A nice little boost for the Monk

[Emperor Tippy]

So I was reading through the Spell Compendium and noticed this little gem.



Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: Creatures touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
Your hand glistens and smokes from a
viscous coating of acid. It does not harm you,but your opponents are less fortunate.

A touch attack with this hand causes
1d8 points of acid damage. You can
use this melee touch attack up to
one time per level. You can also deal
this damage as extra damage with
an unarmed strike or an attack with
a natural weapon. If you grapple an
opponent, you can deal this damage in
addition to other damage you deal with
a successful grapple check.
Note the duration on this little gem.

For 10 GP (hirer a level 1 spell caster for it) you can deal an extra 1d8 damage on every natural attack. That's more extra damage than the various elemental +1 abilities do for 1/200th the cost.

And you will note that the spell has the [Acid] descriptor, making it a valid target for Energy substitution, although such a spell will cost 20 GP as level 2 is the minimum level you can have energy sub at.

If you want to be a bit more up scale you can spend 280 GP for it to be maximized. Add Empower on and it costs 660 GP for it.

So it's time to figure out the numbers.
8+(.5x1d8) Acid Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Fire Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Cold Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Electricity Damage

Total Damage: 32+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8) for a minimum of 36, average of 50, and maximum of 64. For a mere 2,640 GP.

If you want to be a real **** add Fell Draining onto each casting. As each is technically a different spell, each Fell Drain stacks. That's 8 negative levels. Total cost is 4,800 GP.

So that's a minimum of 36 damage from various energy types and 8 negative levels (each of which reduce max HP by 5 points, or 40 total).

---
And remember, that is per attack.

---
So who thinks that this single handily makes monks viable combat characters? :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Do'h, the monk would have to UMD scrolls of the appropriate level onto himself to get this. Or UMD a wand for the unenhanced versions.

[candycorn]

A touch attack with this hand causes
1d8 points of acid damage. You can
use this melee touch attack up to
one time per level. You can also deal
this damage as extra damage with
an unarmed strike or an attack with
a natural weapon. If you grapple an
opponent, you can deal this damage in
addition to other damage you deal with
a successful grapple check.
Emphasis mine.

There's a limit to the uses you get on any one casting. That sharply limits its value.

[Emperor Tippy]

Emphasis mine.

There's a limit to the uses you get on any one casting. That sharply limits its value.

Note that you are referring to melee touch attacks, which are limited to once per level. I'm not.
Technically you are limited to 1/level melee touch attack, no such limit applies to regular unarmed attacks.

A melee touch attack and an unarmed attack are both specific actions in RAW, they aren't the same.

EDIT: This thing is piss poorly written, and I am entirely sure that it wasn't intended. And if WotC had left off the sentence I highlighted everything would be fine and the spell would work as intended (or at least moreso), as the rules for holding a charge on a melee touch attack would apply.

But thanks to that line in the spell it becomes an alternative option to the melee touch attack and specific trumps general.

[candycorn]

Note that you are referring to melee touch attacks, which are limited to once per level. I'm not.
Technically you are limited to 1/level melee touch attack, no such limit applies to regular unarmed attacks.

A melee touch attack and an unarmed attack are both specific actions in RAW, they aren't the same.

EDIT: This thing is piss poorly written, and I am entirely sure that it wasn't intended. And if WotC had left off the sentence I highlighted everything would be fine and the spell would work as intended (or at least moreso), as the rules for holding a charge on a melee touch attack would apply.

But thanks to that line in the spell it becomes an alternative option to the melee touch attack and specific trumps general.
That's a... mighty abusive interpretation. I'd put it in with drown healing. Nice as a thought exercise, but unlikely to see use at a table.

Even with it, though, it doesn't make monks viable.

First: A trivial amount of energy damage won't help much at levels past 10. Energy resistance is just too common, and seperating it into penny packets exacerbates that problem.

Second: The spell doesn't do damage; rather, it creates acid. It's an instantaneous duration conjuration(creation) effect. That means that the spell isn't dealing damage, and doesn't qualify for negative levels from Fell Drain. On the up side, this means you still get the bonus damage in an Antimagic Field, since magic is only used to create the acid, and doesn't need to be there to maintain it.

