Touch of golden ice feat

[dehro]

by description of the exalted feat: Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects).

is it something that I could turn off at will? To put it in context... I know one of my party members is a scumbag and a criminal (OG I know he's chaotic evil), but I need him to give me a hand up and so far I've always been able to point his scumbaggery towards the enemy... can I grab his hand and not have him suffer for it, or is it an automatic thing? It seems to be specifically focussed on hands and/or natural weapons, which clearly marks it as an after effect of an attack.. what if I'm not attacking him but in fact asking his help, or if he just touches say.. my elbow or face?

[atemu1234]

By nature of Exalted and the like? Probably not.

[dextercorvia]

I'd wear gloves.

[dehro]

I'd wear gloves.

no can do.. because, vow of poverty

[dextercorvia]

no can do.. because, vow of poverty

If a peasant can use cloth wrappings for shoes, then you should be able to do it for your hands.

[Rubik]

no can do.. because, vow of povertyVoP allows for clothes. It's one of the few things it does allow for.

[dehro]

I guess I can work around it that way... but either way, you are saying that it is an automated thing, not a "switch on/switch off" thing...ok
on another note...can such a feat be maximised?

[Rubik]

I guess I can work around it that way... but either way, you are saying that it is an automated thing, not a "switch on/switch off" thing...ok
on another note...can such a feat be maximised?Maximized as in the Maximize Spell metamagic feat, or maximized as in optimized?

For the former? No.

And the only real way to optimize it is to boost the DC. Boost your Con and take Ability Focus: ToGI. That's...about it.

[dehro]

gotcha... I think.
wait.. no.. I'm still fuzzy about the mechanics of this thing.

[Rubik]

Oh, wait. Nix the Con score boost. It's a straight DC 14 Fort save. Just add to it via Ability Focus.


gotcha... I think.
wait.. no.. I'm still fuzzy about the mechanics of this thing.You touch an Evil creature, it makes the save, and if it fails, it takes damage a la poison (except no immunity is possible, aside from ability damage immunity).

[dehro]

drat.
so basically, they get a fort save roll, and if they get more than 14, they save and that's the end to it. right?
except it is a supernatural ability, so..shouldn't it scale in one way or another?

[Deadline]

drat.
so basically, they get a fort save roll, and if they get more than 14, they save and that's the end to it. right?
except it is a supernatural ability, so..shouldn't it scale in one way or another?

Nope. But they do have to save every time you touch them. So it ultimately winds up being a 5% chance to fire off on every attack or touch you make at higher levels.

[Rubik]

drat.Right.


so basically, they get a fort save roll, and if they get more than 14, they save and that's the end to it. right?Nope! They have to roll 14 or above.


except it is a supernatural ability, so..shouldn't it scale in one way or another?Again, nope! The supernatural ability gives the ravage to those you touch. The ravage has its own save. So the attack doesn't grant a save. It's the ravage that does. And the only way to boost that save is through the Ability Focus feat.

There are ways to optimize this beyond that, but they basically revolve around A.) forcing as many saves as possible in order to increase the chances of triggering a natural 1 on the save, and B.) debuffing your enemies so their save is lower.

[dehro]

I get it now.. a bit of a shame really.
option 2 seems more accessible, at least for now.. so I'll go look for spells that debuff Fort.

[Shalist]

VoP allows for clothes. It's one of the few things it does allow for.Nooooo, don't take my Vow of Nudity away!


And the only real way to optimize it is to boost the DC.The feat doesn't mention a variable DC, so I believe its independent of constitution, HD, etc.. Really, its ToGI is just reverse-vorpal, since you're pretty much relying on their natural 1s for it to function. :P

That being the case, the more swings you make, the more chances for them to critically fail their save (i.e. 1 swing => 1/20 chance, 7 swings => 7/20 chance), so optimizing for more natural attacks helps. Perhaps polymorphing into a carrion crawler, combat reflexes, etc.?

[dehro]

Nooooo, don't take my Vow of Nudity away!

The feat doesn't mention a variable DC, so I believe its independent of constitution, HD, etc.. Really, its ToGI is just reverse-vorpal, since you're pretty much relying on their natural 1s for it to function. :P

That being the case, the more swings you make, the more chances for them to critically fail their save (i.e. 1 swing => 1/20 chance, 7 swings => 7/20 chance), so optimizing for more natural attacks helps. Perhaps polymorphing into a carrion crawler, combat reflexes, etc.?

for now I'm a level 7 druid.. and the whole wild shape thing is something I am still getting to grips with.. but yeah, eventually I'll find a creature (maybe not an abberration, lol) that adds a few more attacks.. or I'll just go with girallon's blessing

[Rubik]

Nooooo, don't take my Vow of Nudity away!

