Some questions regarding the warlock

[Lekgolo137]

Hey guys, I have doubts about the behavior of warlock invocations in certain contexts. These scenarios will very likely come up during a game I'm DMing as one of my players (a lvl 16 warlock) likes to push the limits.

I tried asking this in the simple RAW thread but answers obtained were not enough.

The first two questions are related to the Eldritch Glaive invocation.

1st- If you use the Eldritch Glaive invocation while under the effect of a Haste spell, can you make one extra attack with the glaive?

I ask this since the invocation specifies that you can make as many attacks as your base attack bonus allows as a full-round action (essentially, a full attack), and the haste spell specifies that you make one extra attack when making a full attack action, so I'm not completly sure about the RAW answer (I guess RAW no, but RAI yes).

2nd- If you maximize (through the feat) your Eldritch Blast while using Eldritch Glaive, all the attacks you make that round are maximized (including AoOs)? Would the residual damage from vitriolic blast be maximized?

There is no rule that I can find to forbid it, but it seems a bit overpowered, I mean, by level 15 you could do way more than 200 damage per turn (not counting AoOs), for three turns...

3rd- If you hit a creature inmune to acid with a Vitriolic Blast would it still take damage (though it would be unnamed damage, not acid) ?

I ask this since there there is this rule that is often overlooked: "If a warlock targets a creature with an eldritch essence blast that has immunity to the invocation’s effect, it still takes the damage from the blast normally (provided it isn’t also immune to the eldritch blast)."

4th- If the answer to the previous question is yes, would you then be entitled to a caster level check to overcome the creature's spell resistance (since you are no longer effectively using the vitriolic blast) ?

I'm not sure if only the acid damage is gone but you still ignore the spell resistance, or everything is gone and you cast a raw eldritch blast, or since the creature isn't inmune to the part of the effect that ignores the spell resistance the rule I quoted before won't apply, making the creature inmune to the vitriolic blast.

5th- Last question, I promise, if a creature is inmune to all spell-like abilities from extraplanar creatures, and our warlock encounters this creature at a plane other than the material (thus having the extraplanar subtype), would the creature be inmune to any invocation the warlock can cast?

Thank you very much in advance for any answer, keep in mind that English isn't my primary language, so I apologize for any mistake.

[Urpriest]

Hey guys, I have doubts about the behavior of warlock invocations in certain contexts. These scenarios will very likely come up during a game I'm DMing as one of my players (a lvl 16 warlock) likes to push the limits.

I tried asking this in the simple RAW thread but answers obtained were not enough.

The first two questions are related to the Eldritch Glaive invocation.

1st- If you use the Eldritch Glaive invocation while under the effect of a Haste spell, can you make one extra attack with the glaive?

I ask this since the invocation specifies that you can make as many attacks as your base attack bonus allows as a full-round action (essentially, a full attack), and the haste spell specifies that you make one extra attack when making a full attack action, so I'm not completly sure about the RAW answer (I guess RAW no, but RAI yes).

As you suspect, the answer is no. You're not actually making a full attack, and you explicitly only get attacks from your BAB.



2nd- If you maximize (through the feat) your Eldritch Blast while using Eldritch Glaive, all the attacks you make that round are maximized (including AoOs)? Would the residual damage from vitriolic blast be maximized?

There is no rule that I can find to forbid it, but it seems a bit overpowered, I mean, by level 15 you could do way more than 200 damage per turn (not counting AoOs), for three turns...

That should work, including the residual damage. 200 damage per round is roughly par for level 15, so that's not something I would worry too much about.



3rd- If you hit a creature inmune to acid with a Vitriolic Blast would it still take damage (though it would be unnamed damage, not acid) ?

I ask this since there there is this rule that is often overlooked: "If a warlock targets a creature with an eldritch essence blast that has immunity to the invocation’s effect, it still takes the damage from the blast normally (provided it isn’t also immune to the eldritch blast)."

"Immune to the effect" would mean something like being immune to ongoing damage, if that was a thing. As-is, the creature isn't just immune to the effect, it's immune to the blast in general, since the entire blast is changed to be acid damage. The rule you're quoting is for when, for example, you hit a fear-immune creature with a fear-inducing blast.




5th- Last question, I promise, if a creature is inmune to all spell-like abilities from extraplanar creatures, and our warlock encounters this creature at a plane other than the material (thus having the extraplanar subtype), would the creature be inmune to any invocation the warlock can cast?

Yes, unless, like Vitriolic Blast, it doesn't grant spell resistance.

[Crake]

Yes, unless, like Vitriolic Blast, it doesn't grant spell resistance.

To be fair, some magic immunities don't care about spell resistance. My favourite one to quote as an example are the draconic golems from draconomicon which say "A dragonbone golem has immunity to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects and abilities" so regardless of whether or not the ability allows SR, the creature is immune. Note that this is different from a normal golem's immunity to magic, which specifically says "any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance".

Edit: What I'm trying to say (promise I'm not trying to be obnoxious) is that it depends on the wording of the specific creature's ability.

[Blackhawk748]

Ya, 200 damage a round from a "caster" isnt that big of a deal by lvl 15. I mean they're chucking save or dies like they're nothing, so straight HP damage should make you relieved.

[Troacctid]

To be fair, some magic immunities don't care about spell resistance. My favourite one to quote as an example are the draconic golems from draconomicon which say "A dragonbone golem has immunity to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects and abilities" so regardless of whether or not the ability allows SR, the creature is immune. Note that this is different from a normal golem's immunity to magic, which specifically says "any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance".

Edit: What I'm trying to say (promise I'm not trying to be obnoxious) is that it depends on the wording of the specific creature's ability.

That's how all golems worked in 3.0. Draconomicon's release was right on the heels of the 3.5 update, so the smart money says the designers just forgot to change it.

[Crake]

That's how all golems worked in 3.0. Draconomicon's release was right on the heels of the 3.5 update, so the smart money says the designers just forgot to change it.

Huh, looking at the 3.0 srd, you're right, i guess you learn something every day. I swear I've seen other creatures use similar wording on their magic immunity though....

[Blackhawk748]

Huh, looking at the 3.0 srd, you're right, i guess you learn something every day. I swear I've seen other creatures use similar wording on their magic immunity though....

They are most likely ports from 3.0 and someone missed those lines.