 'buried' effects, or the slide zone?

Perhaps.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Would an empowered wall of iron do more damage if pushed over onto someone?