Non-damaging spells dealing damage

[prufock]

Are there any ways to make non-damaging spells (save or suck, save or lose, utility) deal damage? The only one I know of is spirit chill, the Nightmare Spinner ability that deals nonlethal damage when one of your fear spells works. Are there other ways to do this through class abilities, items, or feats?

[The Bandicoot]

If your DM says the spell Grease actually covers something in grease just use it on a torch-holding enemy. A normally non-lethal spell just lit someone ablaze.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Use the feat Snowcasting from Frostburn to add the [cold] subtype to the spell. You'll need a handful of snow as an additional material component, so either cast Summon Component from Complete Mage (or use a wand of it), or get Eschew Materials which is somewhat questionable.

Once your spell has the [cold] subtype, you can add the Flash Frost Spell metamagic feat from Player's Handbook 2, which adds +2 cold damage per spell level at a +1 level spell slot cost.

From there you can do all kinds of fun stuff, including Energy Substitution: Electric for Born of the Three Thunders (CA) and then Explosive Spell (CA).

[ScionoftheVoid]

If your DM says the spell Grease actually covers something in grease just use it on a torch-holding enemy. A normally non-lethal spell just lit someone ablaze.

Actually, the Grease spell is non-flammable. There's a second-level version which explicitly is flammable, however (in Complete Mage, IIRC).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Use the feat Snowcasting from Frostburn to add the [cold] subtype to the spell. You'll need a handful of snow as an additional material component, so either cast Summon Component from Complete Mage (or use a wand of it), or get Eschew Materials which is somewhat questionable.

Once your spell has the [cold] subtype, you can add the Flash Frost Spell metamagic feat from Player's Handbook 2, which adds +2 cold damage per spell level at a +1 level spell slot cost.

From there you can do all kinds of fun stuff, including Energy Substitution: Electric for Born of the Three Thunders (CA) and then Explosive Spell (CA).


Dammit, someone beat me to Locate City....

[Venusaur]

Locate City doesn't really work. The consensus is that it just moves you up an inch. However, the wightpocalypse version does.

[prufock]

Use the feat Snowcasting from Frostburn to add the [cold] subtype to the spell. You'll need a handful of snow as an additional material component, so either cast Summon Component from Complete Mage (or use a wand of it), or get Eschew Materials which is somewhat questionable.

Once your spell has the [cold] subtype, you can add the Flash Frost Spell metamagic feat from Player's Handbook 2, which adds +2 cold damage per spell level at a +1 level spell slot cost.

My understanding of "extra damage" is that something has to first do damage. Not sure if that's RAW or not, but it is why a +1 net doesn't do damage. At least that's what I've read.

[Curmudgeon]

My understanding of "extra damage" is that something has to first do damage.
That's correct. For instance, you can't add sneak attack damage to an attack that doesn't inflict any damage. Sneak attack bonus damage is always of the same type as the base damage, so that would be none if there's no base damage. (You do get to add the base and bonus damage together before you subtract damage reduction, though; it's just one attack, after all.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wouldn't a +1 Flaming Net deal 1d6 fire damage per hit?

Flash Frost Spell does +2 cold damage. It doesn't do +2 of the spell's non-existent base damage, therefore no damage. It does +2 cold damage, regardless of the spell's base damage type or lack thereof.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't a +1 Flaming Net deal 1d6 fire damage per hit?
No, it wouldn't.
A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. A net doesn't deal any damage, so there's no way to deal extra damage.

Flash Frost Spell does +2 cold damage. It doesn't do +2 of the spell's non-existent base damage, therefore no damage. It does +2 cold damage, regardless of the spell's base damage type or lack thereof. That's a metamagic feat, so it's modifying the spell directly to make it cause (extra) damage. That's not bonus damage.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There's no in-game definition for the word extra so let's go to the dictionary definition:

Extra: beyond or more than what is usual, expected, or necessary

A flaming weapon does beyond or more than what is usual or expected by 1d6 in fire damage. If what is usual/expected is zero, then it's still more than zero by 1d6.

[Curmudgeon]

There's no in-game definition for the word extra so let's go to the dictionary definition:

Extra: beyond or more than what is usual, expected, or necessary
If you'd clicked on the Thesaurus tab for that Dictionary.com entry you'd find Synonyms include bonus, which does have an in-game definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B):
bonus

A positive modifier to a die roll. Without an initial damage die roll there's nothing to add to, thus no bonus damage.