The feat doesn't mention a variable DC, so I believe its independent of constitution, HD, etc.. Really, its ToGI is just reverse-vorpal, since you're pretty much relying on their natural 1s for it to function. :P

That being the case, the more swings you make, the more chances for them to critically fail their save (i.e. 1 swing => 1/20 chance, 7 swings => 7/20 chance), so optimizing for more natural attacks helps. Perhaps polymorphing into a carrion crawler, combat reflexes, etc.?Roper! Or the ever-popular hydra.

[LoyalPaladin]

Ah yes, the feat I always want to take, but never do.

I doubt you can turn it off. That said, most exalted characters wouldn't want to turn it off.

[Hiro Quester]

for now I'm a level 7 druid.. and the whole wild shape thing is something I am still getting to grips with.. but yeah, eventually I'll find a creature (maybe not an abberration, lol) that adds a few more attacks.. or I'll just go with girallon's blessing

Leopard is probably your best attack sequence for that purpose. 2 claws plus bite, and two rakes if the bite hits and you succeed on a grapple check. (Other big cats as you get large and huge wildshape forms, too).

A level of monk will add an unarmed strike to that attack sequence (with 5 natural backs as secondary attacks at -5), and give you improved grapple for a better chance at raking, too. Plus the AC bonus (even in wildshape), since you are not allowed to own a monk's belt.

Evard's Menacing Tentacles also adds an extra two free action natural attacks, at full BAB, plus 10 ft reach and two AoOs per round.

[Jowgen]

Keep in mind that Exalted feats give Supernatural rather than Extraordinary abilities.

Based on this, you can make a very reasonable argument that the Save DC against your touch should follow the rules for Su save DC, as described on p.119 of the Rules Compendium.

Other minor point, technically you need to activate your golden ice as a standard action, from whence on it is always active. There are no rules for de-activation of Su abilites to my knowledge, so that's purely DM territory.

[Troacctid]

Keep in mind that while the DC doesn't scale, the damage does scale based on the target's Charisma. The higher their Cha, the more Dex damage they take.

[dehro]

Which is awesome... If the enemy rolls a 1

[Namfuak]

Which is awesome... If the enemy rolls a 1

If I remember my statistics classes, with the 7 attacks mentioned earlier it's about a 70% chance ((19/20) ^ 7 = 0.69833729609), so not totally awful, though that assumes all your attacks hit.

[Chronos]

And while there's no Maximize Supernatural Ability feat, there is an Empower Supernatural Ability, from Tome of Magic. You can only use it once per day (per time you take the feat), but you don't have to pin down what ability it's for when you take the feat. I think ToGI counts as a continuous ability, which means it'd be empowered for one round.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If I remember my statistics classes, with the 7 attacks mentioned earlier it's about a 70% chance ((19/20) ^ 7 = 0.69833729609), so not totally awful, though that assumes all your attacks hit.

Pretty sure you left out a step, there.

The foe has a 19/20 chance of MAKING the save. So the (19/20)^7 is their chance of making all 7 saves. You subtract this from 1 to get your chance of inflicting them with golden ice at least once, 30%.

Been awhile since I did probability, though.

[Necroticplague]

Well, the probability of them failing their save on at least one out of the seven attacks if they only fail on a nat1 should be

(1/20)[chance the fail on first shot]+((19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, then fail on second]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first and second, then fail on third]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, then fail on fourth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, then fail on fifth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, fifth, then fail on sixth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, then fail on seventh]

Or, written in sigma notation (where N is the number of times you hit them with something that triggers ToGI):

The summation from n=1 to N of ((19/20)^(n-1))*(1/20).

My skill with summations prevents me from going further to express this as a function itself, but maybe someone who did better in Calc can pick up from here. My lack of currently having a calculator also prevents me from calculating said value. I might return after I write up something in python to figure out said values.

[Namfuak]

Pretty sure you left out a step, there.

The foe has a 19/20 chance of MAKING the save. So the (19/20)^7 is their chance of making all 7 saves. You subtract this from 1 to get your chance of inflicting them with golden ice at least once, 30%.

Been awhile since I did probability, though.

I knew there was supposed to be a 1-x in there somewhere, but I kept thinking it was (1-probability of thing happening), IE (1-1/20) = 19/20. Thanks.

[Bronk]

Keep in mind that Exalted feats give Supernatural rather than Extraordinary abilities.

