PDA

View Full Version : Warlock vs. Spellfire



Furnok
2010-06-21, 09:54 AM
If a person with Spellfire readies themself and a Warlock hits them with a EB can the Spellfire wielder capture the blast and if so how many spell levels does the Spellfire wilder get.

hamishspence
2010-06-21, 09:59 AM
I'm not sure if they can, RAW.

If not, but you think they should be able to- maybe count it as equivalent to a spell of the highest level a wizard of the same level as the warlock can cast.

So a 3rd level warlock's EB could be equivalent to a 2nd level spell, and so on, up to a 17th level warlock's EB counting as a 9th level spell.

Knaight
2010-06-21, 10:06 AM
It depends on the blast in question, the various blast modifications do note associated spell levels, so it is worth looking at those. The blast itself also has a listed level, though I can't remember the specifics.

Optimystik
2010-06-21, 10:12 AM
If Spellfire can absorb SLAs, it can absorb EB. (I'm not a Spellfire expert.)

If there is no essence, shape etc. modifying the blast, the Spellfire wielder would treat it like a 1st-level spell regardless of the blast's damage.

@ hamish: Eldritch Blast is always treated as a first-level spell unless modified, in which case it uses the highest-level modification applied to it (shape or essence.)

Knaight
2010-06-21, 10:15 AM
Alright then, just first. I was thinking that might be it, but couldn't remember.

hangedman1984
2010-06-21, 10:20 AM
An unmodified basic eldritch blast, without any essence or blast shape invocations is always equivalant to a 1st level spell (according to errata). An EB modified with an essence or blast shape invocation is considered equivalant to whatever level the invocation is.

edit: ninja'd

hamishspence
2010-06-21, 12:07 PM
I've checked spellfire- the original text in Magic of Faerun says it can "absorb spells, as if the wielder was a rod of absorption"- not mentioning SLAs

And the Rod of Absorption, can in fact absorb SLAs.

So, it can be argued either way. However I'd go with allowing SLAs to be absorbed.

In the books, however, it seems stronger- the character appears to absorb supernatural abilities as well- such as dragon breath, or beholder eye rays.

taltamir
2010-06-21, 12:26 PM
If Spellfire can absorb SLAs, it can absorb EB. (I'm not a Spellfire expert.)
correct


If there is no essence, shape etc. modifying the blast, the Spellfire wielder would treat it like a 1st-level spell regardless of the blast's damage.
A warlock's blast is treated as a "weaponlike SLA" with an effective spell level of a spell level that is half the warlock's level rounded down (minimum level 1) for all purposes (mainly interaction with spells).
So, warlock level 1-3 fires a blast that is spell level 1. Level 4-5 warlock fires spell level 2 blasts. Warlock 6-7 fires level 3 blast, and so on and so forth.
The warlocks actual damage increases every odd level, but the effective spell level increases every even level, its odd but that is RAW.
Level 3: 2d6 SL1
Level 4: 2d6 SL2
Level 5: 3d6 SL2
Level 6: 3d6 SL3
Level 7: 4d6 SL3
Level 8: 4d6 SL4
And so on.

Also, if modified to produce a specific effect, then that effect specifically lists what spell level equivalent it is for purposes of interaction with spells. If multiple effects are used you treat it as the spell level of the highest of those. You still count the base blast's spell level though unless the invocation is not a blast at all.

So, if you make a chain brimstone blast you have 3 spell levels to account for, the basic blast (warlock level/2), brimstone blast, and chain... you use the spell level of the highest of those three.

But if you cast leaps and bounds you simply use the spell level given in leaps in bounds description...

Effectively, I don't know of a single invocation that has a spell level higher than that of the basic blast at the time you learn it, I think those rules were put into place expecting the creation of lots of warlock content that never materialized...

An example where this matters:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeofInvulnerabilityLesser.htm

An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower.

Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items.
So to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability with a blast the warlock needs to be level 8 or above.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-21, 12:33 PM
(Stuff)
So, if you make a chain brimstone blast you have 3 spell levels to account for, the basic blast (warlock level/2), brimstone blast, and chain... you use the spell level of the highest of those three.

Errata specifically lists unmodified basic EB as equivalent to a level 1 spell, no matter the level of the Warlock.

taltamir
2010-06-21, 12:45 PM
Errata specifically lists unmodified basic EB as equivalent to a level 1 spell, no matter the level of the Warlock.

ah, I was going by the original publication, I was not aware an eratta changed it to always be SL1. Seems like an odd and unneeded nerf. Any explanation as to why they did it?

arguskos
2010-06-21, 12:47 PM
ah, I was going by the original publication, I was not aware an eratta changed it to always be SL1. Seems like an odd and unneeded nerf. Any explanation as to why they did it?
Because it is fairly reasonable to make a damage spell that scales as EB does at level 1 (using WotC Fridge Logic, of course)? Personally, I don't get it either, but I can see the logic behind it.

taltamir
2010-06-21, 12:53 PM
Because it is fairly reasonable to make a damage spell that scales as EB does at level 1 (using WotC Fridge Logic, of course)? Personally, I don't get it either, but I can see the logic behind it.

can you explain the logic behind it to me then? because I don't see it.
they... didn't want an unmodified EB to bypass a lesser globe of inv. at warlock level 8?
they didn't want it burning through spell reflection or mantle of spell absorption?

