Touch of Golden Ice Question

[TheCrowing1432]

Type: Exalted
Source: Book of Exalted Deeds

Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures.
Prerequisite: Con 13.
Benefit: Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects).


Touch of golden ice deals 1d6 dex damage intially and then 2d6 dex damage as secondary, its listed as a contact poison dc 14.

With this feat, does any evil I touch have to make a dc14 save or do they just take the dex damage? Or is the save changed?

[Jowgen]

They attempt to make a save. As to what that save is, it's a topic that's been discussed up and down the block. Here's a recent-ish one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454292-Touch-of-Golden-Ice-Increasing-the-Save-DC)

[Troacctid]

The save is as given for the ravage. DC 14.

Note though that it is not just 1d6 and 2d6. You also add the creature's Charisma modifier to both the primary and secondary Dexterity damage. Also, you deal +2 extra Dex damage to evil outsiders and evil clerics of evil deities, and +1 extra Dex damage to evil elementals (and evil undead, if you can somehow find one that isn't immune to Dex damage).

[Necroticplague]

I'll quote myself from a previous, similar thread


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).

[KillianHawkeye]

I'll quote myself from a previous, similar thread

Are you being serious? It obviously has the same exact relationship as "poisoned" has to the various kinds of poisons. :smallannoyed::smallsigh:

[TheCrowing1432]

I'll quote myself from a previous, similar thread

Cant tell if trolling.


The feat is clearly meant to be self evident. It inflicts the condition of Golden Ice as listed in Ravages and Conditions in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Necroticplague]

Are you being serious? It obviously has the same exact relationship as "poisoned" has to the various kinds of poisons. :smallannoyed::smallsigh:
Source? The word "ravaged" is not used anywhere in the section talking about Ravages. Not once.

[Bronk]

The DC for the dex damage from the Touch of Golden Ice feat does scale, because unlike the regular ravage listed in BoED, the feat grants this to your character as a supernatural ability - because all exalted feats are supernatural - and those do have scaling saving throws.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

[TheCrowing1432]

The DC for the dex damage from the Touch of Golden Ice feat does scale, becaues unlike the regular ravage listed in BoED, the feat grants this to your character as a supernatural ability - because all exalted feats are supernatural - and those do have scaling saving throws.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Ok whats the ability modifier for a monk with this feat, wisdom?

[nyjastul69]

Ok whats the ability modifier for a monk with this feat, wisdom?

Why wouldn't it default to the standard for SU effects?

[TheCrowing1432]

Why wouldn't it default to the standard for SU effects?

It says "Usually Charisma" which means it isnt always Charisma.

I just kind of thought since Wisdom is a special stat for Monks it would count as the "creatures ability modifier" for this effect.

[Necroticplague]

It says "Usually Charisma" which means it isnt always Charisma.

"Usually X" is typically short for "It's X, unless otherwise specified". So that means there are monsters with supernatural abilities that aren't based off charisma, but that's because they specifically say they're based off of something else (like Dragons, which have supernatural breath weapons, with DCs based off their CON).

[nyjastul69]

It says "Usually Charisma" which means it isnt always Charisma.

I just kind of thought since Wisdom is a special stat for Monks it would count as the "creatures ability modifier" for this effect.

Use the default unless otherwise stated. I have no idea whether the monk class states otherwise.

[Troacctid]

The DC for the dex damage from the Touch of Golden Ice feat does scale, becaues unlike the regular ravage listed in BoED, the feat grants this to your character as a supernatural ability - because all exalted feats are supernatural - and those do have scaling saving throws.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

No, specific trumps general. Golden ice says it's DC 14, so it's DC 14. The rule you're citing here only applies if no other saving throw is given.

[zyggythorn]

Iirc, there is a variant rule that states multiple hits of a poison within one round raise the DC (by 1/hit), and ravages tend to default to poison rules, unless otherwise mentioned.

AFB right now, so I couldn't give you a source. Want to say it was CS or SaS.

[Bronk]

No, specific trumps general. Golden ice says it's DC 14, so it's DC 14. The rule you're citing here only applies if no other saving throw is given.

In this case, the general rule applies to the feat, and the feat doesn't specify a DC. The way you're reading it would, if applied to poisons, knock out scaling DCs for them too, since they also appear on lists and tables.

[KillianHawkeye]

Are you being serious? It obviously has the same exact relationship as "poisoned" has to the various kinds of poisons. :smallannoyed::smallsigh:


Source? The word "ravaged" is not used anywhere in the section talking about Ravages. Not once.

It doesn't need to be in the rules. It's common English! Any other interpretation is either needlessly pedantic or a willful misreading of the ability.

Golden Ice is one of the listed ravages. It isn't some great mystery what the phrase "ravaged by Golden Ice" is supposed to mean. It means you look at the rules for ravages and apply the effect of Golden Ice, simple as that!

[Necroticplague]

It doesn't need to be in the rules. It's common English! Any other interpretation is either needlessly pedantic or a willful misreading of the ability.

Golden Ice is one of the listed ravages. It isn't some great mystery what the phrase "ravaged by Golden Ice" is supposed to mean. It means you look at the rules for ravages and apply the effect of Golden Ice, simple as that!

The normal definition of ravaged (severely damaged or devastated) would imply that they don't get a save, since they wouldn't be damage if they passed (and thus not ravaged).

[KillianHawkeye]

The normal definition of ravaged (severely damaged or devastated) would imply that they don't get a save, since they wouldn't be damage if they passed (and thus not ravaged).

Why? You still get a save for poisons, don't you?

I'll just quote myself, since that seems to be the thing to do.

It obviously has the same exact relationship as "poisoned" has to the various kinds of poisons.

If
Poisoned = apply a poison to a creature, which they must resist or take damage from
Then
Ravaged = apply a ravage to a creature, which they must resist or take damage from

i.e., same relationship (works exactly like poison does)

This isn't rocket surgery.

[InvisibleBison]

The normal definition of ravaged (severely damaged or devastated) would imply that they don't get a save, since they wouldn't be damage if they passed (and thus not ravaged).

So, just out of curiosity, what phrasing would you consider acceptable? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that satisfies your objection above without raising a bunch of other issues.

[Drelua]

The normal definition of ravaged (severely damaged or devastated) would imply that they don't get a save, since they wouldn't be damage if they passed (and thus not ravaged).

Okay, I understand how this may be a viable grammatical interpretation of the text of the feat, but if any GM actually went with that interpretation, I would walk away from that table and never come back. Even if it had no impact on my character, even if it had no impact on any character present.

So, since this thread is about an actual game, not a RAW debate, let's stick with interpretations that might actually happen, and assume that the feat does something.

Anyway, I've played a character with this feat, it honestly never occurred to me that the DC would stack. I just took it because I was playing a monk and I figured that a lot of attacks meant a lot of chances for the enemy to roll a 1. As for the DC increasing with multiple doses rule, that might be a Pathfinder rule. In PF, the DC increases by 2 and the duration increases by half with every additional dose. That second part doesn't really work with the poison rules in 3.5, though.

[Necroticplague]

Why? You still get a save for poisons, don't you? Yes, because the rules say you do. Interestingly, the word 'poisoned' is never used to describe creatures in the poison rules. You also get a save when exposed to a ravage. However, 'poisoned' (having poison administered) and 'ravaged' (severely damaged) are quite different words with different meanings. That is, of course, unless you want to supply your own, nonstandard definition of these words, in which case you have to justify the use of these definitions.


If
Poisoned = apply a poison to a creature, which they must resist or take damage from
Then
Ravaged = apply a ravage to a creature, which they must resist or take damage from

Not necessarily. Like I said, those words have two different meanings in common english, one of which is precluded from occurring if the subject doesn't take damage. You can't have it both ways of 'nonstandard definition' and 'not explicitly defined'.

In fact, looking at the rules for ravages, it doesn't seem they actually allow a save, despite the DC line. The relevant part of the text simply states
Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure.
Nothing about getting a FORT save to prevent the damage here. You get exposed, your get damage/drain.
prediction for future: you're going to quibble and obsess over the 'similar to poisons' line to somehow mean they also allow saves.