Based on this, you can make a very reasonable argument that the Save DC against your touch should follow the rules for Su save DC, as described on p.119 of the Rules Compendium.

Other minor point, technically you need to activate your golden ice as a standard action, from whence on it is always active. There are no rules for de-activation of Su abilites to my knowledge, so that's purely DM territory.

I agree with this! As a supernatural ability, it follows the scaling rules.

As for turning it off or not, just remember it only affects evil. They had it coming!

[Necroticplague]

I agree with this! As a supernatural ability, it follows the scaling rules.

As for turning it off or not, just remember it only affects evil. They had it coming!

Except that it's not an ability that can scale. It's a binary effect. The effect is that your touch applies the golden ice ravage. This has nothing to do with whatever the properties of golden ice itself (such as the very low save DC).

[Rubik]

I agree with this! As a supernatural ability, it follows the scaling rules.Yes! Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, the feat itself doesn't grant a save, so beyond the one and only way to improve the DC of the ravage itself (Ability Focus), you're rather out of luck.

[Jowgen]

Yes! Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, the feat itself doesn't grant a save, so beyond the one and only way to improve the DC of the ravage itself (Ability Focus), you're rather out of luck.

Isn't the part where it doesn't specify a save exactly the point? Specific trumps general, but in the absence of specific, general reigns supreme, right? Otherwise, one might as well read the feat to mean that no save is allowed, i.e. take "is ravaged" to mean the damage from the referenced ravage is applied.

Also, not sure it comes into this, but Ravages are Su in and off themselves as well.

[Namfuak]

Isn't the part where it doesn't specify a save exactly the point? Specific trumps general, but in the absence of specific, general reigns supreme, right? Otherwise, one might as well read the feat to mean that no save is allowed, i.e. take "is ravaged" to mean the damage from the referenced ravage is applied.

Also, not sure it comes into this, but Ravages are Su in and off themselves as well.

Rereading the ravages section, it never actually specifies that the creature gets a save against a ravage, just "Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them." The table has a "type" column with DCs and how one contracts the ravage, but the time when those DCs actually occur is never specified, and the text clearly states that once exposed a creature takes ability damage or ability drain (although none of them specify which they apply as far as I can tell).

[Rubik]

Isn't the part where it doesn't specify a save exactly the point? Specific trumps general, but in the absence of specific, general reigns supreme, right? Otherwise, one might as well read the feat to mean that no save is allowed, i.e. take "is ravaged" to mean the damage from the referenced ravage is applied.

Also, not sure it comes into this, but Ravages are Su in and off themselves as well.The general rule is that you use the DC stated in the ability. In this case, it's Fort DC 14, because that's the DC stated in the ravage itself.

[Susano-wo]

Just wanted to say that 1: I have also been disappointed in the lack of scaling for the ability, and

2: at your level, enemies are going to fail on more than just 1. A good save progression would give base save of 5 at your level, maybe a bit more if its a monster with more HD, so even with a +3 con mod, that's 8 to maybe 10. Still hard to get it to go off, but not rolling a 1 yet.

[One Step Two]

You could always appeal to your GM to see if the Ravage DC scales, which is usually 10+ 1/2 HD + Charisma Modifier for Su abilities. Seeing as how limiting VoP can be, some GM's might be generous enough to allow it.

That said, where does it list that Touch of Golden Ice, or the Ravage itself as a Su ability? Edit: Found it under Exalted Feats decription, nevermind.

[Jowgen]

The general rule is that you use the DC stated in the ability. In this case, it's Fort DC 14, because that's the DC stated in the ravage itself.

The ability (feat) in this case does not itself list the DC. It refers you to chapter 3 for "effects", which to my knowledge, only refers to the damage/consequence of an effect as opposed to its save DC. There is a table in the same chapter that lists a DC, damage and price for golden ice, and it is the only DC ever printed, but the importance of that table should not be over-estimated. The DMG p 297 for example has a table that lists the DC for Wyvern poison to be 17, which is the only version of Wyvern poison you can by RAW purchase tmk, but a Wyvern can obviously have a poison DC of more or less than 17 (which can be harvested). My point in this is that the table is not absolute, and the feat never tells you to look at the table; which arguably gives you the choice of using the Su save DC rules instead.

Another simpler argument is that touch of golden ice is a poison attack (a supernatural one, which are rare but acknowledged to exist). By (generally considered silly) RAW, Ravages are admittedly only "like" poisons; but the feat description of Touch of Golden ice does explicitly state "your touch is poisonous to evil creatures", giving some written ground to consider it a poison attack. The rules for poison DCs are pretty clear, and the above mentioned Wyvern gives clear example for a table-to-reality difference.