[Emperor Tippy]

That's a... mighty abusive interpretation. I'd put it in with drown healing. Nice as a thought exercise, but unlikely to see use at a table.

Even with it, though, it doesn't make monks viable.

First: A trivial amount of energy damage won't help much at levels past 10. Energy resistance is just too common, and seperating it into penny packets exacerbates that problem.
An average of 50 extra damage is still noticeable even at level 20. When it's combined with 8 negative levels for another 40 damage and reduces saving throws by 8 points per hit while then forcing a massive damage Fort save or die, it becomes quite noticeable.

And as this is an instantaneous conjuration it keeps working inside an AMF. Figure out a way for the monk to get AMF up and he would negate the various elemental and negative energy protections that people run around with at higher levels.

It's also relatively rare for a character to have resistance to every type of energy.


Second: The spell doesn't do damage; rather, it creates acid. It's an instantaneous duration conjuration(creation) effect. That means that the spell isn't dealing damage, and doesn't qualify for negative levels from Fell Drain. On the up side, this means you still get the bonus damage in an Antimagic Field, since magic is only used to create the acid, and doesn't need to be there to maintain it.
No, it qualifies for Fell Drain because of that line you oh so nicely bolded. The spell has a melee touch attack that does 1d8 damage. It qualifies for fell drain, just like the various Orbs do.

[candycorn]

An average of 50 extra damage is still noticeable even at level 20.
An average of 50 damage to a training dummy, perhaps.
Most outsiders will severely blunt that.
Most casters will trivialize it entirely by obviating the entire attack.
Then there's the problem of hitting. With a monk.


When it's combined with 8 negative levels for another 40 damage and reduces saving throws by 8 points per hit while then forcing a massive damage Fort save or die, it becomes quite noticeable.Except that negative levels don't work. The spell doesn't do any damage. It gives you an additional damage source. There is a difference. As you stated, you aren't holding the charge. You are using different rules.


And as this is an instantaneous conjuration it keeps working inside an AMF. Figure out a way for the monk to get AMF up and he would negate the various elemental and negative energy protections that people run around with at higher levels.Creatures using magic to gain resistances are arguably able to stay away from a creature with movement forms hobbled by an inability to benefit from magic.


It's also relatively rare for a character to have resistance to every type of energy.Common enough. Most Outsiders hit 3-4 types.


No, it qualifies for Fell Drain because of that line you oh so nicely bolded. The spell has a melee touch attack that does 1d8 damage. It qualifies for fell drain, just like the various Orbs do.No, the spell grants you an ability. The spell has a duration of instantaneous.

Also: The actual target is: Personal. While the overview states that the target is creature touched, the spell description trumps that, in the very first line. It applies to you, and gives you the ability to damage creatures you touch, after the spell effect ends.

Quite simply, metamagic modifies the effects of a spell.

the SRD states:
the spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences may be long lasting
In other words, by your interpretation, the spell gives you an ability. The spell ends. If the spell is ended, any metamagic modifying those effects ends.

In other words, it's either the spell doing damage (in which case, there is a duration of permanent, trumping the text, and meaning that the spell no longer functions in AMF), or it's not the spell doing damage, in which case empower, maximize, and fell drain don't apply.

In other words, the spell cannot be adjudicated without DM ruling on what area needs correction to function.

[Emperor Tippy]

An average of 50 damage to a training dummy, perhaps.
To quite a large number of enemies actually.

Most outsiders will severely blunt that.
I never said it applied to all enemies.


Most casters will trivialize it entirely by obviating the entire attack.
Well of course. But most casters trivialize pretty much everything if played well.


Then there's the problem of hitting. With a monk.
You can get a decent 1 attack to hit on a monk. One of the big problems with the monk is that they can't deal enough damage on a standard attack and are to squishy to make full attacks (along with all the other full attack problems). This helps mitigate that.