[dascarletm]

Oh boy another argument where someone applies a legalese reading to a source written in conversational english!:smallwink:

I'll grab my popcorn.

[ComaVision]

Oh boy another argument where someone applies a legalese reading to a source written in conversational english!:smallwink:

I'll grab my popcorn.

I'm pretty sure NP is making no assertion of RAI at all anyway, so I have absolutely no idea why anyone is getting worked up.

[Necroticplague]

So, just out of curiosity, what phrasing would you consider acceptable? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that satisfies your objection above without raising a bunch of other issues.

What phrasing for what? Touch of Golden Ice, the ravage rules? For 'Touch of Golden Ice', it's simple.



Touch of Golden Ice [Exalted]

Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures.
Prerequisite

Con 13
Benefit

Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon must make a Fortitude save (DC 10+1/2HD+Constitution modifier). On a failed save, they take 1d6+their Charisma modifier Dexterity damage (+1 if they are an elemental or undead creature, and +2 if they are an outsider or an evil cleric of an evil diety). Regardless of success or failure, one minute later, they must make another Fortitude save, at the same DC. If they fail this second save, they take 2d6+their Charisma modifier Dexterity damage (+1 if they are an elemental or undead creature, and +2 if they are an outsider or an evil cleric of an evil diety)
Ties up all the loose ends, is very clear on what it does, and isn't reliant on any other rules to function.

[Willie the Duck]

It doesn't need to be in the rules. It's common English! Any other interpretation is either needlessly pedantic or a willful misreading of the ability.

KillianHawkeye, this is NecroticPlague. You clearly haven't been properly introduced.

On the other hand, we did just recently get done with a thread here about whether something like a sunder or disarm act committed by a character with invisibility cast upon themselves dispels the invisibility. It was frustrated by the fact that attacking (not an attack roll or the attack action) isn't actually defined. So there is precedence that obvious things can in fact be points of contention.

[dascarletm]

I'm pretty sure NP is making no assertion of RAI at all anyway, so I have absolutely no idea why anyone is getting worked up.

I'm not claiming that NP is. I'm just here to enjoy.


Touch of Golden Ice [Exalted]

Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures.
Prerequisite

Con 13
Benefit

Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon must make a Fortitude save (DC 10+1/2HD+Constitution modifier). On a failed save, they take 1d6+their Charisma modifier Dexterity damage (+1 if they are an elemental or undead creature, and +2 if they are an outsider or an evil cleric of an evil diety). Regardless of success or failure, one minute later, they must make another Fortitude save, at the same DC. If they fail this second save, they take 2d6+their Charisma modifier Dexterity damage (+1 if they are an elemental or undead creature, and +2 if they are an outsider or an evil cleric of an evil diety)

Wouldn't you need to define what a "touch" is? Is it a touch attack? I don't know if that is defined in any rulebook, I could be wrong. Does this apply to unarmed strikes? :smalltongue:

[Willie the Duck]

I'm pretty sure NP is making no assertion of RAI at all anyway, so I have absolutely no idea why anyone is getting worked up.

The correct course of action is of course to calmly ignore the under-bridge dwelling behavior so as not to encourage said behavior, but you know people can't help themselves (which is why the phenomenon persists).

[Gallowglass]

KillianHawkeye, this is NecroticPlague. You clearly haven't been properly introduced.

On the other hand, we did just recently get done with a thread here about whether something like a sunder or disarm act committed by a character with invisibility cast upon themselves dispels the invisibility. It was frustrated by the fact that attacking (not an attack roll or the attack action) isn't actually defined. So there is precedence that obvious things can in fact be points of contention.

That thread was as needlessly pedantic and willfully misread as this one.

[AvatarVecna]

The correct course of action is of course to calmly ignore the under-bridge dwelling behavior so as not to encourage said behavior, but you know people can't help themselves (which is why the phenomenon persists).

To be fair, such attitudes are useful when attempting to determine the pure RAW of an ability, since 3.5 is complicated enough that pure RAW has to serve as the baseline. RAW isn't always super-consistent with real life or logic, but the game is meant to be a simulation of fantastic reality. The idea is that the game rules should be able to stand on their own, without needing to bring in outside definitions, and that bringing in outside definitions to make sense of the rules is not adhering strictly to the rules of the game (and thus allows people to "interpret" their way into a ruling that is favorable to their desires). By determining what the rule IS, people can then discuss whether the rule should be changed for balance or realism concerns.

Unfortunately, this approach to the game (RAW only, with no outside definitions or preconceptions of what should be) leads to problems when the game rules include things that aren't technically defined within the rules (because the game expects you to bring an outside definition/preconception to make sense of the rule in question). This oversight/assumption is frustrating for people attempting to determine the RAW, because when part of a rule is not defined by the rule system, the rule doesn't work, and it doesn't work for a stupid reason. Other examples of this problem cropping up include the nonexistence of a strictly defined limit on what constitutes a "free action" and how many of them you get in a round; talking is generally a free action, and certain kinds of object interaction abilities are free actions, but at what point does a speech become too long to include in a normal round? Obviously, can't be longer than 6 seconds, so if it can't be said in that time, you can't say it, right? But then, some people can speak faster than others, and these are adventurers, capable of things beyond what a normal person in the real world could do; could these larger-than-life abilities extend to the ability to deliver a 5 page speech in the course of 6 seconds with everybody nearby able to hear it?

No, that would be stupid. But there's no rule declaring it to be so, so there'll always be people arguing with their DMs that the DM is breaking the rules by limiting them to short sentences while talking as a free action. Needing to bring in outside definitions/preconceptions is seen as a failing of the system, because the system not defining a rules thing allows *******s to try and weasel their way into the game using their own biased definition. The only fair way to do it, where *******s can't interfere, is to abide strictly by the game's definitions...and to not bring in outside definitions should the game fail to define something.

As far as the rules are concerned, "Ravages" are treated as poisons in how they work, with the sole exception that they are not in fact labelled as poisons (so, for instance, poison-immune creatures are not immune to ravages); the proper real-game response to noticing that Ravages aren't actually all that well-defined by the rules is "that's weird, let's just say they work like poisons" rather than "it's not defined, so it does nothing", even though the second response is the pure RAW response. The weird RAW stuff surrounding ravages has been discussed in dozens of threads in hundreds of forums, there's no need to beat that dead horse again.

[Jowgen]

Iirc, there is a variant rule that states multiple hits of a poison within one round raise the DC (by 1/hit), and ravages tend to default to poison rules, unless otherwise mentioned.

AFB right now, so I couldn't give you a source. Want to say it was CS or SaS.

If you could find a reference for that, I'd be most thankful.

*gets back to enjoying Golden Ice Discussion Deja Vu*

[Zanos]

To answer OP, touch of golden ice works as described as a ravage. You make a DC 14 saving throw(since the save is given) against the initial damage. Whether successful or not, 1 minute later you make another DC 14 saving throw against the secondary damage.

[AvatarVecna]

If you could find a reference for that, I'd be most thankful.

*gets back to enjoying Golden Ice Discussion Deja Vu*

So far, most of the references I'm finding are in regards to Pathfinder rather than 3.5, but I'm gonna keep looking.

[Willie the Duck]

<spoiler=Kinda Ranty>

I am at peace with disagreeing with others on the (as far as I am concerned lacking) positive merits of RAW discussions.

[AvatarVecna]

I am at peace with disagreeing with others on the (as far as I am concerned lacking) positive merits of RAW discussions.

Agreed, mostly, just bringing it up.

[Necroticplague]

So, since this thread is about an actual game, not a RAW debate, let's stick with interpretations that might actually happen, and assume that the feat does something.
O.k, let's do that. Let's assume that ravaged=poisoned, and this feat makes it so punching someone is the same as bonking them with a shard of golden ice. Then the question is left: do they even get a save against a ravage? Even ignoring quibbling over the definition of 'ravage' saying 'no.', It actually appears that the rules for ravages themselves don't say you get a save.

Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure.
It says flat out that ability damage or drain occurs when exposure does, without saying that it allows any kind of save. So to go back and answer the OP's question, the answer technically appears to be 'no save, they just take DEX damage' due to poor editing, the intent was probably 'DC 14, no scaling' (given track records for similar abilities with crap DCs) and 'DC 10+1/2 HD+(CHA or CON) modifier' would be a pretty reasonable houserule (for consistency with monster abilities).

[Drelua]

Let's just go back to the first post, I think OP was right to narrow it down, and I don't see any fair interpretations they didn't mention. Since we're assuming the feat does something, that leaves us with three possibilities: there's no save, there's a DC 14 save, or there's a scaling save.

I'd say no-save-just-1d6-DEX-damage is pretty unreasonable, since you'd just have to hit someone a few times, and even if they aren't paralyzed already they will be when they take twice as many d6s in a minute, so just smack 'em and run away, you win. The scaling save is a lot more reasonable, but I don't see much support for that in the rules, since it says your touch works like golden ice, which has a DC of 14. I would consider that to be the most direct interpretation of the rules that works, I wouldn't even call that a houserule. The scaling DC would be a houserule I think, and a reasonable one since the DC of 14 makes for a pretty weak ability unless you have enough attacks that waiting for them to roll a 1 is actually viable, which could work with a wild shaped druid or something.

[TheCrowing1432]

Ah yes, but.

Book of Exalted Deeds specifically says that Exalted Deeds are supernatural abilities which falls under the

10+half character level + CHA mod rule.


True, Golden Ice is listed as a static DC of 14, but thats only when you buy a dose of it in the market. There are poisons that have a static DC when bought in the market, yet can exist on monsters at a higher DC usually because of the Supernatural Ability or similar rule.

[Willie the Duck]

Or the supernatural ability is the delivery of a 'poison' with a listed static DC. Hence the conundrum. If there were a supernatural ability which was Create Tanglefoot Bag, I wouldn't assume that the Reflex save for it was scaling. I would look at the supernatural ability description for clarification. If there was none, I would consider the DC to be "undefined, DM, make your call."

[dascarletm]

I am at peace with disagreeing with others on the (as far as I am concerned lacking) positive merits of RAW discussions.


Agreed, mostly, just bringing it up.

Aww man. All this civility is ruining my popcorn eating! :smallfrown:

[AvatarVecna]

Aww man. All this civility is ruining my popcorn eating! :smallfrown:

Here you go, friend!

*hands over artificial butter dispenser*

I figured you'd probably prefer some of this, since it looks like your popcorn is salty enough already.

:biggrin:

[daremetoidareyo]

Ah yes, but.

Book of Exalted Deeds specifically says that Exalted Deeds are supernatural abilities which falls under the

10+half character level + CHA mod rule.


True, Golden Ice is listed as a static DC of 14, but thats only when you buy a dose of it in the market. There are poisons that have a static DC when bought in the market, yet can exist on monsters at a higher DC usually because of the Supernatural Ability or similar rule.

This is the best case to make to a fair DM

[dascarletm]

Here you go, friend!

*hands over artificial butter dispenser*

I figured you'd probably prefer some of this, since it looks like your popcorn is salty enough already.

:biggrin:

I died of slaughter

[Necroticplague]

Ah yes, but.

Book of Exalted Deeds specifically says that Exalted Deeds are supernatural abilities which falls under the

10+half character level + CHA mod rule.


True, Golden Ice is listed as a static DC of 14, but thats only when you buy a dose of it in the market. There are poisons that have a static DC when bought in the market, yet can exist on monsters at a higher DC usually because of the Supernatural Ability or similar rule.
If you used Fabricate to make a poison, would the poison have the default DC, or the DC of your spells? Summon a creature, is the DC of all its abilities set to your summon spell's DC?
It's the same scenario here. The abilities of Golden Ice are not yours. Your touch does not cause DEX damage. Your touch afflicts them with golden ice, which does dex damage. And has a static DC 14 (assuming rules or modded to actually make a save relevant). It's also for this reason you couldn't use Ability Focus to heighten the DC.

[Bronk]

If you used Fabricate to make a poison, would the poison have the default DC, or the DC of your spells?

Neither, the use of the fabricate spell would require already having poison on hand. You're probably thinking of 'minor creation', and those questions would be subject to DM house rules due to a lack of a general rule or a mention in the spell.


Summon a creature, is the DC of all its abilities set to your summon spell's DC?

No, it would depend on the stats and HD of the summoned creature. However, you could increase the DC of a creature's poison by using various feats and spells to bolster their stats and HD.


The abilities of Golden Ice are not yours. Your touch does not cause DEX damage. Your touch afflicts them with golden ice, which does dex damage. And has a static DC 14 (assuming rules or modded to actually make a save relevant). It's also for this reason you couldn't use Ability Focus to heighten the DC.

The PC took the feat, so the PC gains their own supernatural golden ice added to their relevant attacks. The PC's touch doesn't do DEX damage, but the golden ice, which may be more or less powerful for them, does.


It's also for this reason you couldn't use Ability Focus to heighten the DC.

The reason you can't use Ability Focus is that it isn't listed as an attack on it's own, but a bonus to an existing attack. It's still a supernatural ability though, so any spell or ability that increases stats (eagle's splendor, etc.) or HD (inspire greatness, etc.) would increase the save.

The rules for Supernatural Abilities are found in the SRD, Monster Manual I on page 315, and reiterated in the Rules Compendium on page 119.

[Necroticplague]

Neither, the use of the fabricate spell would require already having poison on hand. You're probably thinking of 'minor creation', and those questions would be subject to DM house rules due to a lack of a general rule or a mention in the spell. Well, actually, I was thinking of using Fabricate to go from raw material to refined poison, but the point stands either way.


The PC took the feat, so the PC gains their own supernatural golden ice added to their relevant attacks. The PC's touch doesn't do DEX damage, but the golden ice, which may be more or less powerful for them, does.
And where, exactly, does it state that the bolded is ever possible? The only Golden Ice is listed as having a DC 14 save, with no ability to vary it.


The reason you can't use Ability Focus is that it isn't listed as an attack on it's own, but a bonus to an existing attack. It's still a supernatural ability though, so any spell or ability that increases stats (eagle's splendor, etc.) or HD (inspire greatness, etc.) would increase the save. Actually, the fact it's a rider is wholly irrelevant. Ability Focus applies to any Special Attack that has a DC, even if it is a rider to something else (see also: a vampire's Energy Drain could be boosted). The problem in this case being that Touch of Golden Ice doesn't have a DC. It doesn't force an enemy to make a save, it applies something to them that then provokes a save. It's just like why Eldritch Glaive doesn't get the damage bonus from Power Attack.


The rules for Supernatural Abilities are found in the SRD, Monster Manual I on page 315, and reiterated in the Rules Compendium on page 119.
I know those rules already. However, those are non-applicable on several levels.
1. This ability isn't one that allows for a DC. The ability isn't anything that makes the enemy roll a save, it just applies something that does. Even ignoring that.
2. Specific overrides general. In this case, the specific of Golden Ice being DC 14 overrides the general rules of DC being 10+.5 HD+CHA. Golden Ice is already supernatural (as all ravages are), so the fact this ability continues to be supernatural is irrelevant.

[Bronk]

Well, actually, I was thinking of using Fabricate to go from raw material to refined poison, but the point stands either way.

Refining with the fabricate isn't possible... the quality of the material used doesn't change. The point is that creation spells don't work that way.


And where, exactly, does it state that the bolded is ever possible?

That's just following the math.


The only Golden Ice is listed as having a DC 14 save, with no ability to vary it.

As are all similar items on similar tables. In this case, tables that contain info on and prices for poisons.



Actually, the fact it's a rider is wholly irrelevant. Ability Focus applies to any Special Attack that has a DC, even if it is a rider to something else (see also: a vampire's Energy Drain could be boosted).