I personally think that using the table DC, treating it as a Su DC, or treating it as a Poison Attack are all equally RAW-legal rulings to make, as it never explicitly tells you otherwise. RAI wise I personally gravitate to the poison attack version, as the entire ravage rule-set is really just the poison rules with a few tweaks that don't justify treating them any different; but alas. *shrug*

[Rubik]

It's a supernatural ability, which is usually (but not always) based off of Charisma.

It's a poison (except totally not being a poison, despite being basically identical), which is usually (but not always) based off of Constitution.

Supernatural abilities are occasionally based off of Int, Wis, Str, and Con.

Poisons are occasionally based off of Str, Int, Wis, and Cha.

Since there is no mention of the DC in the feat, and the only DC ever mentioned anywhere is a flat 14, and there's no way to know which ability to base it on...

...are you using DC 14, or are you using DC ???

[dextercorvia]

Well, the probability of them failing their save on at least one out of the seven attacks if they only fail on a nat1 should be

(1/20)[chance the fail on first shot]+((19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, then fail on second]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first and second, then fail on third]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, then fail on fourth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, then fail on fifth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, fifth, then fail on sixth]+((19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(19/20)*(1/20))[chance to pass first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, then fail on seventh]

Or, written in sigma notation (where N is the number of times you hit them with something that triggers ToGI):

The summation from n=1 to N of ((19/20)^(n-1))*(1/20).

My skill with summations prevents me from going further to express this as a function itself, but maybe someone who did better in Calc can pick up from here. My lack of currently having a calculator also prevents me from calculating said value. I might return after I write up something in python to figure out said values.

Sum(a^n, n=1..N)= (1-a^N)/(1-a) (Partial sum of the geometric series if you want to look it up) so in your case:

(1/20)*Sum((19/20)^n, n-1..N)= (1/20)*(1-(19/20)^N)/(1-19/20)
=(1/20)*(1-(19/20)^N)/(1/20)
=(1-(19/20)^N)

Which is what the poster above you was saying. 7 attacks only affecting on a natural 1 have a 30% chance of affecting the opponent when taken as a group.

Edit: Today is the first day in quite some time that having a math degree has been worthwhile. Thanks for that.

[One Step Two]

One could argue that, since the feat requires a Con score of 13, that like a poison it scales with Con.

[Jowgen]

It's a supernatural ability, which is usually (but not always) based off of Charisma.

It's a poison (except totally not being a poison, despite being basically identical), which is usually (but not always) based off of Constitution.

Supernatural abilities are occasionally based off of Int, Wis, Str, and Con.

Poisons are occasionally based off of Str, Int, Wis, and Cha.

Since there is no mention of the DC in the feat, and the only DC ever mentioned anywhere is a flat 14, and there's no way to know which ability to base it on...

...are you using DC 14, or are you using DC ???

Fair point.

Charisma has one thing going for it in that Ravages deal bonus damage based on target Cha, but that's about it tmk. Con has a much stronger support based on its not that helpful "ravages function in a manner similar to poisons [...]" clause plus the existence of an explicit Poison-is-con-based (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Poison) rule, which as a general rule applies in the absence of specific (other ability substituting) over-rulings

So yeah. Supernatural (and hence weird) Poison attack DC or table DC, both still go imo.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what One Step Two above me said. :smalltongue:

EDIT2: I just realized something that may actually fully legitimize Touch of Golden Ice as a Poison attack, meaning it would get its save formula. The realization in question: the definition of what a poison attack is does not actually rely on poison being used in the attack. For something to qualify as a poison attack, it needs to be produced by a creature, needs to allow a fortitude save, and has to have both primary and secondary damage. Touch of Golden Ice qualifies fully, despite not being described as a poison. It never needed to be classed as a poison to benefit from the save DC formula of Poison Attacks. Yay.

Now if someone could find a way for a creature's body to start producing LoD/BoVD drugs... :smalltongue:

[Crake]

There is plenty of precedence for poisons applied to weapons being of a lower DC than their naturally produced counterparts. Purple worm poison for example is DC24 when you buy it, but in a typical purple worm is DC 25, and an advanced purple worm would have even higher DC.

This sets a pretty decent precedence for touch of golden ice scaling with your character in my opinion.

[jiriku]

I found this feat to be delightful in an E6 build focused on making multiple attacks with natural weapons. Sheer win. Everything's good somewhere, it just needs a place to shine.