Except that negative levels don't work. The spell doesn't do any damage. It gives you an additional damage source. There is a difference. As you stated, you aren't holding the charge. You are using different rules.
Except that they do work. The spell does deal damage, that it's an instantaneous conjuration is irrelevant. That it makes no sense is irrelevant. By RAW it qualifies for Fell Drain and the negative levels work.


Creatures using magic to gain resistances are arguably able to stay away from a creature with movement forms hobbled by an inability to benefit from magic.
A concern, but it can be ameliorated. Especially if the DM is willing to allow a custom magic item.

And any monk build of mine would use tricks to solve the flight problem (thank you Tome of Battle). Sure, you would be better off going Unarmed Swordsage but *shrug*.


Common enough. Most Outsiders hit 3-4 types.
And outsiders aren't all of your opponents.


No, the spell grants you an ability. The spell has a duration of instantaneous.
No, it deals damage.


Also: The actual target is: Personal. While the overview states that the target is creature touched, the spell description trumps that, in the very first line. It applies to you, and gives you the ability to damage creatures you touch, after the spell effect ends.
Actually, technically it doesn't trump it so I could actually buy the spell and not worry about scrolls. That is fluff text that you are using to trump the listed effects. And the spell does deal damage, at least as much as the various orb spells deal damage.


Quite simply, metamagic modifies the effects of a spell.

the SRD states:
In other words, by your interpretation, the spell gives you an ability. The spell ends. If the spell is ended, any metamagic modifying those effects ends.
Do you accept that you can use metamagic on an Orb of X? If you do, then you can use it on this as well.

Just like you can Fell Drain a spell that gives you a breath weapon for 5 rounds.


In other words, it's either the spell doing damage (in which case, there is a duration of permanent, trumping the text, and meaning that the spell no longer functions in AMF), or it's not the spell doing damage, in which case empower, maximize, and fell drain don't apply.
No, a instantaneous spell can do damage. It does so in this case.


In other words, the spell cannot be adjudicated without DM ruling on what area needs correction to function.

Not true. It can, by RAW, be adjudicated perfectly fine. The problem is that what is unambiguously RAW legal in this case is also broken beyond all belief.

[candycorn]

Except that they do work. The spell does deal damage, that it's an instantaneous conjuration is irrelevant. That it makes no sense is irrelevant. By RAW it qualifies for Fell Drain and the negative levels work.It is not irrelevant. Spell-modifying effects no longer apply when the spell effects no longer exist.

Spell effects are different than effects created by a spell. Your argument is every bit as valid as using disjunction to get rid of a Wall of Stone.


No, it deals damage.Fireball deals damage. Orb spells deal damage. This spell does not.


Actually, technically it doesn't trump it so I could actually buy the spell and not worry about scrolls. That is fluff text that you are using to trump the listed effects. And the spell does deal damage, at least as much as the various orb spells deal damage.Orb spells deal their damage at the time of casting. Effect created, attack roll made, damage done.

The damage you're speaking of is attempting to get the magical effects to apply a month after the spell effects have ended. Orbs deal damage when the spell is cast, just as fireball, lightning bolt, or any other instantaneous damage spell does. All of it happens instantaneous. Therein lies the difference.


Do you accept that you can use metamagic on an Orb of X?Yes.

If you do, then you can use it on this as well.No. Spell effects cannot occur after the duration of a spell is expired. When a Fly spell ends, you can't use it to fly. When a fireball ends, you can't deal fire damage. When this spell ends, so too do the spell effects.

That means that any effect that occurs is not a spell effect. Since metamagic can only alter a spell's casting requirements (silent spell, still spell, etc) or its effects (fell drain, maximize spell, etc), then it stands that effects which are not spell effects cannot be altered by them. Maximize spell won't make your summoned monster do maximum damage on every attack. It won't make your Fabricated longsword do maximum damage on every attack. It won't make your non-magical corrosive grasp do extra damage either.


Just like you can Fell Drain a spell that gives you a breath weapon for 5 rounds.If the duration of that spell is 5 rounds, sure. If it's instantaneous? No.


No, a instantaneous spell can do damage. It does so in this case.Yes, it can. See fireball. However, a spell cannot do damage after its duration ends. Because if it's a spell dealing damage, it doesn't function in an AMF. Because all spell effects are suppressed in an AMF.