It has to be a special attack. A vampire's energy drain, for example, is specifically listed as a special attack.



I know those rules already. However, those are non-applicable on several levels.
1. This ability isn't one that allows for a DC. The ability isn't anything that makes the enemy roll a save, it just applies something that does. Even ignoring that.

The feat itself is supernatural, and specifically makes your touch poisonous to evil creatures, using a method which is also supernatural. It's supernatural all the way down.



2. Specific overrides general. In this case, the specific of Golden Ice being DC 14 overrides the general rules of DC being 10+.5 HD+CHA. Golden Ice is already supernatural (as all ravages are), so the fact this ability continues to be supernatural is irrelevant.

All table entries are like this. If you buy it, it's DC14. If not, it follows the rules for supernatural abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Refining with the fabricate isn't possible... the quality of the material used doesn't change. The point is that creation spells don't work that way.Actually, you hit the point i was trying to make most succinctly when you said that any poison made by minor creation would need DM intervention to determine DC. Due to to how piss-poor the wording for both the Ravage rules and the Touch of Golden Ice feat in general are, 'ask your DM' is the most accurate answer.

That's just following the math.
What math?

As are all similar items on similar tables. In this case, tables that contain info on and prices for poisons.
Errr.....yes, poisons have specific DCs unless otherwise specified (such as the monster entry explicitly invoking the rules for extraodrinary abilities by mention of being CON-based). How is this in any way relevant to the discussion of completely different objects?

It has to be a special attack. A vampire's energy drain, for example, is specifically listed as a special attack.
And this wouldn't be a special attack? Since it's a supernatural ability, it has to be either a special attack or a special quality. Given that all the other "rider on-hit" effects i can find are special attacks, it doesn't seem much of a stretch so say this would also be (especially since it isn't in the normal defensive or utility nature of special qualities).

The feat itself is supernatural, and specifically makes your touch poisonous to evil creatures, using a method which is also supernatural. It's supernatural all the way down. Yes, and the last part that's supernatural (the ravage itself), the only part that has a DC, has a specific set DC, 14.

All table entries are like this. If you buy it, it's DC14. If not, it follows the rules for supernatural abilities.
A specific table trumps a general text. In absence of any specific mention of the DC (i.e, touch of golden ice doesn't explicitly state it's DC in this situation), it would use the one most specific to this situation: that of Golden Ice.

[nyjastul69]

Actually, you hit the point i was trying to make most succinctly when you said that any poison made by minor creation would need DM intervention to determine DC. Due to to how piss-poor the wording for both the Ravage rules and the Touch of Golden Ice feat in general are, 'ask your DM' is the most accurate answer.

What math?

Errr.....yes, poisons have specific DCs unless otherwise specified (such as the monster entry explicitly invoking the rules for extraodrinary abilities by mention of being CON-based). How is this in any way relevant to the discussion of completely different objects?

And this wouldn't be a special attack? Since it's a supernatural ability, it has to be either a special attack or a special quality. Given that all the other "rider on-hit" effects i can find are special attacks, it doesn't seem much of a stretch so say this would also be (especially since it isn't in the normal defensive or utility nature of special qualities).
Yes, and the last part that's supernatural (the ravage itself), the only part that has a DC, has a specific set DC, 14.

A specific table trumps a general text. In absence of any specific mention of the DC (i.e, touch of golden ice doesn't explicitly state it's DC in this situation), it would use the one most specific to this situation: that of Golden Ice.

Can you source cite the bolded bit?

[Troacctid]

Can you source cite the bolded bit?

I can! Rules Compendium, page 5. "The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity."

[AvatarVecna]

I can! Rules Compendium, page 5. "The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity."

I'm not gonna get too involved in this discussion (since I'm enjoying my popcorn too much), but I do wanna point out that the part they bolded (and that they wanted a rules quote for) wasn't about the "general vs specific" rule (since that rule is almost universally known), but rather the argument that a specific table trumps general text. I don't think they're questioning "specific trumps general", I think they're questioning the logic of "specific table trump general text" because another virtually universally known rule is "text trumps table". They are questioning the supposition that a table is more specific than text, which is one I must admit I'm curious about as well. If text trumps table, and specific trump general, which rule trumps the other?

EDIT: I have basically no opinion on what the DC for this ability should be, cause it doesn't matter enough to me to argue about ATM, but I would like to know if a sufficiently specific table trumps a more general text, even if text usually trumps table.

[Troacctid]

Text/table is about primary and secondary sources at the same level of specificity. Whole different thing. Specific rules still trump general rules every time.

[AvatarVecna]

Text/table is about primary and secondary sources at the same level of specificity. Whole different thing. Specific rules still trump general rules every time.

I am aware that they are different thing, and I am aware that specific trumps general; indeed, the person you responded to does not seem to be have been questioning the "specific trumps general" rule. I was merely calling out the bolded part you responded to was not questioning "specific trumps general", but rather was questioning the supposition that a table is more specific than text...which, as you say, is a completely different issue. It's possible that my misunderstanding is due to not having researched the specific rules interaction being debated with regards to these rules on rule sources, so I shall return to lurking.

[Bronk]

Actually, you hit the point i was trying to make most succinctly when you said that any poison made by minor creation would need DM intervention to determine DC. Due to to how piss-poor the wording for both the Ravage rules and the Touch of Golden Ice feat in general are, 'ask your DM' is the most accurate answer.

The point is actually that using spells for purposes other than those stated in their descriptions require house rules, while following the rules for touch of golden ice does not.



What math?

As a reminder, the DC for a supernatural ability is:


10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).


So, the final result varies depending on the character's HD and ability scores. The only prereq for the feat is Con 13, so, for example, a 1HD creature with a zero charisma modifier would have a DC of 10 + 0 + 0 = 10, which is lower than the 14 listed in the table.



Errr.....yes, poisons have specific DCs unless otherwise specified (such as the monster entry explicitly invoking the rules for extraodrinary abilities by mention of being CON-based). How is this in any way relevant to the discussion of completely different objects?

This is the exact same situation. Also, mentioning that a poison is Con based doesn't invoke those rules, just specifies how to use them. They're always in play unless specified otherwise, because of the primary source rule, and because the rule is found in a core rule book.



And this wouldn't be a special attack?

Correct.



Since it's a supernatural ability, it has to be either a special attack or a special quality.

If it doesn't say it is, then it isn't.



Given that all the other "rider on-hit" effects i can find are special attacks, it doesn't seem much of a stretch so say this would also be (especially since it isn't in the normal defensive or utility nature of special qualities).

That would be a house rule. Touch of golden ice isn't listed as a special attack.



Yes, and the last part that's supernatural (the ravage itself), the only part that has a DC, has a specific set DC, 14.

The feat is supernatural, and specifically makes your touch poisonous to evil creatures. The ravage itself is also supernatural. No matter which one you look at, the rules for supernatural abilities take effect.



A specific table trumps a general text. In absence of any specific mention of the DC (i.e, touch of golden ice doesn't explicitly state it's DC in this situation), it would use the one most specific to this situation: that of Golden Ice.

Incorrect. The correct RAW is commonly referred to as 'text trumps table', and is the first example of the found in the errata for the three core rule books.

So, to break it down, RAW:
1: Text trumps table: In this case, the text of the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat, the text for Golden Ice, and the text that explains that exalted feats are supernatural.

2: Specific trumps general (from the Rules Compendium): in this case, it's the same as above, as the most specific statement about the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat is the text of the feat itself.

3: The primary source rule - the primary source for all supernatural abilities is the Monster Manual: The rule that supernatural abilities have scaling DCs found in MMI

Of the three rules, all agree, although 1 and 3 are most important as they came from the errata. You're certainly welcome to have house rules that say otherwise in your own game though!

[Willie the Duck]

You're certainly welcome to have house rules that say otherwise in your own game though!

Really dude? We're debating what the rules say. The implication that the other person is free to consider their interpretation as a house rule is tantamount to declaring yourself right. We don't declare ourselves right, we successfully convince others that our line of reasoning is sound and then they declare us right.

