PDA

View Full Version : Sheltered Vitality and Sanctified Spells



backpackjack
2010-11-24, 11:17 AM
I always want to be fair to my players. I want to support their creativity, their clever uses of the rules, their role-playing, and their sense of adventure. So, when they discover some aspect of the game rules that let's them get farther than I expected, I always want to balance potential cheese against quashing their creativity. That said, here's my problem.

My players are great. They tend to eschew cheese and they don't give me too much grief when I limit what they can do--largely because I give them some room to play. Well, one of my players, who is playing an exalted cleric, has -- in the middle of a battle we will continue in the next gaming session -- proposed that her character cast Constricting Chains on the BBEG (a very powerful binding spell from BoED). This spell comes with a penalty of strength drain on the caster. According to the BoED this strength drain comes when the spell is concluded. My player,, in the round prior to the end of the duration of the Constricting Chains spell, wants to cast Sheltered Vitality to protect herself from the strength drain?

Honestly, I thought this was a clever way around the penalty associated with Constricting Chains, but I also wonder if it goes too far. RAW, this would appear to work, at least I can't see a way to read the text of these spells that suggests that it wouldn't. (But I might have missed something, so speak up.) Then again, I suspect that the penalties are in these sanctified spells to prevent repeated use. That said, a cleric could also cast Restoration after taking the strength drain, though it would cost her experience, which Sheltered Vitality does not.

So, in the end, I think the player here is right, RAW, that Sheltered Vitality can protect the character from the sanctified strength drain that accompanies Constricting Chains. Do you agree? Should I do something about it (dm edict--which, I'm disinclined to do) because it is just too cheesey?

:smalltongue:

tyckspoon
2010-11-24, 11:26 AM
Looks right to me. I'd perhaps be less generous if he were permanently immune to ability damage/drain (playing an Undead race, for example) but spending 2 spells every time he wants to use 1 Sanctified spell seems to be compliant with both RAW and balance. Most of the Sanctified spells aren't especially powerful for their level anyway, and the sacrifice costs just make them unattractive.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-24, 11:31 AM
For my personal, subjective, and nigh-useless perception of the ridiculous word "cheesy", this is not cheesy. If I were forced to give an example of something that fits the horrendously ill-defined definition of "cheesy", I might point to Naberius. Or I might not because the word is so damnably useless.

Ernir
2010-11-24, 12:16 PM
Eh, spending a fourth level spell slot and a standard action to get rid of 1d2 strength drain doesn't sound cheesy to me. Especially since, yes, they would just cast Restoration anyway.

Also, Restoration doesn't have an XP cost. It has a 100 GP material component.

ShriekingDrake
2010-11-24, 12:24 PM
I agree. This is not an uncommon strategy in our campaigns. It's a good find and a worthwhile tactic. Fourth level spells are pretty good so it's no small sacrifice. No cheese here.

Psyren
2010-11-24, 01:35 PM
Well, the RAW is clear - Sheltered Vitality explicitly says "regardless of the source." So it should block Sancitifed Magic Sacrifices too.

RAI I am on the fence - on one hand, it feels like cheating your way out of the sacrifice... but on the other, you're just trading magical energy for the ability drain, no different from getting a Restoration spell afterward or something. So while my kneejerk was no, on further thought I'd allow it.

Jarveiyan
2010-11-25, 08:42 AM
Sacred Vitality(feat) from Libris Mortis would also work; you use a turn undead use to be immune to ability damage, ability drain, and enrgy drain for 1 minute.

Quietus
2010-11-25, 08:53 AM
Well, the RAW is clear - Sheltered Vitality explicitly says "regardless of the source." So it should block Sancitifed Magic Sacrifices too.

RAI I am on the fence - on one hand, it feels like cheating your way out of the sacrifice... but on the other, you're just trading magical energy for the ability drain, no different from getting a Restoration spell afterward or something. So while my kneejerk was no, on further thought I'd allow it.

This is where I came in on this too. It's pretty balanced for round/level stuff, at the very least, since you're more likely to have to cast your "I don't want to take ability damage" in combat.. for longer-lasting stuff, there's a good chance that your character might just forget about it, depending on the duration of Sheltered Vitality. So, minor risks to save 100 gold, not so bad.

But I can see a lot of DMs going with the kneejerk reaction of "No, you cast that spell, now pay for it properly", or "You don't get to cast it again until you've paid the sacrifice for the last one, you meaniepants inventive little PC you!"

Claudius Maximus
2010-11-25, 06:32 PM
It works fine by RAW and as this thread demonstrates, it's not going to be widely viewed as anything too cheesy.

I personally wouldn't let it happen, since I'm pretty sure the corrupt spells from BoVD won't work without actually paying the cost, and I would transfer that to the sanctified spells. It's not really a huge deal though.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-25, 06:50 PM
I'm pretty sure the corrupt spells from BoVD won't work without actually paying the cost

The language used is pretty much the same. If the BoED doesn't have language stating that (it doesn't), the BoVD wouldn't (it doesn't).

Claudius Maximus
2010-11-25, 08:50 PM
The language used is pretty much the same. If the BoED doesn't have language stating that (it doesn't), the BoVD wouldn't (it doesn't).

You are correct. I thought it was errata'd, but the truth is that it was addressed in this FAQ question:

If a spellcaster is immune to ability drain (such as by being undead), can he still cast corrupt spells? I seem to recall that there is a spell somewhere that can protect someone from ability damage as well, so how about in that case? Can you heal corruption costs?

The negative energy protection spell prevents the loss of ability scores and levels to attacks that employ negative energy. A corruption cost is not a negative energy effect, and negative energy protection won’t prevent it. While defensive special qualities in the D&D game are usually insurmountable, the corruption cost for the spell represents a direct assault on the physical and mental well-being of the caster, and anyone who casts a corrupt spell has to pay the cost, even if normally immune to ability damage, ability drain, or energy drain. The act of casting a corrupt spell makes the caster briefly vulnerable to the corruption cost of the spell.

When an undead creature uses a corrupt spell with an ability damage or ability drain corruption cost, the undead creature takes the damage or the drain against its Charisma score, no matter what ability the spell normally damages or drains. If the damage or drain reduces the undead creature’s Charisma to 0, the creature becomes helpless until the loss of Charisma is somehow restored or repaired. Any ability damage from a corruption cost heals at the rate of 1 point per day, just like any other ability damage. Ability drain can be healed by the appropriate spells.

Note that undead creatures with Intelligence scores can heal normal ability damage just as living creatures can. For example, a lich casts Lahm’s finger darts and suffers 1 point of Charisma damage per dart (the spell normally damages Strength, but a lich is an undead creature, so it suffers Charisma damage instead). The Charisma damage the lich suffers heals at the rate of 1 point per day, and the lich’s fingers are replaced as the Charisma damage heals.

Which I understand is not RAW, but I never claimed my way was RAW.