Ruling support for this:here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicfield.htm)


(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.
That's rather unambiguous. The spell isn't in effect any longer. That means metamagic modifying it isn't in effect any longer either.

[Dragonsoul]

Now while I often disagree with Tippys Rules chicanery, He is right on this one, right in the "get's a DMG upside the head" kind of way but due to horrendous wording, he is technically correct, though I'd think A totemist would get far more out of this than a monk

[candycorn]

Now while I often disagree with Tippys Rules chicanery, He is right on this one, right in the "get's a DMG upside the head" kind of way but due to horrendous wording, he is technically correct, though I'd think A totemist would get far more out of this than a monk

{{scrubbed}} You are not stating how or why tippy's view is correct, which is essentially:

a spell effect which has ended can generate a spell effect, rounds after the spell effect has ended, without it actually being a spell effect, although it still benefits from everything that affects spell effects, unless it would be inconvenient.

When you want to point out, say, a rule supporting your opinion... Perhaps, maybe, cite a little text... {{scrubbed}}

[Godskook]

It's also relatively rare for a character to have resistance to every type of energy.

Starting with the basics, Resist Energy is a 1st level duskblade spell, making it just as cheap to put up as this is for an optimizer. For everyone else, its a caster level 2 or spell level 2 spell, which still is pocket change at level 10+, especially since there's a mass version of the spell that enables you to drop it on your entire army for only a 3rd or 4th level slot(which by caster level 10 is providing a painful 30 resist, undefeatable by this combo).

And that's ignoring things like soulmelds, less common spells than the first one and its mass version, rituals, class features, etc.

Finally, the main problem with monks isn't their damage. Its synergy between class features and between stats. Remember: Ubercharger didn't claw fighter out of tier 5, dungeoncrasher did, and it wasn't due to damage, it was due to crowd control.

[Andreaz]

Regardless of interpretations (and really, Tippy's interpretation will only work with people who don't mind drown-healing and dead-acting), "more damage" is not going to up the monk much. He'll still be countered by level 1 spells and still have class-derived schizophrenia.

[Doc Roc]

I'm with CandyCorn here. The spell doesn't directly deal damage, so it may not even be eligible for fell drain in the first place.

And no, this doesn't help monks at all. They still have to hit. It might be hilarious for a druid though.

[Coidzor]

^: If a duskblade could get ahold of it and a natural weapon or two, they'd be quite happy with it as well.
a spell effect which has ended can generate a spell effect, rounds after the spell effect has ended, without it actually being a spell effect, although it still benefits from everything that affects spell effects, unless it would be inconvenient.

Well, that the instantaneous duration + conjuration makes it immune to AMF is just part of the fun of baseline RAW, and I haven't seen anything else in regards to that.

This is usually why instantaneous effects either don't stick around or fundamentally alter something rather than have this kind of awkward pseudo duration.

Heck, that's not even the only part of the spell that needs editing, there's also the bit where it's kind of ambiguous about the level it's referring to for number of times one can use the touch attack option.

[Emperor Tippy]

I'm with CandyCorn here. The spell doesn't directly deal damage, so it may not even be eligible for fell drain in the first place.

And no, this doesn't help monks at all. They still have to hit. It might be hilarious for a druid though.

The spell lists a damage number in it's effect. 1d8. That's all it takes to qualify it for Fell Drain.

Just because it's utterly retarded and the spell is horribly written does not change the fact that you can enhance it with metamagic and specifically Fell Drain.

[Doc Roc]

Hum, I've never really considered what a fell drain moonblade would do... That, that is a thought I regret not having sooner.


Just re-read fell-drain. I think you could make a case in either direction. The melee touch attack certain counts as the spell dealing damage. But the extra damage on normal natural attacks appears to be just that, extra damage. Derived from the spell but not the spell itself doing damage. To extend this to perhaps spurious levels, it'd be like arguing that you could put a fell drain on Greater Magic Weapon, which also does indirect extra damage. I think a more cogent comparison could be drawn, but I remain indifferent.