[Necroticplague]

The point is actually that using spells for purposes other than those stated in their descriptions require house rules, while following the rules for touch of golden ice does not. How is making poison outside the description of minor creation? It can make no living vegetable matter, some poisons are no living vegetable matter, ergo minor creation can make some poisons.



This is the exact same situation. Also, mentioning that a poison is Con based doesn't invoke those rules, just specifies how to use them. They're always in play unless specified otherwise, because of the primary source rule, and because the rule is found in a core rule book.
No, it's a completely irrelevant situation. Yes, some poisons have costs on a table, and are explicitly capable of having non-static DCs. How does that, in any way, pertain to this situation, beyond as a faulty analogy.


The feat is supernatural, and specifically makes your touch poisonous to evil creatures. The ravage itself is also supernatural. No matter which one you look at, the rules for supernatural abilities take effect. yes. And they are then iveridden by the more specific rules for Golden Ice, which has a a static DC.




Incorrect. The correct RAW is commonly referred to as 'text trumps table', and is the first example of the found in the errata for the three core rule books.

So, to break it down, RAW:
1: Text trumps table: In this case, the text of the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat, the text for Golden Ice, and the text that explains that exalted feats are supernatural.

2: Specific trumps general (from the Rules Compendium): in this case, it's the same as above, as the most specific statement about the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat is the text of the feat itself.

3: The primary source rule - the primary source for all supernatural abilities is the Monster Manual: The rule that supernatural abilities have scaling DCs found in MMI

Of the three rules, all agree, although 1 and 3 are most important as they came from the errata. You're certainly welcome to have house rules that say otherwise in your own game though!1. Text trumps table is not a rule on its own. It's a very common application of the primary source rule, which I'll get to later.

2. Since golden ice is always supernatural, the rules in BoED about it are more specific then those for supernatural abilities in general.

3. BoED is the primary source for how ravages work.

It's actually several small house rules required to say it has a DC at all. First the minor house rule to say that 'ravaged=having had a ravage applied to them' (and thus that the feat does anything), another one that you have to make a fort save to avoid the effects of a ravage (which the text for ravages never states).

[Bronk]

How is making poison outside the description of minor creation? It can make no living vegetable matter, some poisons are no living vegetable matter, ergo minor creation can make some poisons.

There may be poisons that can be made, however, I'm not aware of any that either come from a monster with HD or are an object, and objects don't include liquids, dusts, mists, etc. Either way, I agree this is a tangent.



No, it's a completely irrelevant situation. Yes, some poisons have costs on a table, and are explicitly capable of having non-static DCs. How does that, in any way, pertain to this situation, beyond as a faulty analogy.

It is the same because they are both A: listed on a table with a static DC and B: have rules for scaled DCs. It is a direct analogy, however, you've accepted one but not the other.



yes. And they are then iveridden by the more specific rules for Golden Ice, which has a a static DC.


The errata files are the final word on rules... the text of the feat trumps the table entry, and triggers the supernatural ability rules. (Another direct analogy to the poison rules, which you've accepted.)




1. Text trumps table is not a rule on its own. It's a very common application of the primary source rule, which I'll get to later.

2. Since golden ice is always supernatural, the rules in BoED about it are more specific then those for supernatural abilities in general.

3. BoED is the primary source for how ravages work.

1: It's the first specific example of the rule spelled out in the errata. The rules in the errata trump even the core rule books, so are valid here.

2: It is always supernatural, that's why it directly relates to the rules for supernatural abilities.

3: Ravages are indeed only found in the BoED, but as supernatural attacks, that aspect is overridden by the errata rules.



It's actually several small house rules required to say it has a DC at all.

Not at all... the rules in play are already there.



First the minor house rule to say that 'ravaged=having had a ravage applied to them' (and thus that the feat does anything)...

Almost, except that ravage is a regular English word that is being used in context, and that the feat states that your touch poisons evil creatures.



...another one that you have to make a fort save to avoid the effects of a ravage (which the text for ravages never states).

The information for the damage and the necessity for a fort save appears on the list and isn't contradicted or overridden by any rule. There is no text to trump it.


Really dude? We're debating what the rules say. The implication that the other person is free to consider their interpretation as a house rule is tantamount to declaring yourself right. We don't declare ourselves right, we successfully convince others that our line of reasoning is sound and then they declare us right.

Maybe we could all hold off on the snark, then. My apologies for any past snark...

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe we could all hold off on the snark, then. My apologies for any past snark...

Sounds fair.

[Necroticplague]

It is the same because they are both A: listed on a table with a static DC and B: have rules for scaled DCs. It is a direct analogy, however, you've accepted one but not the other.
The difference is, in one case, the rules for scaling are directly invoked in the monsters description, while here they are not. An implication is not text.

The errata files are the final word on rules... the text of the feat trumps the table entry, and triggers the supernatural ability rules. (Another direct analogy to the poison rules, which you've accepted.)
There is no text of the feat that says it has a scaling DC (if there was, this thread wouldn't exist). An implication is not text. The fact a scaling DC is implied by it's nature as a supernatural ability does not override the explicit table entry, which is more specific then a general rule.

2: It is always supernatural, that's why it directly relates to the rules for supernatural abilities.
3: Ravages are indeed only found in the BoED, but as supernatural attacks, that aspect is overridden by the errata rules.
2: It's always supernatural, which makes the rules for ravages more specific than the rules for supernatural abilities in general, which means specific trumps general kicks in, and the DC 14 save is the correct one, unless something explicitely states otherwise.
3: That would be a case of the general rule for supernatural abilities (not supernatural attacks, as you yourself pointed out) trumping the specific rule of Golden Ice, which is the exact opposite of how things work.

Almost, except that ravage is a regular English word that is being used in context, and that the feat states that your touch poisons evil creatures. If you're gonna argue it means something because of it's regular english use, then you need to stick with the regular english definition. In which case, you don't get a save, because "ravaged" means "damaged", so they simply take the DEX damage, no save allowed.You can't have it both ways (i.e, it means something outside it's normal definition, and it has meaning because of it's plain english meaning). The part about poisoning evil is descriptive text (fluff), not prescriptive text (crunch).

The information for the damage and the necessity for a fort save appears on the list and isn't contradicted or overridden by any rule. There is no text to trump it. Yes, the table says there's a DC. However, when does it come up? The rules for ravages never say that you get a save to avoid the damage caused by them. In fact, they have a line that seems to imply the exact opposite

Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure. It says they deal ability damage/drain when the target is exposed, no ifs, ands, or buts. Or more relevantly, no statement of FORT saves being made to resist.

[SethoMarkus]

Obviously the rules for Ravages was an act of passive aggression on the part of the creators. They didn't want Good characters to use poisons but were forced to add them because of reasons. So they made "Good" aligned "poisons" with rules so broken that no one could actually use them and still be playing the same game. They win; Good characters still can't use poisons.

In a more serious contribution, I don't there there can be a clear answer on this. The best, most universal answer is "talk to your DM", but that's hardly helpful as advice.

If one of my players was looking to use this feat, I would default to the DC 14 save, both because it is the closest to specific text (in my opinion), and because there is no listed limit or cost to using the feat. Every time you touch an evil opponent they come in contact with the ravage. I would homebrew a second feat that increases the save, probably something like "1+Wis modifier/day you may increase the potency of the ravage granted by Touch of Golden Ice; an evil opponent touched by you automatically takes ability damage as per the itial damage of Golden Ice, one minute later making a save vs the secondary damage at a DC of 10+1/2HD+Wis modifier". (Keyed off of Wisdom due to the association with Divine magic, but not set in stone.)

Again, though, that is useless in a discussion about what the rules actually indicate and is food for thought at best.

[Bronk]

The difference is, in one case, the rules for scaling are directly invoked in the monsters description, while here they are not. An implication is not text.

The rule isn't invoked, it's only there as a reminder, as stated in the MMI poison glossary entry.