[Socratov]

Wow, I see a lot of arguing going 'round. And some stuff said isn't really true...

First, let's see about some quotes from BoED and its errata:



Touch of Golden Ice [Exalted]
Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures
Prerequisite: Con 13
Benefit: Any evil creature you touch with your hand, fist or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipemnt for effects).





[table 3-2: Ravages]

Golden ice -- Contact DC 14 -- 1d6 Dex -- 2d6 Dex 1,200 gp

[section right collumn]

Bolden Ice: This chrystalline substance is cold to the touch, though it doesn't melt except at infernally high temperatures. Evil creatures subjected to it feel its cold spreading throughout their bodies.




Exalted Feats

This book introduces a new type of feat: the exalted feat. Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good--deities, celestials, or similar creatures. These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities as most feats are).

A character must have the DM's permission to take an exalted feat. In many cases, a ritual must be performed; often this simply amounts to a character swearing a sacred vow, for example, in teh presence of a celestial being. A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats. She regains these feats if she atones for her violations (see Sin and Atonement in Chapter 1). Aura of Good: A character with at least one exalted feat radiates an aura of good with a power equal to her character level (see the detect good spell), as if she were a paladin or a cleric of a good deity.

No relevant errata were found for Book of Exalted Deeds.



SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES
Supernatural abilities are magical. They don’t function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated, such as in an antimagic field. However, these abilities can’t be disrupted in combat, as spells can. Supernatural abilities aren’t subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Just like spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities might have a use limit or be usable at will. A supernatural ability takes a standard action to use unless otherwise noted in the ability description. Using a supernatural ability doesn’t usually provoke attacks of opportunity. They never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice.

Supernatural ability saving throw DC = 10 + 1/2 the
creature’s HD + the modifier for the ability score on which
the ability is based + other modifiers (often racial)

So first we need to asses what the feat does. The feat mentions that any time you touch an evil creature, said evil creature is ravaged with Golden Ice. The feat then refers, for the effects, to the chapter of ravages and afflicitons for its effects. This might be interpreted as whenever you touch an evil creature through the medium of touch, fist or natural attack (inferring skin contact with your skin specifically to be enough), said creature will be ravaged by golden ice. Where does it come from? Nobody knows. It just is. The feat neglects to mention wether the ability is activated, continuous or what have you. So we can safely assume the ability is always on (indicated by the fact that touch is enough to trigger the feat). But to make sure we turn to the Rules Compendium: here we see the only way to disrupt it (or to shut it down if you will) is to create an area of suprressed or negated magic. So if I'm to do a strict reading, gloves won't do squat either. (you might want to feign leprosy so nobody will touch you, or pretend you have different cultural traditions in which people don't touch each other).

Then on to trying to boost it:

DC: the feat itself does not point at a governing abilityscore, so that's out. Now to see if other tricks like ability focus works. Well, this gets a bit funny...


Ability Focus [General]
Choose one of the creature’s special attacks.

Prerequisite
Special attack.

Benefit
Add +2 to the DC for all saving throws against the special attack on which the creature focuses.

Special
A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time the creature takes the feat it applies to a different special attack.

You will have to see if the feat is a special attack. The feat itself does state that the effect triggers on an attack, but of itself is not a special attack, nor is an attack neccessary as part of the feat. that is, if you interpret the touch part in the feat's description not as a touch attack. If you don't, Ab. Focus won't do squat, if you do this changes everything. If you do think the touch part relates to touch attacks, then that makes the feat a standard action to use and a conscious application of the feat (allowing for you to shut it off if want). (hooraay for DnD developers for being so very clear on what they want to convey).

but then a second part fo the expalantion has something to say: the feat refers to the substance of golden ice, with set values for damage and DC's. So the feat basically says: every time you touch/attack though unarmed/natural attack the creature is affected by this substance called golden ice as a supernatural ability (as if your touches conjure it). I'd rule that by RAW you can't boost ToGI in any way. I'd alter it as soon as it would be used though since depending on the campaign power this ability starts off very strong (if taken at low level), but weakens by time.

I find it weird how nothing is said about hehre the golden ice comes from (does the character produce it? is it conjured every time you hit an evil creature?). If that fact could be cleared up, then we could see about using precedents of natural produced vs. store bought and the poison DC formula. For now I think asking your DM if he thinks the meta-SLA line of feats should apply (except for quicken, which woudl be stupid).

