Corrupt/Consecrate Spell + Flame Strike (or other "half" modifiers)

[Sleven]

Want to nip a RAW discussion that's bound to happen between myself and one of my DMs in the bud. In the past, said DM has held the word of playgrounders in high regard. So here I am asking a question I already have an answer to.

Long story short: are effects that modify half of a spell's damage additive or multiplicative?

I've always played where they are additive when the language is similar to Corrupt/Consecrate and/or Flame Strike, unless the modifier in question modifies a specific type of damage. Half of a spell's damage is just that, half. If you reduce it to half of a half, it would now be a quarter, which by RAW isn't what the effect does.

[Psyren]

Could you be more specific? What exactly are you trying to do?

[Sleven]

Could you be more specific? What exactly are you trying to do?

100% irresistible damage (short of levels in Defiant), e.g. Flame Strike + Consecrate/Corrupt Spell, etc. without taking levels in Silver Pyro, Sanctified One, etc.

[Nifft]

100% irresistible damage (short of levels in Defiant), e.g. Flame Strike + Consecrate/Corrupt Spell, etc. without taking levels in Silver Pyro, Sanctified One, etc.

Searing Spell and Piercing Cold both deal irresistible damage -- which is to say, fire or cold resistance gets ignored -- and the spells deal half damage to those creatures which are immune to fire or cold (respectively).

[Sleven]

Searing Spell and Piercing Cold both deal irresistible damage -- which is to say, fire or cold resistance gets ignored -- and the spells deal half damage to those creatures which are immune to fire or cold (respectively).

Right, but that's 50%, not 100% irresistible.

Anyways, I feel like this thread has gotten off topic. I was hoping to get some rules confirmation here so that I can show this thread to one of my DMs when this inevitable discussion comes up. Stuff like Flame Strike + Consecrate Spell or Silver Pyromancer 2 + Consecrate Spell is additive by my reading for 100% irresistible divine damage.

Yay or nay?

By RAW, Silver Pyro technically does "sacred" damage, which makes things a little more interesting. Assuming this is its own damage type, when and where do you think one can apply "half the spell's damage" as divine? Take for example a generic fireball. Silver Pyro 2 converts half the damage to Sacred, we now apply the Consecrate Spell metamagic. Does it overwrite half of the sacred damage and make it now half divine damage, a quarter sacred damage, and a quarter fire damage? Or does it make it half sacred damage and half divine damage because half of the damage was already converted and halving the sacred damage again would no longer make it half the original spell's damage? Or can I choose which half of the damage gets converted?

[Sleven]

Surprised there are no opinions on this given how common an occurrence it can be. Or does it just never come up? Manifest Ethos (from Paragnostic Apostle) + Corrupt/Consecrate, Planar Sorcerer, the ones I mentioned earlier, etc. I'm sure I'm even missing some off the top of my head.

Edit: Here's a question then, perhaps... do you consider all modifications to a spell to be based around the base spell, to occur in a sequential function of application, or both depending on what it is?

[Lapak]

It's an interesting question, but for the specific example you give? At my table I'd probably rule it does nothing, because Flame Strike is already functionally a Consecrated spell where half the damage is divine and irresistible. Applying an effect that says 'half the damage from the spell is divine and irresistible' is like casting Magic Weapon on a +1 Sword.

[Sleven]

It's an interesting question, but for the specific example you give? At my table I'd probably rule it does nothing, because Flame Strike is already functionally a Consecrated spell where half the damage is divine and irresistible. Applying an effect that says 'half the damage from the spell is divine and irresistible' is like casting Magic Weapon on a +1 Sword.

So you're thinking the combining magical effects rules apply here? An interesting thought, although it's certainly not foolproof given that metamagics are feats, which are not considered magical (even if their end result is).

Assuming you were on the right track, what about where they are distinctly different effects, like the Silver Pyromancer 2 + Consecrate Spell example? Silver Pyros replace the damage with a new energy type: Sacred, while Consecrate is divine.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's a relevant approach. Given that, as far as the general rules go,
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. Which, we aren't doing. We're just changing the type.

My thoughts were that the answer was found in the Multiplying rules:


Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).

1/2+1/2 = 1

EDIT: In case you're wondering how I got there, it's because you can't go one less than one half without going negative (and thus making it do nothing, including the first).

so it would be (1/2)+(-1/2)= 0 by RAW?

Which makes me think that in this case it just ends up additive, since multiplying a spell by 0 would make no sense.

EDIT3: Yea. I'm really starting to think there has to be a separate special rule for this...

[ShurikVch]

I don't sure if it fit there, but Nar Demonbinder (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030502a&page=2) get:
Baleful Energy (Ex): When the Nar demonbinder casts a spell that deals damage, one-half of the damage inflicted is derived directly from infernal power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to the energy type of the damaging spell. In the case of flame strike, the entire damage of the spell is derived from infernal power and is not subject to resistance (although targets are still permitted spell resistance and saving throws).

[Segev]

For ease, I'd probably just let the player choose which half was replaced with the modifier. I'd also require they choose only one kind of damage to replace. There are other ways to do it, and this may not be the RAW, but it's the easiest I can think of and it certainly isn't breaking anything.

[Sleven]

I spent a bit of my morning mulling over the Rules Compendium as well and it seems there's enough RAW text to equally support damage conversions like this as not being multipliers, and thus not following typical multiplying rules.


I don't sure if it fit there, but Nar Demonbinder (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030502a&page=2) get:

Good call. A RAW example of a similar function (two half damage conversions) behaving entirely additively.

I think the Nar Demonbinder example supports my initial logic of it not being treated quite like a typical damage multiplier. I'll show this to my DM when and if a contestation arises. Wasn't able to find anything as specific as this in any of the core (or expanded) rules without making too many assumptions.

Thanks for the info.

[Rebel7284]

I don't sure if it fit there, but Nar Demonbinder (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030502a&page=2) get:

I think when we have poorly defined corner cases like this, precedent is actually pretty important. Nice find!