Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Vampiric Touch
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 488824" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>My opinions on this thread... please note they all suppose IMVHO <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Being the same spell cast twice, normally the effect should not stack.</p><p>I really think that basically all instantaneous spells DO stack, since actually it's not really a matter af stacking, but instantaneous damage is the same as hitting the same foe with a sword over and over. If you cast VT twice on the same target, you damage him twice.</p><p>OTOH, the effect on YOU is not instantaneous, and I would say you get the better result of the 2 spells. Actually, I'd say you get temp HP as which is better between the 2nd spell and what's left from the 1st spell (e.g. you cast it once and get 20hp, then lose 10hp - you still have 10 - you cast it again and get 15, so now you have 15 hp).</p><p>Basically, you can cast it again to "replenish" your temp Hp; and anyway, you can cast it again simply to kill the foe more quickly <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>If you cast VT against a foes (including multiple times) you get at most his HP+10, you're "stealing" HP from him, so you just can't "steal" more than he has.</p><p>From multiple foes you can drain as much as they have each, then you figure out how many HP you get, depending on the previous casting.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Apart the fact that here "if you use the vampiric touch spell, the temporary hit points you gain from that particular casting of the spell stack" seems to me to mean nothing at all (stack with what? of course with your current hp - pretty obvious), the FAQs seem to confirm my opinion.</p><p>I disagree that temp Hp from different spells shouldn't stack, since usually unnamed bonuses from different sources DO stack, but if this is a specific rule for temporary Hp (which work differently from a normal bonus, since you "consume" them), it's fine for me.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>It doesn't explicitly say it's negative energy damage, AND it specicies instead that it works only on living beings. So I'd simply say that the spell fails and have no effects at all on non-living things, such as Undead, Constructs, objects or anything that does not have a Constitution score: MM's Plants are subject, but not generic vegetables... you can't "suck life" from an artichoke because it's "alive" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. It must still be a "creature" i.e. has Wis and Cha.</p><p>You won't get any drawbacks if you cast it on Undead, apart that you waste the spell (and notice that a touch attack is delivered only with an attack ACTION, you can't be hit only because YOU are touching him).</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Well, that's when you are on the Positive Energy Plane only! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 488824, member: 1465"] My opinions on this thread... please note they all suppose IMVHO :) Being the same spell cast twice, normally the effect should not stack. I really think that basically all instantaneous spells DO stack, since actually it's not really a matter af stacking, but instantaneous damage is the same as hitting the same foe with a sword over and over. If you cast VT twice on the same target, you damage him twice. OTOH, the effect on YOU is not instantaneous, and I would say you get the better result of the 2 spells. Actually, I'd say you get temp HP as which is better between the 2nd spell and what's left from the 1st spell (e.g. you cast it once and get 20hp, then lose 10hp - you still have 10 - you cast it again and get 15, so now you have 15 hp). Basically, you can cast it again to "replenish" your temp Hp; and anyway, you can cast it again simply to kill the foe more quickly :). If you cast VT against a foes (including multiple times) you get at most his HP+10, you're "stealing" HP from him, so you just can't "steal" more than he has. From multiple foes you can drain as much as they have each, then you figure out how many HP you get, depending on the previous casting. Apart the fact that here "if you use the vampiric touch spell, the temporary hit points you gain from that particular casting of the spell stack" seems to me to mean nothing at all (stack with what? of course with your current hp - pretty obvious), the FAQs seem to confirm my opinion. I disagree that temp Hp from different spells shouldn't stack, since usually unnamed bonuses from different sources DO stack, but if this is a specific rule for temporary Hp (which work differently from a normal bonus, since you "consume" them), it's fine for me. It doesn't explicitly say it's negative energy damage, AND it specicies instead that it works only on living beings. So I'd simply say that the spell fails and have no effects at all on non-living things, such as Undead, Constructs, objects or anything that does not have a Constitution score: MM's Plants are subject, but not generic vegetables... you can't "suck life" from an artichoke because it's "alive" :). It must still be a "creature" i.e. has Wis and Cha. You won't get any drawbacks if you cast it on Undead, apart that you waste the spell (and notice that a touch attack is delivered only with an attack ACTION, you can't be hit only because YOU are touching him). Well, that's when you are on the Positive Energy Plane only! :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Vampiric Touch
Top