1) The monk needs to get the drain version from a pal. Metamagic wands are simply a no go here, since the effective spell level would be too high.
2) Drain is a relatively common thing to seek immunity against.
3) You still have to hit.
4) You're a monk.

[candycorn]

The spell lists a damage number in it's effect. 1d8. That's all it takes to qualify it for Fell Drain.Animate Snow lists a damage number too (Frostburn, p 88). 1d6 cold damage. I guess that means every attack created by the construct can be fell drained, right?

That's why you're incorrect. The spell needs to do more than list a damage number in its effect.

The spell needs to deal damage. That's explicitly in the text of Fell Drain. Any foe damaged by the spell would then gain a negative level.

The spell needs to do more than just have a damage number listed in its entry for Fell drain. It must. Deal. Damage.

Now, if I cast a spell, and the spell effect goes off, and then the spell's effects end, is the spell dealing damage?

Not after the spell's effects end, it's not.

If the spell does not deal damage, does fell drain trigger?

No.

Just because it's utterly retarded and the spell is horribly written does not change the fact that you can enhance it with metamagic and specifically Fell Drain.Incorrect, see above.

[Darrin]

EDIT: Do'h, the monk would have to UMD scrolls of the appropriate level onto himself to get this. Or UMD a wand for the unenhanced versions.

Just use a Skull Talisman (Frostburn), Glyph Seal (MIC), Shallantha's delicate disk (LEoF), or Chardalyn (Lords of Darkness/Silver Marches WE). Spell-storing shuriken might work, too.

[Emperor Tippy]

Hum, I've never really considered what a fell drain moonblade would do... That, that is a thought I regret not having sooner.
I like my Fell Drain Magic Missiles (and Chain Magic Missiles later on). You would be amazed how many high level parties forget to pick up immunity to magic missile at some point. Long range, multiple targets, auto hits, and either 2 negative levels or 2 negative levels per missile. Great use of a third level spell slot. And you can use a lesser rod of quicken on them.


Just re-read fell-drain. I think you could make a case in either direction. The melee touch attack certain counts as the spell dealing damage. But the extra damage on normal natural attacks appears to be just that, extra damage. Derived from the spell but not the spell itself doing damage. To extend this to perhaps spurious levels, it'd be like arguing that you could put a fell drain on Greater Magic Weapon, which also does indirect extra damage. I think a more cogent comparison could be drawn, but I remain indifferent.
Greater Magic Weapon doesn't qualify for Fell Drain, GMW doesn't technically do damage; it enhances already present damage.


1) The monk needs to get the drain version from a pal. Metamagic wands are simply a no go here, since the effective spell level would be too high.
Yeah, but it can be gotten even if you ruled it a personal range spell.

2) Drain is a relatively common thing to seek immunity against.
Agreed, still provides quite the nifty little boost. As I said in the thread title.

3) You still have to hit.
Yep

4) You're a monk.
Yeah, that one is a bit of a downer. :smallwink:

As I said in the OP, this doesn't make Monks good; it just gives them a nifty boost.

And considering that someone can get the vanilla versions cast on them for a total price of 70 GP for an additional 4d8 damage on every attack, well it certainly makes the monk a whole lot better in the early game. Think about that in E6, before everyone has all of the immunities and resistances.

Can it compete with what other characters (even fighters) can do? No.

Is the spell utterly broken? Yes.

Is this still a neat little boost for the monk? Sure.

[jvluso]

How would Born of the Three Thunders interact with this? The same way as fell drain except without a price increase? Also, I don't think invisible spell would add to the price either.

[ericgrau]

I think you need a high caster level potion of this for it to work (or a wand or scroll). Chill touch is a similar option but it doesn't last as long so you need to wait for a buffing round for that.

[Trasilor]

So I was reading through the Spell Compendium and noticed this little gem.


Note the duration on this little gem.

For 10 GP (hirer a level 1 spell caster for it) you can deal an extra 1d8 damage on every natural attack. That's more extra damage than the various elemental +1 abilities do for 1/200th the cost.