[Crake]

You will have to see if the feat is a special attack. The feat itself does state that the effect triggers on an attack, but of itself is not a special attack, nor is an attack neccessary as part of the feat. that is, if you interpret the touch part in the feat's description not as a touch attack. If you don't, Ab. Focus won't do squat, if you do this changes everything. If you do think the touch part relates to touch attacks, then that makes the feat a standard action to use and a conscious application of the feat (allowing for you to shut it off if want). (hooraay for DnD developers for being so very clear on what they want to convey).

Poisons are special attacks that trigger off other attacks, in fact, there are plenty of special attacks that trigger off a creature's natural attack. This would quite clearly lead one to believe that touch of golden ice is in fact a special attack, as it is a supernatural ability, regardless of whether or not it can be used on it's own (though that seems very clearly implied that it can be, and since unarmed touch attacks can be done with iterative attacks, there's nothing stopping you from touching multiple times in a standard action, rather than a single touch as a standard action) it is a special ability that is used offensively, thus making it a special attack, and clearly upgradable by ability focus.

Another example would be stunning strike, which functions in many ways like you describe, but is very obviously upgradable by ability focus. I don't think ability focus being appliccable was ever in question.

[Socratov]

Poisons are special attacks that trigger off other attacks, in fact, there are plenty of special attacks that trigger off a creature's natural attack. This would quite clearly lead one to believe that touch of golden ice is in fact a special attack, as it is a supernatural ability, regardless of whether or not it can be used on it's own (though that seems very clearly implied that it can be, and since unarmed touch attacks can be done with iterative attacks, there's nothing stopping you from touching multiple times in a standard action, rather than a single touch as a standard action) it is a special ability that is used offensively, thus making it a special attack, and clearly upgradable by ability focus.

Another example would be stunning strike, which functions in many ways like you describe, but is very obviously upgradable by ability focus. I don't think ability focus being appliccable was ever in question.

could you please quote a section where a creature actually uses a contact poison, which is said to be a special attack? Because the SRD I quickly searched for creatures with the Ex ability Poison are injury based and included in the delivery of attack. The ability itself (at least in the statblocks of the creatures) describes the effect of the poison (DC save, what it is based on) and method of delivery, instead of Touch of Golden Ice's saying touch->victim ravaged, reference to the stuff and not how the stuff is created or what makes the stuff hurt.

Besides, the fact that it can be used while not specifically attacking makes the feat not a special attack. Unless you think shaking hands is a touch attack and patting someone on the back is a touch attack as well (what a world that would be).

[Jowgen]

could you please quote a section where a creature actually uses a contact poison, which is said to be a special attack?

This one comes to mind: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040724a

EDIT: actually, scratch that, Pleasure Devil from p. 134 of Fiendish Codex II is more recent and fits better. Delivers poison as touch.

[Socratov]

Good catch, but in my edition of FCII it's a special action, and not a special attack (which is a separate category).

On top of that, poison is still extraordinary, and not supernatural, which, in my opinion complicates the whole situation somewhat.

[Bronk]

Good catch, but in my edition of FCII it's a special action, and not a special attack (which is a separate category).

On top of that, poison is still extraordinary, and not supernatural, which, in my opinion complicates the whole situation somewhat.

Being supernatural is what simplifies the whole deal, because that's what keys it directly to the rules for scaling supernatural abilities on pages 118 and 119 of the Rules Compendium.

[Rubik]

Being supernatural is what simplifies the whole deal, because that's what keys it directly to the rules for scaling supernatural abilities on pages 118 and 119 of the Rules Compendium.Which might be the case IF the feat mentioned a save. But it doesn't. The ravage does, but it's set at a flat 14.

[Bronk]

Which might be the case IF the feat mentioned a save. But it doesn't. The ravage does, but it's set at a flat 14.

The feat, the ravage... all supernatural. Again, poisons are also set at a flat DC on their table... that's for when you want to buy it.

[Rubik]

The feat, the ravage... all supernatural. Again, poisons are also set at a flat DC on their table... that's for when you want to buy it.ToGI is like the Poison Use feat. It doesn't let the poisons you use scale with your level or Con because you use the poisons in the books.

Unless you can show me where in the feat or the ravage that it grants you anything, anything but a DC 14 Fort save?

I'm willing to say I'm wrong if you can indicate anything in either of those places that says that it works like you say it does.

Because as far as I can see, the feat infects your victim with the ravage, which explicitly says it's Fort DC 14, but the feat itself doesn't grant a save at all.