[gomipile]

But the word "bonus" doesn't appear in the description of Flash Frost Spell. Unless that is your point, Curmudgeon?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

When this game means for something to be a bonus, it has always specifically used that word to make it clear.

If your weapon deals slashing damage, and you use power attack or make a sneak attack, you're adding more slashing damage. If the weapon doesn't deal any damage, then more of nothing is still nothing. I would expect a net that's sheathed in fire to still deal its 1d6 fire damage, because it's not adding more of nothing, it's specifically adding fire damage. The same goes for Flash Frost Spell, it's not adding more of the spell's base damage and thus more of nothing, it's adding frost damage to the spell's normal effect.

I maintain that if an effect adds damage of a specific type to an attack that normally wouldn't deal damage, then it still gets added on, and that both RAW and RAI are in agreement with this.

[Curmudgeon]

When this game means for something to be a bonus, it has always specifically used that word to make it clear.
No, that's definitely not true, as even a cursory check will show. The first example that comes to mind is sneak attack.
Sneak Attack

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Now, in other uses of sneak attack they used the term "bonus" (see Assassin, Arcane Trickster, Blackguard, & c.), but in the first, canonical instance, they only used the synonym "extra".

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No, that's definitely not true, as even a cursory check will show. The first example that comes to mind is sneak attack. Now, in other uses of sneak attack they used the term "bonus" (see Assassin, Arcane Trickster, Blackguard, & c.), but in the first, canonical instance, they only used the synonym "extra".

As I said, more of nothing is still nothing, but adding fire to nothing equals fire. Same goes for flash frost.

[prufock]

And so the argument goes, always in circles. RAW I believe Curmudgeon has the right of it, but I think Biff's argument is reasonable from a "does it make sense" perspective. However that could have unexpected results - like making touch attacks with a +1 flaming longsword to do 1d6 damage.

Personal opinion: I normally wouldn't allow it.

So are those the only options? The Grease idea isn't really the spell itself dealing damage, so that's not what I want.

Let me put this is a more specific format using examples.

1. Is there a way to make touch of fatigue deal damage?
2. Is there a way to make hideous laughter deal damage?
3. Is there a way to make solid fog deal damage? (I'm aware of the existence of acid fog, it's not what I want)
4. Is there a way to make slow deal damage?
And so on.

[ShriekingDrake]

I suspect that there is some clever way to make Create Water do damage, perhaps by freezing it.

[Novawurmson]

What is 0+2? I'm of the opinion it's 2. Flash Frost does not specifically say that the spell has to deal damage, just that it has to be of the [Cold] descriptor. If spells have to deal Cold damage to have the [Cold] descriptor, it'd be a different story, but Frostburn gives us a whole slew of [Cold] spells that don't deal damage.

I don't think it would be an unfair house rule to say that you have to deal damage with a spell to get bonus damage from a spell, but by RAW, Flash Frost can be applied to any spell with the [Cold] descriptor.

...and I don't think it's unreasonable that touching someone with a flaming sword would do fire damage to them :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

I suspect that there is some clever way to make Create Water do damage, perhaps by freezing it.

Falling damage is the simplest way. (Or so I've heard :smalltongue:)

[CTrees]

The problem with discussion of things like a +1 net is: you aren't looking at zero base damage preventing you from adding an additional point of damage from the +1 enchantment. You're looking at a net, which has "-" as its damage entry. The "-" or lack of a value is distinct and different than a zero (see: casting Bear's Endurance on a wight does not improve its constitution, because the wight's Con score is -, not 0). RAW, I think this would indeed preclude enchantments like Flaming from helping a net (though it would be reasonable to allow it in a game one was running).

Now, the metamagic issue? I'm AFB, so I can't double check the wording of Flash Frost. By my recollection, I think it works, but I can't support that right now.

[Novawurmson]

I should also point out the Flash Frost has to be applied to a spell that affects an area; also, there are no core [Cold] spells I can find that do not deal damage.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I should also point out the Flash Frost has to be applied to a spell that affects an area; also, there are no core [Cold] spells I can find that do not deal damage.

Sleet Storm.