And you will note that the spell has the [Acid] descriptor, making it a valid target for Energy substitution, although such a spell will cost 20 GP as level 2 is the minimum level you can have energy sub at.

If you want to be a bit more up scale you can spend 280 GP for it to be maximized. Add Empower on and it costs 660 GP for it.

So it's time to figure out the numbers.
8+(.5x1d8) Acid Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Fire Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Cold Damage
8+(.5x1d8) Electricity Damage

Total Damage: 32+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8)+(.5x1d8) for a minimum of 36, average of 50, and maximum of 64. For a mere 2,640 GP.

If you want to be a real **** add Fell Draining onto each casting. As each is technically a different spell, each Fell Drain stacks. That's 8 negative levels. Total cost is 4,800 GP.

So that's a minimum of 36 damage from various energy types and 8 negative levels (each of which reduce max HP by 5 points, or 40 total).

---
And remember, that is per attack.

---
So who thinks that this single handily makes monks viable combat characters? :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Do'h, the monk would have to UMD scrolls of the appropriate level onto himself to get this. Or UMD a wand for the unenhanced versions.

I think your math is a bit off...

32 + .5 * (4d8) is a min of 32 + .5(4) = 34 and max of 32+.5*(32) = 48 with an average of 41 -

This is actually worse if you take 1d8*.5 for each energy because D&D rounds down.

Furthermore, you probably cannot have more than one touch spell active at a time. (Text of Holding the Charge says you lose the charge if you cast a spell, not sure how that would work with UMD and scrolls or wands) If thats the case, this becomes a trivial boost rather than making the monk a viable combatant.

This is assuming that you get to use maximize and fell drain which is arguable (not getting into that one).

Personally, I think this is once again conjuration shenanigans popping up

(the whole Orb thing is sort of silly if you think about it - seriously, an orb of force is conjuration while blast of force is evocation?)

I think the best way to make the monk a viable contender in combat is to kill him and make an unarmed swordsage :smallamused:.

[Coidzor]

(the whole Orb thing is sort of silly if you think about it - seriously, an orb of force is conjuration while blast of force is evocation?)

Yes, that's half the fun, just how lulzy it is.

[Mato]

Hello Tippy, you linked here in the "I want to enchant my fists" thread.

I wanted you to know you *really* shouldn't get so snippy with people. By RAW using your hand to touch anything can and will discharge the spell. This is an inherent part of weaponlike spells and can be found in the rules about using your unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. The multiple usage trait applies to touch attacks, but not simply touching objects or even normal unarmed attacks. By RAW Corrosive Grasp discharges after a single usage.

Secondly, please take the time to actually read Fell Drain. It applies once per spell and not once per damage. Your fell drain magic missile "trick" does not apply multiple negative levels to a single target.

Thirdly, the entire premise offers nothing over simply using Wreath of Flames from Dragon Magic. By RAI, you continually risk draining the uses from Corrosive Grasp when attempting just about anything, and increases the caster level to increase the number of uses becomes extremely expensive. Wreath of Flames on the other hand is a persistable 2nd level spell that deals 1d6 fire damage to enemies adjacent to you on the start of their turn and additionally all your melee attacks deal +1d6 fire damage. This spell's aura only targets who you want it to due to it's wording on affecting enemies rather than creatures, and as mentioned affects all weapons rather than unarmed only. Like Corrosive Grasp it is subject to the same range of effects like empower to maximize however this spell will not carelessly discharge unto your pillow while sleeping and instead lasts until the duration ends. And when it comes to wands, with additional use magic devices checks to activate the wand as a 10th level sorcerer and a red dragon reduces the casting action to swift. In other words, you can quicken it for free thereby allowing you to attack the round you cast it. There is no RAW issues, under RAI to deals more damage for a smaller price, it works with a wider ranged of weapons, and even uses less actions. There is honestly no need to get bent out of shape defending this "trick" as anything other than yet another poorly worded spell find.

[Emperor Tippy]

Hello Tippy, you linked here in the "I want to enchant my fists" thread.
Yes, don't necro. It's bad for your health.