There is no text of the feat that says it has a scaling DC (if there was, this thread wouldn't exist). An implication is not text. The fact a scaling DC is implied by it's nature as a supernatural ability does not override the explicit table entry, which is more specific then a general rule.

It still does have a scaling DC, and still because of the text trumps table rule, and for all the same reasons that apply to poisons on tables. There is no implication, there's only the stipulation that the feat and the ravage are both supernatural. That is where the rules for supernatural abilities are actually invoked.



2: It's always supernatural, which makes the rules for ravages more specific than the rules for supernatural abilities in general, which means specific trumps general kicks in, and the DC 14 save is the correct one, unless something explicitely states otherwise.


The explicit statement you're looking for are the rules for scaling supernatural abilities found in MMI, page 315, in the SRD, and in the Rules Compendium on page 119.



3: That would be a case of the general rule for supernatural abilities (not supernatural attacks, as you yourself pointed out) trumping the specific rule of Golden Ice, which is the exact opposite of how things work.

Good call, I did intend to type 'abilities there'. I think my eyes were starting to swim a bit at that point. Golden ice isn't an attack in itself, nor is the feat. It all just happens automatically when making a qualifying melee attack. You can't even turn it off.



If you're gonna argue it means something because of it's regular english use, then you need to stick with the regular english definition. In which case, you don't get a save, because "ravaged" means "damaged", so they simply take the DEX damage, no save allowed.You can't have it both ways (i.e, it means something outside it's normal definition, and it has meaning because of it's plain english meaning).

In context, in the language we're currently communicating in, the sentence reads that the person touched is 'ravaged' by 'golden ice', which happens to be, in this game, a 'ravage'.

I don't think we need to seriously consider having no saves...



The part about poisoning evil is descriptive text (fluff), not prescriptive text (crunch).

It's all part of the feat's description, as opposed to a table synopsis, as is suggested in the errata.



Yes, the table says there's a DC. However, when does it come up? The rules for ravages never say that you get a save to avoid the damage caused by them. In fact, they have a line that seems to imply the exact opposite
It says they deal ability damage/drain when the target is exposed, no ifs, ands, or buts. Or more relevantly, no statement of FORT saves being made to resist.

In the description for ravages, it says 'Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons...' and lists the various similar damages and so on that they do. So, the DCs work just like poisons.

[Deophaun]

If you used Fabricate to make a poison, would the poison have the default DC, or the DC of your spells? Summon a creature, is the DC of all its abilities set to your summon spell's DC?
It's the same scenario here.
No, it's a completely different scenario.

Fabricate targets the material being turned into poison: the only thing getting a save would be that material. Summon monster is only concerned with summoning the monster, after which the monster's stats determine its abilities. Any saves made are only tangentially related to the spell involved. Touch of Golden Ice, meanwhile, directly causes a creature to make a save; that's its entire point. There is no "create Golden Ice so you can fill vials and throw them at bad people" mechanic that would have this one step removed from the effect.

You're better off looking at spells like contagion, where the spell does directly cause an affliction like ToGI, but the save DC is set.

[Nando]

The explicit statement you're looking for are the rules for scaling supernatural abilities found in MMI, page 315, in the SRD, and in the Rules Compendium on page 119.

At least MMI and the SRD do have "(if any)" in there, so...well, the feat still does not call for a save (the RC has a different bump: it calls for the ability score on which the ability is based, with out the "(typically Charisma)" part...so...which one?). It says to "see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects". We do that, we find a specific set DC of 14. You may say "well, that's a table" - well, yes, but a more specific one.

Also: If I were to purchase a dose of a ravage, would you say it's DC should scale based on my abilities?


((Silly side note: the feat talks about "golden ice", but the ravage is called "Golden Ice". So probably your foes are actually "damaged" by ice of a golden color - why we should look into Chapter 3 of BoED for effects seems rather unclear to me...))


EDIT:


Touch of Golden Ice, meanwhile, directly causes a creature to make a save;

No, it doesn't. It causes your for to be "ravaged" by Golden Ice, THAT causes a creature to make a save (or maybe not ;) ).

[AnachroNinja]

I'm curious, what creature or NPC is a natural source of golden ice, such that it would produce the standard DC 14 version of it? Because a magical item is generally produced at the minimum level and ability score necessary, in the case of scaling DC items. By the standard supernatural ability rules, base line golden ice would have to be unilaterally produced by some creature with some combination of either multiple HD or a high charisma score.

Since to my knowledge there is no creature that naturally produces golden ice at that DC, it seems more likely that golden ice is simply always produced at DC 14 by its very nature.

That's my take on it.

[Necroticplague]

It still does have a scaling DC, and still because of the text trumps table rule, and for all the same reasons that apply to poisons on tables. There is no implication, there's only the stipulation that the feat and the ravage are both supernatural. That is where the rules for supernatural abilities are actually invoked. The ravage being supernatural would be overidden by the specified DC, due to a specific vs. general rule. The fact the feat is supernatural is irrelevant, because the feat doesn't do anything that directly requires a save. So this has a set DC for much the same reason an Eldritch Glaive doesn't get bonus damage from Power Attack, due to the disconnect between direct action and the source of the damage.

The explicit statement you're looking for are the rules for scaling supernatural abilities found in MMI, page 315, in the SRD, and in the Rules Compendium on page 119. Again, failing to see how such general rules for all supernatural abilities could be more specific than the rules for one specific ability.



In context, in the language we're currently communicating in, the sentence reads that the person touched is 'ravaged' by 'golden ice', which happens to be, in this game, a 'ravage'. And? That only defined 'ravage' in terms of it being a noun. That completely fails to provide any definition of 'ravage' as a verb, which 'ravaged' clearly is in this context.


I don't think we need to seriously consider having no saves... And why not? The OP of the thread mentioned it as one of the three possibilities, so it at least seems to be the intellectually honest thing to do to read the text to see if it is a valid one.


It's all part of the feat's description, as opposed to a table synopsis, as is suggested in the errata. Yeah, but it's not in the 'benefit' line, so it's not something you get. You only get the things in the 'benefit' line of feats.


In the description for ravages, it says 'Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons...' and lists the various similar damages and so on that they do. So, the DCs work just like poisons.

Key word "similar to". That means there is some difference, and it's not identical, and the bolded portion is without base. Even the sentence that mentions the similarity contains an appositive statement, clarifying exactly what the similarity is, in such a way that avoids saying that ravages require a save on exposure.

[Bronk]

The ravage being supernatural would be overidden by the specified DC, due to a specific vs. general rule.

All of these things have a DC listed somewhere, that isn't how this works. The rules are in place to adjust the DCs, I'm not going to list them again.


The fact the feat is supernatural is irrelevant, because the feat doesn't do anything that directly requires a save.

I've been listing the feat and the effect together to avoid having to harp on the fact that they're both supernatural abilities.


So this has a set DC for much the same reason an Eldritch Glaive doesn't get bonus damage from Power Attack, due to the disconnect between direct action and the source of the damage.

No, it's because attacks with the Eldritch Glaive are melee touch attacks, and also this is another tangent.


Again, failing to see how such general rules for all supernatural abilities could be more specific than the rules for one specific ability.

Again, because there is no specific rule listed. Here's how it breaks down:

1: Check the BoED and desire to take the feat Touch of Golden Ice. Note that the feat allows your touch to poison evil with Golden Ice.

2: See the entry for Golden Ice, note the table of ravages.

3: Golden Ice appears on the table, and the table lists the DC, damage, and price for store-bought Golden Ice.

4: However, the text of the feat, Golden Ice description, and the description of ravages in general trump the table entry. Check the text again, note that the feat is exalted and therefore supernatural, that Golden Ice is a ravage, and that ravages are supernatural abilities.

5: Look for the primary source of supernatural abilities, discover that the errata directs you to MMI.

6: Find that the MMI includes a rule for scaling DCs that depend on the HD and ability score of the creature using a supernatural ability.

7: Return to the BoED and check the table. When used by a creature, the text of the rules from the previous steps trumps the table entry. In this case, the listed DC would be replaced by one found by the formula.