[Jowgen]

To surmise at the current point, there are 3 arguably accurate means to rule this.

a) The feat does not mention or refer you elsewhere for the save, so no save is granted (i.e. ability damage attack).

b) The feat does not mention a save, so it's effect is to somehow apply a dose of purchasable GI.

c) The feat does not mention or refer you elsewhere for the save, so it is treated as a Su contact poison attack.


All three readings have their merits.

a) this one is the simplest and does away with the save ambiguity. Its support lies in the lack of mentioned save and a loose interpretation of what "is ravaged" means.

b) this one is intuitive and simple. No save is given in the feat, but as you think there should be a save (unlike with a) you default to the save given in the Save-Damage-Price table.

c) this one keeps consistency with the special ability rules. No save DC is given in the feat and neither does the feat tell you to look elsewhere for the save DC, so you default to the standard formula for poison attacks. The support for this one is as follows:

- Despite "not" being poisons, Ravages fit the definition of a poison attack (including the possibility of being Su)
- ToGI functions on touch, unarmed strike and natural weapon contact; which are attacks.
- The feat fluff specifically states "your touch is poisonous to evil creatures", supporting poison attack rule use
- The feat has a prerequesite of Con 13, suggesting RAI Con-score dependency in fluff and arguably crunch
- The FF Pleasure Devil sets a mechanical precendent for touch/contact-based poisons.


Did I leave anything out?

[jiriku]

We could also consider that the one printed creature to possess the Touch of Golden Ice feat, the leskylor, does not list it as a special attack. This sets the usage apart from the typical usage of poison, which is called out as a special attack (consider the wyvern stat block as an example). However, with the overall lack of editing consistency in 3.5 books and the lack of a printed errata for the BoED, I'd hesitate to use this as anything stronger than circumstantial evidence for or against any ruling. The omission could just as easily be an error or a matter of style difference between authors, rather than an intentional distinction made by the rules.

[Necroticplague]

Going by the strictest interpretation I can think of, the feat actually does nothing. "ravaged" isn't defined, so we can't be certain what the mechanical applications are. So we run into something that can't be computed entirely by strict rules because it requires bringing non-rules text into this (i.e, supplying own mechanical definition of ravage).

[One Step Two]

To surmise at the current point, there are 3 arguably accurate means to rule this.

a) The feat does not mention or refer you elsewhere for the save, so no save is granted (i.e. ability damage attack).

b) The feat does not mention a save, so it's effect is to somehow apply a dose of purchasable GI.

c) The feat does not mention or refer you elsewhere for the save, so it is treated as a Su contact poison attack.


All three readings have their merits.

a) this one is the simplest and does away with the save ambiguity. Its support lies in the lack of mentioned save and a loose interpretation of what "is ravaged" means.

b) this one is intuitive and simple. No save is given in the feat, but as you think there should be a save (unlike with a) you default to the save given in the Save-Damage-Price table.

c) this one keeps consistency with the special ability rules. No save DC is given in the feat and neither does the feat tell you to look elsewhere for the save DC, so you default to the standard formula for poison attacks. The support for this one is as follows:

- Despite "not" being poisons, Ravages fit the definition of a poison attack (including the possibility of being Su)
- ToGI functions on touch, unarmed strike and natural weapon contact; which are attacks.
- The feat fluff specifically states "your touch is poisonous to evil creatures", supporting poison attack rule use
- The feat has a prerequesite of Con 13, suggesting RAI Con-score dependency in fluff and arguably crunch
- The FF Pleasure Devil sets a mechanical precendent for touch/contact-based poisons.


Did I leave anything out?

That Covers all our possibilities, but I don't think I personally ever considered A as a version, most things do allow a saving throw. Man I love RAW :smalltongue:

That said, C has a sub debate, in that while it is a Su Ability, it should then scale off of Cha, but since Ravages are "like poison" they should scale with Con as other poisons do.


Going by the strictest interpretation I can think of, the feat actually does nothing. "ravaged" isn't defined, so we can't be certain what the mechanical applications are. So we run into something that can't be computed entirely by strict rules because it requires bringing non-rules text into this (i.e, supplying own mechanical definition of ravage).

This is also true. Has anyone submitted it to the Dysfunction thread yet?

[Jowgen]

That Covers all our possibilities, but I don't think I personally ever considered A as a version, most things do allow a saving throw. Man I love RAW :smalltongue:

That said, C has a sub debate, in that while it is a Su Ability, it should then scale off of Cha, but since Ravages are "like poison" they should scale with Con as other poisons do.

Well, the SRD entry on poisons does state "Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary", so I don't think the Su nature of ToGI should be an issue.