I wanted you to know you *really* shouldn't get so snippy with people. By RAW using your hand to touch anything can and will discharge the spell. This is an inherent part of weaponlike spells and can be found in the rules about using your unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. The multiple usage trait applies to touch attacks, but not simply touching objects or even normal unarmed attacks. By RAW Corrosive Grasp discharges after a single usage.
Except no it doesn't because of how badly this spell is written.

It does a few things:
1) Give you 1/level touch attack to do energy damage.
2) Gives you extra damage with an unarmed strike or natural weapon.

Those are separate abilities that the spell gives you.


Secondly, please take the time to actually read Fell Drain. It applies once per spell and not once per damage. Your fell drain magic missile "trick" does not apply multiple negative levels to a single target.
"You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit Dice, it dies. Assuming the subject survives, the negative level disappears (without requiring a Fortitude save) after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15). A fell draining spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level."
If you want to be snippy actually know what you are talking about. If a Fell Drain spell deals damage to you, you gain a negative level.

The reason that it arguably doesn't apply to Corrosive Grasp is 1) that the spell arguably doesn't deal damage and 2) the spell only effects you.


Thirdly, the entire premise offers nothing over simply using Wreath of Flames from Dragon Magic. By RAI, you continually risk draining the uses from Corrosive Grasp when attempting just about anything, and increases the caster level to increase the number of uses becomes extremely expensive.
Except RAI matters not at all in this instance, and it offers lots of benefits over Wreath of Flames.

Wreath of Flames on the other hand is a persistable 2nd level spell that deals 1d6 fire damage to enemies adjacent to you on the start of their turn and additionally all your melee attacks deal +1d6 fire damage. This spell's aura only targets who you want it to due to it's wording on affecting enemies rather than creatures, and as mentioned affects all weapons rather than unarmed only.
Less damage, requires a 8th level spell slot, must be cast every day, doesn't work inside an AMF. Far worse.


Like Corrosive Grasp it is subject to the same range of effects like empower to maximize however this spell will not carelessly discharge unto your pillow while sleeping and instead lasts until the duration ends.
RAW you don't do that with Corrosive Grasp.

And when it comes to wands, with additional use magic devices checks to activate the wand as a 10th level sorcerer and a red dragon reduces the casting action to swift. In other words, you can quicken it for free thereby allowing you to attack the round you cast it. There is no RAW issues, under RAI to deals more damage for a smaller price, it works with a wider ranged of weapons, and even uses less actions.
Costs money, turns, and resources.


There is honestly no need to get bent out of shape defending this "trick" as anything other than yet another poorly worded spell find.
...
Did you bother to read this thread at all before necroing it?

[Mato]

Your rebuttal is that, unlike Wreath of Flames, you can't use any of the Metamagics you spoke of with Corrosive Grasp and something about RAW (https://www.google.com/search?q=Touch Spells and Holding the Charge site:d20srd.org)?

You're right, no use in necro'ing this obvious dead thread. I certainly wouldn't ever link to it.

[eggynack]

Your rebuttal is that, unlike Wreath of Flames, you can't use any of the Metamagics you spoke of with Corrosive Grasp and something about RAW (https://www.google.com/search?q=Touch Spells and Holding the Charge site:d20srd.org)?

You're right, no use in necro'ing this obvious dead thread. I certainly wouldn't ever link to it.
I don't see why you shouldn't link to a dead thread. That's what you're supposed to do with dead threads. His argument also seemed to be quite different than what you're saying right now, at the very least because you're not really saying anything.

[Emperor Tippy]

Your rebuttal is that, unlike Wreath of Flames, you can't use any of the Metamagics you spoke of with Corrosive Grasp
Um no, the only metamagic who's validity is remotely debatable is Fell Drain as arguably the spell just gives you the ability to deal damage and doesn't actually do damage its self.


and something about RAW (https://www.google.com/search?q=Touch Spells and Holding the Charge site:d20srd.org)?
And if you had bothered to actually read Corrosive Grasp you might have realized that holding the charge is irrelevant as what the spell gives you is three fold
1) Any touch attack made with the hand that Corrosive Grasp is applied to deals an additional 1d8 points of damage.
2) You can use this ability up to once per level (not have to, but can).
3) Deal this damage as extra damage with an unarmed strike or natural weapons.