This is complicated, but the rules for 3.5 can take a circuitous route. As an alternate route, a player or DM could look at the Ravages section in the BoED again, note that it says the rules for ravages are similar to poisons, come come to the same conclusion.



And? That only defined 'ravage' in terms of it being a noun. That completely fails to provide any definition of 'ravage' as a verb, which 'ravaged' clearly is in this context.

In this case, the word 'ravaged' is being used as a regular English word that can be looked up in a dictionary, not as a game term.



And why not? The OP of the thread mentioned it as one of the three possibilities, so it at least seems to be the intellectually honest thing to do to read the text to see if it is a valid one.

Because that wasn't what we were talking about, and because it does have a DC, either due to the store-bought version's table entry or through the supernatural ability rules.



Yeah, but it's not in the 'benefit' line, so it's not something you get. You only get the things in the 'benefit' line of feats.


You get everything in the feat, the benefit line just elaborates on the rules.




Key word "similar to". That means there is some difference, and it's not identical, and the bolded portion is without base. Even the sentence that mentions the similarity contains an appositive statement, clarifying exactly what the similarity is, in such a way that avoids saying that ravages require a save on exposure.

I cut off that quote because I didn't want to quote too much and run afoul of the board rules about posting. The line goes on to mention ability score damage and drain, and other things.

So yes, it says ravages work in a way 'similar to' poisons. Is having a static DC when used by a creature similar to a poison? No, not at all. That would instead be working 'differently than', which is the opposite.

[Willie the Duck]

So yes, it says ravages work in a way 'similar to' poisons. Is having a static DC when used by a creature similar to a poison? No, not at all. That would instead be working 'differently than', which is the opposite.

Not at all. There are no similar cases involving poisons with the same level of vagueness with to which we can compare it. If there was a supernatural ability to poison creatures with a touch with unlisted DC attribution with which to compare this ability to, the situation would be a lot less murky.

[Necroticplague]

I've been listing the feat and the effect together to avoid having to harp on the fact that they're both supernatural abilities. And it's a good thing your avoid harping on it, because the fact the feat is supernatural is irrelevant, due to the nature of the feat.


No, it's because attacks with the Eldritch Glaive are melee touch attacks, and also this is another tangent. 1. You're wrong on the reason, Power Attack doesn't say that it doesn't work with melee touch attacks. It fails because there isn't a melee damage roll with Eldritch Glaive, because it's not Eldritch Glaive hits->Damage. It's Eldritch Glaive hits->apply effects of Eldritch Blast->damage.
2.I have to listen to your tangent about poisons for purposes of supposed analogy, you can listen to my tangent about Eldritch Glaive for purposes of analogy. Just like Eldritch Glaive isn't hit->damage, Touch of golden Ice isn't hit-> roll save. It's hit->apply gold ice-> roll save. As a result, Touch of Golden Ice doesn't have a save to invoke the rules for supernatural abilities with saves with, just like how Eldrith Glaive doesn't have a melee damage roll for Power Attack.


Again, because there is no specific rule listed. Here's how it breaks down:

1: Check the BoED and desire to take the feat Touch of Golden Ice. Note that the feat allows your touch to poison evil with Golden Ice.

2: See the entry for Golden Ice, note the table of ravages.

3: Golden Ice appears on the table, and the table lists the DC, damage, and price for store-bought Golden Ice.

4: However, the text of the feat, Golden Ice description, and the description of ravages in general trump the table entry. Check the text again, note that the feat is exalted and therefore supernatural, that Golden Ice is a ravage, and that ravages are supernatural abilities.
And that's where you went wrong. Ravages are supernatural, yes. But they aren't supernatural abilities. Thus, the rules for supernatural abilities don't apply to them. The only time the rules for supernatural abilities come into play is with Touch of Golden Ice, which, itself, doesn't have a save DC for the rules to apply to.


In this case, the word 'ravaged' is being used as a regular English word that can be looked up in a dictionary, not as a game term.['quote] In that case, the regular english definition of 'ravage' is 'severely damaged', so that means that no save is allowed, because if there is, it's possible for them to not actually be damaged by the golden ice.

[QUOTE=Bronk;21037935]Because that wasn't what we were talking about, and because it does have a DC, either due to the store-bought version's table entry or through the supernatural ability rules. We're talking about the subject of Golden Ice's DC. Whether it actually comes up is very relevant to the conversation. Regardless of whether it scales or is static, if it isn't ever actually rolled against, it's irrelevant.


You get everything in the feat, the benefit line just elaborates on the rules. Wrong, try again.

Benefit

What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
You're only enabled to do what the benefit says.


So yes, it says ravages work in a way 'similar to' poisons. Is having a static DC when used by a creature similar to a poison? No, not at all. That would instead be working 'differently than', which is the opposite. Similar directly means that the two aren't identical, so there's, in fact, has to be some differences for them to be similar (otherwise, they would be identical). In addition, the very grammar of the sentence clarifies exactly what it means by being 'similar', because that sentence is an appositive sentence. They're similar in that they cause ability damage, and more damage or other effects 1 minute later. Obviously, ravages are already different from poisons in several other massive ways (only harm evil, are supernatural instead of extraordinary,aren't evil to use if they casue ability damage ), so arguing they're identical is barking up the tree in the wrong forest).

[Bronk]

Not at all. There are no similar cases involving poisons with the same level of vagueness with to which we can compare it. If there was a supernatural ability to poison creatures with a touch with unlisted DC attribution with which to compare this ability to, the situation would be a lot less murky.

We don't have to, because it already says that it's similar to poison.


Big Snip

The top part of the feat, in the PHB, is described as "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language." That's seems intentionally straightforward to me.

Aside from that, thanks, but I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion. I laid out the rules, two different ways. Discussing the rules is one thing, but it's hard on my end when you ignore the rules and try to argue about easily looked up English words.

I did gain a lot from the back and forth, and I thank you for that! I do look forward to seeing your posts elsewhere in the future!

[Necroticplague]

Aside from that, thanks, but I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion. I laid out the rules, two different ways. Discussing the rules is one thing, but it's hard on my end when you ignore the rules and try to argue about easily looked up English words.

I did gain a lot from the back and forth, and I thank you for that! I do look forward to seeing your posts elsewhere in the future!

What rules did I ignore, outside of the ones I believed to be non-applicable to the situation, and argued for the non-applicability of?

[jywu98]

I am quite in disbelief there are people here that are willing to argue about what is literally written in simple English on the feat. It is DC 14 and nonscaling, whatever anyone decides to think otherwise is wrong. Feel free to make it a houserule but don't go thinking it is a legitimate RAW intepretation to make yourself feel better.

[Willie the Duck]

I am quite in disbelief there are people here that are willing to argue about what is literally written in simple English on the feat. It is DC 14 and nonscaling, whatever anyone decides to think otherwise is wrong. Feel free to make it a houserule but don't go thinking it is a legitimate RAW intepretation to make yourself feel better.

As much as I am sympathetic to the argument that online RAW debates are pointless, they are what they are (and not more than that). This level of navel gazing is well past where a DM would be making their own call, not hyper-parsing rules and rules-priorities-when-rules-are-absent to determine what the 'correct' RAW interpretation would be.

I hope you recognize that calling out people supposedly trying to "make [themselves] feel better" is tapping into the same self-rewarding behavior that you are decrying. Feel that visceral thrill of telling off others for doing something wrong? That's the same thing that people get by 'being right' on the internet. You're engaging in the exact behavior you are complaining about.

Now I agree with your end analysis of the rules (as intended). I think the obvious reasonable interpretation is that the BoED writers simply left out discussion of a DC, and that it is more likely that they were thinking of the DC listed on the table they wrote and placed within a few short pages of the feat rather than some generalized DC formula for supernatural effects. It is entirely reasonable to consider the topic up for (pointless) debate. If you have a compelling argument why your interpretation is either simple English or the clear and obvious RAW, please feel free to make that argument.