Going by the strictest interpretation I can think of, the feat actually does nothing. "ravaged" isn't defined, so we can't be certain what the mechanical applications are. So we run into something that can't be computed entirely by strict rules because it requires bringing non-rules text into this (i.e, supplying own mechanical definition of ravage).

I checked, and yeah, the term "ravaged" appears exclusively in the ToGI feat and table entry.

If this is a case where we default to english language definition, then Google defines it as "severely damaged; devastated.". This would imply that the touched creature simply flat-out takes the ability damage as per possibility a).

The alternative would be to again look to the feat's plain-language description where it says "touch is poisonous", and thus treat "ravaged" as a synonym to "poisoned", in which case we'd again be looking at a poison attack that allows a scaling save.

[Socratov]

We could also consider that the one printed creature to possess the Touch of Golden Ice feat, the leskylor, does not list it as a special attack. This sets the usage apart from the typical usage of poison, which is called out as a special attack (consider the wyvern stat block as an example). However, with the overall lack of editing consistency in 3.5 books and the lack of a printed errata for the BoED, I'd hesitate to use this as anything stronger than circumstantial evidence for or against any ruling. The omission could just as easily be an error or a matter of style difference between authors, rather than an intentional distinction made by the rules.

There is an errata for BoED, and it deals mostly with chaning the polymorph line of spells for creatures to alter self.

[dehro]

In the meantime I have presented the issue to the DM, who says it's mostly a moot point given how either way, most creatures we're facing already fail this only on a critical fail.
To name one, my CE dwarven companion starts with super high fort saves, and that's prior to raging.
I think he'll allow the scaling, and that indeed will matter very little
This is of course, given the state of uncertainty of the issue, something of a houserule.

[Jowgen]

In the meantime I have presented the issue to the DM, who says it's mostly a moot point given how either way, most creatures we're facing already fail this only on a critical fail.
To name one, my CE dwarven companion starts with super high fort saves, and that's prior to raging.
I think he'll allow the scaling, and that indeed will matter very little
This is of course, given the state of uncertainty of the issue, something of a houserule.

Meh, really one way or another the DM has to make a judgement call where in the rules to base the Save DC in, although I don't think it quite qualifies as a houserule; since he's only choosing to apply an existing rule to fill a blank.

Also, a scaling save is not necessarily a moot point. At the very least, ToGI can be very effective against undead, who not only aren't immunue, but take extra damage AND have terrible fortitude saves due to undead HD and lack of con modifier.


Also, in regards to the general discussion, I noticed another thing that supports the notion of ToGI being a poison attack. Namely, even though it's contact, it (as written) only works when you actively make contact with an unarmed strike, natural weapon or touch attack (like the pleasure devils). There is no clause about evil creatures touching you being affected, so it literally only triggers of attack actions. This limitation might get dysfunctinoally silly in grapples or in the case of swallow wholes.

As for pats on the back and handshakes such, I'm pretty sure that those would count as the target creature being willing/helpless in regards to the touch attack (e.g. forgoing Dex and Dodge to AC at minimum).

[Troacctid]

Actually, undead are immune to physical ability damage, so they should be completely unaffected.

[Jowgen]

Actually, undead are immune to physical ability damage, so they should be completely unaffected.

There seems to be a dysfunction here. The Ravages text specifies that Evil Outsiders take damage despite their immunity, and also states that "Any evil creature takes damage equal to that listed on either Table 3–2 or Table 3–3, plus its Charisma bonus." before going into the extra damage to evil elementas, evil undead, evil clerics and evil outsiders; but it never explicitly states what if any immunites ravages overcome. One can thus make an argument that, by strict RAW, elementals and undead are totally unaffected; undead specifically with their added physical ability damage immunity.

Now personally I think that to be a silly ruling, especially considering that there is only a single ravage that deals non-physical-stat ability damage. I think that the "any" in "any evil creature" should be taken to mean just that; any evil creature, no exceptions due to immunities. Also, the way ravages work is thematically similar to Positoxins from Libris mortis. But, that's just me.

[Afgncaap5]

Actually, undead are immune to physical ability damage, so they should be completely unaffected.

Curiously, though, one of the fun things about Ravages is that undead are specifically mentioned as not just not immune, but *extra vulnerable* to it. :smallcool: Evil elementals and undead take an extra point of damage when it comes from a ravage, and evil outsiders or clerics of evil deities take an extra two points of damage when it comes from a ravage.

My home group's had a lot of fun introducing Strahd to Golden Ice in a trip to Ravenloft. He usually makes the save, but when he doesn't...

Edit: Swordsaged.