The spell is not a ranged touch attack and it is not targeted at anyone except yourself. Holding the Charge is utterly irrelevant.


You're right, no use in necro'ing this obvious dead thread. I certainly wouldn't ever link to it.
Then why did you necro it?

[Sith_Happens]

Seriously, what is it with Spell Compendium and messed up durations? First Opalescent Glare, now this.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Seriously, what is it with Spell Compendium and messed up durations? First Opalescent Glare, now this.

To be fair. They almost certainly made the corrosive grasp error first.

Corrosive grasp ---- Opalescent sphere :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

To be fair. They almost certainly made the corrosive grasp error first.

Corrosive grasp ---- Opalescent sphere :smalltongue:

Wow. That should have been in nothing but gray text. :smalltongue:

[Mato]

Seriously, what is it with Spell Compendium and messed up durations? First Opalescent Glare, now this.There is no messed up duration. All most every single touch spell printed has an instantaneous duration. The unique characteristic of spells with a range of touch is that you're allowed to make a single touch attack as part of casting the spell, you can hold the charge until you cast a second spell or touch anything, that you can deliver it using a natural weapon or unarmed strike, and you can benefit from anything that triggers on an attack such as sneak attack damage. These effects have nothing to do with the duration entry and they are an inherent trait of any spell with a range of touch. Corrosive Touch having an instantaneous duration doesn't some how much it special compared to say Shocking Grasp, but rather makes it fit into the several other dozen spells like it.

Now Corrosive Grasp's specific text allows you to use it multiple times, however this exception is only works provided you are using touch attacks. It does not override any other base rules, so while intent may be multiple use, no exception from it's inherent rules on fully discharging on a causal touch exists. The rules that govern touch attacks apply, and they say the spell is discharged. Which makes Tippy's so called trick completely incorrect. It's not even a rules don't say I can't or RAW funny, because the rules do in fact say no.

You should also be aware that this isn't even a unique effect. The Player's Handbook contains a spell called Chill Touch that allows multiple touch attacks and the same could be said there. What if you delivered the spell with a natural weapon? Well, in the section that explains how the spells descriptions it'd full discharge, but intent suggests it'd consume one usage. And that is the real issue here. A certain someone clearly has never read that section, or complete arcane, the rules compendium, the FAQ, the rules of the game articles, or really anything that explains touch or weapon-like spells. So Corrosive Touch is presented as being special and unique spell with missing rules and an incomprehensible duration all for a "rules don't say I can't" to be taken to an extreme measure. But the rules do say no, the duration isn't special, and Corrosive Spell isn't even the first to allow multiple touch attacks. You never needed anything more than the PHB to know that either.

[Vent Reynolt]

"You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit Dice, it dies. Assuming the subject survives, the negative level disappears (without requiring a Fortitude save) after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15). A fell draining spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level."
If you want to be snippy actually know what you are talking about. If a Fell Drain spell deals damage to you, you gain a negative level.


I just realized something, (And admittedly, this is a bit on a tangent) but by the earlier argument of the Corrosive Grasp spell's line about delivering the touch attack through an unarmed strike or natural weapon as being a supplemental ability, rather than simply reaffirming the normal rules on touch attacks, this means that the text in the Fell Drain feat about negative levels being lethal doesn't simply reaffirm the rules on negative levels, but actually overrides them, and since that feat makes no mention of turning into a wight, then it must not happen.

[Chronos]

You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level.

Wait a minute-- This doesn't say "any living creature that is dealt damage by the spell. So you can cast a Fell Drain Sonic Snap on one opponent, and then the party fighter can hit another guy, and that enemy gets a negative level, too, since he was dealt damage.

Best be careful, though, since it also works on you: If the enemies damage you, you'll get a negative level, too.

And since the feat doesn't specify a range or duration, if any spellcaster ever in the history of the world has ever used a Fell Drain spell, this always happens on all attacks, anywhere, anywhen. For the rest of time, any living creature that takes any damage, for any reason, always gets a negative level. Man, that's harsh.