I was not being sarcastic I really have no idea as to why they did it... was there a huge exploit/infinite loop that this somehow stops?

arguskos
2010-06-21, 12:55 PM
Consider: Eldritch Blast is the base ability. The Warlock has infinite uses of Blast Shapes/Essences (each of which has a level tied to it). The basic thing should not have a higher level than the extra thing (ie. the Blast should always be lower level than the Shapes/Essences). Since there's no way to do that and still have the EB scale, they set it to base 1 and trusted everyone would be taking Shapes and Essences to increase it's level if it matter.

Like I said, Fridge Logic.

Eurus
2010-06-21, 12:58 PM
ah, I was going by the original publication, I was not aware an eratta changed it to always be SL1. Seems like an odd and unneeded nerf. Any explanation as to why they did it?

Actually, it was a buff - look at the Maximize/Quicken SLA feats. By the existing rules, a Warlock could never take those for Eldritch Blast, at least not until ridiculously high levels. Eldritch essences still raise the level, so now the warlock has a way to choose whether they want a lower level or a higher one. I'm guessing that might have been the reasoning behind it.

AmberVael
2010-06-21, 01:06 PM
Actually, it was a buff - look at the Maximize/Quicken SLA feats. By the existing rules, a Warlock could never take those for Eldritch Blast, at least not until ridiculously high levels. Eldritch essences still raise the level, so now the warlock has a way to choose whether they want a lower level or a higher one. I'm guessing that might have been the reasoning behind it.

Yeah, this was the reason. It was just kind of unfair for a Warlock not to be able to use those kind of feats, and the scaling "spell level" of eldritch blast prevented you from ever using them.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 01:07 PM
can you explain the logic behind it to me then? because I don't see it.
they... didn't want an unmodified EB to bypass a lesser globe of inv. at warlock level 8?
they didn't want it burning through spell reflection or mantle of spell absorption?

I was not being sarcastic I really have no idea as to why they did it... was there a huge exploit/infinite loop that this somehow stops?

Almost all damage spells scale with level. The blast deals more damage not because of higher spell level, but higher caster level.

taltamir
2010-06-21, 01:16 PM
Actually, it was a buff - look at the Maximize/Quicken SLA feats. By the existing rules, a Warlock could never take those for Eldritch Blast, at least not until ridiculously high levels. Eldritch essences still raise the level, so now the warlock has a way to choose whether they want a lower level or a higher one. I'm guessing that might have been the reasoning behind it.

interesting. This does actually make sense.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-21, 01:42 PM
I've checked spellfire- the original text in Magic of Faerun says it can "absorb spells, as if the wielder was a rod of absorption"- not mentioning SLAs

And the Rod of Absorption, can in fact absorb SLAs.

So, it can be argued either way. However I'd go with allowing SLAs to be absorbed.

In the books, however, it seems stronger- the character appears to absorb supernatural abilities as well- such as dragon breath, or beholder eye rays.

The example character is able to absorb a beholders eye rays because in 3.0 they were considered SLA and subject to SR and such. In the 3.5 update they changed to supernatural abilities.

hamishspence
2010-06-21, 01:44 PM
The books were written sometime in 2nd ed (early 90's)

I think it had a more generous approach to spellfire back then.

arguskos
2010-06-21, 01:52 PM
The books were written sometime in 2nd ed (early 90's)

I think it had a more generous approach to spellfire back then.
Spellfire was detailed in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical. Not sure if that was first, but it's in there. In 2e, I think it just absorbed everything indiscriminately.

Raendyn
2010-06-21, 01:54 PM
I've checked spellfire- the original text in Magic of Faerun says it can "absorb spells, as if the wielder was a rod of absorption"- not mentioning SLAs

And the Rod of Absorption, can in fact absorb SLAs.

So, it can be argued either way. However I'd go with allowing SLAs to be absorbed..

In the books, however, it seems stronger- the character appears to absorb supernatural abilities as well- such as dragon breath, or beholder eye rays.

Half a page lower it says that a spellfire yielder can counter & absorb an other spellfire yielder's bolt.
Spellfire is SLA,acording to magic of faerun & supernatural ability acording to FRCS.

Can't see a reaso EB to be immune to absorbing. the only thing under debate are the SU abilities, which i would also allow to be absorbed.

just for the record,about the books.. dragon's breath is non single target SU so it can'tbe absorbed w/e ruling is done..

hamishspence
2010-06-21, 01:57 PM
My guess is that Magic of Faerun overrides FRCS- since FRCS only describes it, without actually explaining the rules.

Silver Fire (also in FRCS) is slightly different from spellfire.

As mentioned- the novel character absorbing nearly any magical effect used on them (even area ones) may have been due to it predating 3rd ed by quite a bit.

hangedman1984
2010-06-21, 11:50 PM
ah, I was going by the original publication

Which is why I stated "according to errata" in my post

UserClone
2010-06-22, 12:25 AM
Relax, mang. That was a small caveat that was pretty easy to miss. I did, the first time I read through this thread.

For some reason, this makes me want to play a Warlock//Witch (Witch's Handbook, Green Ronin) in a gestalt game...badass...but should it be male or female...hmmm.


Anywho, OT, I see no reason why spellfire wielders couldn't absorb any EB, since it's almost exactly the same thing as spellfire, and spellfire, another (Sp) ability, can be absorbed. I say yea.

hangedman1984
2010-06-22, 01:34 AM
Relax, mang. That was a small caveat that was pretty easy to miss. I did, the first time I read through this thread.

I am relaxed, it just came off angrier than intended

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-22, 01:41 AM
Show of hands is anyone saying YOU CAN'T absorb a SPL with spellfire?