Finally, saying "Feel free to make it a houserule" is generally interpreted as saying, in effect "your unproven argument is clearly wrong, so it is a houserule, while my unproven argument is clearly right, and RAW." Which is usually taken about as seriously as it ought to be, given that it is your audience, not you, who decides whether you have successfully argued your point.

Have a nice day.

[jywu98]

Snip
Passive aggressiveness aside, it's hilarious that you think there's actually a point of contention in this nonsensical "debate". The amount of mental gymnastics required to make the opposing argument sounds even slightly feasible (but not really) shows the absolute ridiculousness of even thinking that the feat giving you an ability that applies Golden Ice, with a listed save DC of 14, gives you Golden Ice that somehow has a scaling DC! How is Touch of Golden Ice being DC 14 as per RAW "unproven"? The feat says "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". It doesn't say "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice with a scaling DC (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". The text literally tells you to refer to the table, which states in English plain enough that an ESL that just started learning his ABCs can understand it: Golden ice, injury DC 14. This isn't a RAW argument that consists of twisting definitions or arguing semantics, but an argument that people should read English carefully and not waste time asking stupid questions that have obvious answers.

Also, God forbid anyone actually use the stickied Q&A thread for these types of questions

[Gallowglass]

Passive aggressiveness aside, it's hilarious that you think there's actually a point of contention in this nonsensical "debate". The amount of mental gymnastics required to make the opposing argument sounds even slightly feasible (but not really) shows the absolute ridiculousness of even thinking that the feat giving you an ability that applies Golden Ice, with a listed save DC of 14, gives you Golden Ice that somehow has a scaling DC! How is Touch of Golden Ice being DC 14 as per RAW "unproven"? The feat says "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". It doesn't say "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice with a scaling DC (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". The text literally tells you to refer to the table, which states in English plain enough that an ESL that just started learning his ABCs can understand it: Golden ice, injury DC 14. This isn't a RAW argument that consists of twisting definitions or arguing semantics, but an argument that people should read English carefully and not waste time asking stupid questions that have obvious answers.

Also, God forbid anyone actually use the stickied Q&A thread for these types of questions

1> His "passive aggressiveness" is vastly preferable to your "******* aggressiveness"

2> The fact that this spawned a 3 page debate proves that this wasn't a viable question for the stickied Q&A thread.

3> You have offered nothing to this conversation other than a belittling and dismissive attitude. No one forced you to read this thread. I'm pretty sure everyone else understands that they are free to join in on threads that interest them and, you know, avoid reading threads that they find ridiculous. Perhaps you should try that.

[Willie the Duck]

Passive aggressiveness aside,

I've tried to engage with you and others on this thread as an adult--calmly and rationally explaining my arguments and positions. I'm not sure how this is passive aggressive. You committed certain behaviors which I found less than appropriate, and calmly and without malice pointed them out. Nothing was behind any pretense or any kind of passive aggressive behavior.


it's hilarious that you think there's actually a point of contention in this nonsensical "debate".

We are contending it over various points, therefor there are points of contention. Yes, the debate is nonsensical. We agree there. RAW, when taken to its ridiculous extreme, is in fact ridiculous. We are clearly taken the writings of the authors to levels of exactitude that they never intended or expected.


How is Touch of Golden Ice being DC 14 as per RAW "unproven"?

It's unproven because no one has decisively proven it. The feat is silent on the issue of a DC. It references the ravage item, but is also a supernatural ability (which has a default DC mechanic). Which one has precedence in determining the DC is something which one can reasonably differ on, and should expect to have to successfully argue one's position to get others to agree with it.


The feat says "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". It doesn't say "Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice with a scaling DC (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects)". The text literally tells you to refer to the table, which states in English plain enough that an ESL that just started learning his ABCs can understand it: Golden ice, injury DC 14.

I believe the rationale on how the DC listed on this specific table might be superseded by the text-based general rule regarding supernatural abilities has been expounded upon up-thread by Bronk. I disagree, but don't think it is so obvious that basic English language skills would show him to be wrong. Nor do I consider the matter settled.


This isn't a RAW argument that consists of twisting definitions or arguing semantics,

I disagree. That is exactly and exclusively what this is. The rest of us (I believe) recognize that this is a pointless exercise in mental gymnastics. We're also not getting bent out of shape over the fact that other people are having a purely pointless mental exercise discussion.

[jywu98]

stuff
Funny how all that is coming from someone who contributed nothing to the thread. And no, a thread reaching 3 pages doesn't necessarily mean that there is a position to be argued. It can simply mean that someone is too stubborn to admit they're wrong, which applies in this case. Furthermore, as you said, I am free to participate in any thread I like, so perhaps you should try avoiding reading my posts, which you clearly find ridiculous? But do feel free to continue to backseat moderate to maintain the hugbox mentality of this forum.


I've tried to engage with you and others on this thread as an adult--calmly and rationally explaining my arguments and positions. I'm not sure how this is passive aggressive. You committed certain behaviors which I found less than appropriate, and calmly and without malice pointed them out. Nothing was behind any pretense or any kind of passive aggressive behavior.
Hey look it's the PC police! :smallamused:


It's unproven because no one has decisively proven it. The feat is silent on the issue of a DC. It references the ravage item, but is also a supernatural ability (which has a default DC mechanic). Which one has precedence in determining the DC is something which one can reasonably differ on, and should expect to have to successfully argue one's position to get others to agree with it.
The "default DC mechanic" you are talking about, I'm assuming, is obtained from the the chapter of the Monster Manual titled "Making Monsters", under which the Special Attacks section (which Touch of Golden Ice is obviously a part of), states this:


Each special attack should include the type of saving throw the attack allows (if any)

Notice the "if any". Now look, again, at Touch of Golden Ice


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).

Notice the lack of a save DC for the feat. According to the WotC's own guidelines, this means that the feat itself does not allow for a saving throw. The saving throw required is for the effect of the ravage itself, not the application of the poison through the special attack Touch of Golden Ice and hence it stays a static DC 14. If this was not the case, WotC, under their own guidelines, would have written the saving throw needed into the feat itself.

What is happening in this thread is nothing but a wilful misinterpretation of rules under the false context of RAW when RAW clearly says otherwise. Our dear Bronk conveniently forgot that RAW isn't actually "Rules as I Want Them to Be", which seems to be what is generally what "RAW" debates boil down to, with either party masturbating to their own "expert" grasp of the English language in an exercise similar to that of a digital version of auto******** (me included, obviously).

[Zanos]

Considering the feat specifically references you to the table to determine the effects of the Golden Ice, and a DC is included in that table, by RAW the DC should be the one in the table.

[Willie the Duck]

Hey look it's the PC police! :smallamused:

I'm genuinely perplexed as to how political correctness is at all relevant to anything that has been said.


Considering the feat specifically references you to the table to determine the effects of the Golden Ice, and a DC is included in that table, by RAW the DC should be the one in the table.

Well should be, I agree. Inferring authorial intent, I have to assume that that is what they intended. By RAW is another question. jywu98 has brought forth another framing of the issue with a slightly different framing than Necroticplague. I'm interested to see what Bronk's response will be.

[Necroticplague]

Well should be, I agree. Inferring authorial intent, I have to assume that that is what they intended. By RAW is another question. jywu98 has brought forth another framing of the issue with a slightly different framing than Necroticplague. I'm interested to see what Bronk's response will be.

Not sure what you mean by framing, but his argument is one i've already used before, most directly when I used Eldritch Glaive-power attack interactions as an analogy.

[jywu98]

It's is much better to quote directly from the text to avoid others from saying it's "ambiguous" when it really isn't. Most of them won't even bother to check the source itself anyway.
Also the Eldritch glaive analogy really doesn't apply since it's a completely different problem, I have no idea why you think it does.

[Jowgen]

Considering the feat specifically references you to the table to determine the effects of the Golden Ice, and a DC is included in that table, by RAW the DC should be the one in the table.

It doesn't actually specify the table:


(see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects)

In a prior thread, the fact that the feat specifies the whole chapter was used to argue in favor of scaling DCs I believe.