With regards to the flaming weapon comparison, how would a +1 Flaming Whip fare? It deals nonlethal damage, and can't deal damage to anyone with at least a +1 armor bonus or a +3 natural armor bonus. Would this circumstance also preclude the 1d6 fire damage? Or would the whip's base damage be cancelled, along with any bonus damage of the same type, but the 1d6 fire damage go through normally? What if someone using a +1 Flaming Longsword wishes to deal nonlethal damage, does the 1d6 fire damage get converted to nonlethal? My point is, that 1d6 fire damage has absolutely nothing to do with the weapon's base damage or lack thereof, it operates completely independently as per the ability description, "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." If that weapon successfully hits, you deal 1d6 fire damage regardless of any other factors.

I personally find absolutely nothing wrong with making a touch attack with a +1 Flaming Longsword or similar to deal only 1d6 fire damage. At the level at which you could afford that item, 1d6 damage per hit is downright pitiful, and if you're in such dire straits that this is the only type of attack you're left with, then go right ahead.

[Venger]

Actually, the Grease spell is non-flammable. There's a second-level version which explicitly is flammable, however (in Complete Mage, IIRC).

incendiary slime, CMage 108

that's the problem with this game adding new resources (or it was back when they made new 3.5 stuff) back before CMage, you could say "I light the grease on fire" and the DM would likely ok it. but now that there exists a mechanic to do so, you must have it to do that, or if you wanted to climb up your whip after wrapping it around something, you could before complete scoundrel but now you'd better have the skill trick.


That's correct. For instance, you can't add sneak attack damage to an attack that doesn't inflict any damage. Sneak attack bonus damage is always of the same type as the base damage, so that would be none if there's no base damage. (You do get to add the base and bonus damage together before you subtract damage reduction, though; it's just one attack, after all.)

right, except for ability damage and negative levels, which was changed for 3.5, in CArc's section on "weaponlike spells" that says these have the sneak attack do negative energy damage instead.

[prufock]

that's the problem with this game adding new resources (or it was back when they made new 3.5 stuff) back before CMage, you could say "I light the grease on fire" and the DM would likely ok it. but now that there exists a mechanic to do so, you must have it to do that, or if you wanted to climb up your whip after wrapping it around something, you could before complete scoundrel but now you'd better have the skill trick.

I sort of agree. The grease spell creates grease. Grease, as far as I know, is flammable (apart from some synthetics). The component of the spell is pork fat! I'd allow it to burn as lamp oil (burns for 2 rounds, 1d3 fire damage per round).

As for the Whip Climber skill trick, I would allow that as well - it's one of the weaker skill tricks. Right now, the skill trick allows you to secure it as a move action instead of a standard. I would extend that to say no use rope check is necessary for using the skill trick.

Of course, some of the skill tricks are awesome.

However, it appears I'm SOL for the non-damaging spells doing damage, unless the Flash Frost trick is allowed. So no Fell metamagics on non-damage spells. :smallannoyed:

[CTrees]

The component of the spell is pork fat!

Or butter.

Regardless, the "cover an item" use gives the wording, "create a greasy coating," which merely implies lubrication, not flammability. Unfortunately, the first use simply says "grease," which... has both a specific meaning (which would imply flammability) and a generic meaning (of pretty much any sticky lubricant). Hard to tell, because WotC had to use imprecise language.

Obviously RAI is non-flammable, given the higher level, flammable version, but RAW? It's an interesting question. As a DM, I allow it (at between 1d3 and 1d6 damage per round) because there's a limited duration, it's not tremendously rough, and the players like it. *shrug*

[Zombulian]

There is a very recent thread on here that was discussing putting spells and iajutsu together. So, quikdraw a dagger, or if your DM is nice, pull your hands out of your pockets, and touch them with one of your spells. BAM DAMAGE

[dextercorvia]

Grease in 2e could be set alight, IIRC. I woulds say that the removal of that wording would indicate fairly strongly that they didn't intend it to have that effect any longer.

To the OP, if you are going just for Necromancy spells, there is Black Lore of Moil.

[Lapak]

I sort of agree. The grease spell creates grease. Grease, as far as I know, is flammable (apart from some synthetics). The component of the spell is pork fat! I'd allow it to burn as lamp oil (burns for 2 rounds, 1d3 fire damage per round).
There's flammable and flammable. A lot of oils that will burn if heated enough would not catch fire and immolate someone from an isolated source like a torch. Olive oil is a good example - if you heat up ALL of it, sure, it will burn. But sticking a torch in a pool of cold olive oil will not cause the whole pool to ignite and burn people standing in it.

Most cooking oils act that way, actually.