Bands of Blood Rage + Ray of Stupidity

[Dieuoffire]

I think By RAW this works, but it is broken

bands: (this part only works if you are a sorcerer, MIC)
...you also gain a +5 morale bonus on damage with your arcane spells while in a blood rage.

Ray of Stupidity (SpC)
... A subject struck by the ray takes 1d4+1 points of Intelligence damage...

Does this mean that a sorcerer in Blood rage deals 1d4+6 INT DAMAGE with a second level spell? no save, ranged touch.

the bands Specify that is adds to spell damage...

By RAW does this work?

this is basically a second level no save death spell for many. I mean a level 20 half orc barbarian (etc.) could take this pretty hard from a 4th level sorcerer.
Thoughts?

[Zaq]

Seems like it works by RAW if your description is complete, yeah. Flat or specific damage bonuses can often apply to rolled stat damage. As you can see, this can easily get out of hand (and I wouldn’t be too terribly mad at a GM who put a limit on it in many cases), but it’s nice if it’s allowed to work.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No.

There was an official ruling from WotC a long while back that bonus damage added to spells can only deal hp damage, not additional ability damage/drain or negative levels. So getting +5 to Enervation won't deal 1d4+5 negative levels, it deals 1d4 negative levels and 5 points of necromantic damage. The same would apply to Ego Whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/egoWhip.htm) and similar abilities. Basically, if something says 'bonus damage' it always means 'bonus hp damage' unless it specifically says otherwise such as 'bonus ability damage' or similar.

[Dieuoffire]

Ahh...

Thanks that helps (and destroys a least a few horrid ideas)

[Zanos]

No.

There was an official ruling from WotC a long while back that bonus damage added to spells can only deal hp damage, not additional ability damage/drain or negative levels. So getting +5 to Enervation won't deal 1d4+5 negative levels, it deals 1d4 negative levels and 5 points of necromantic damage. The same would apply to Ego Whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/egoWhip.htm) and similar abilities. Basically, if something says 'bonus damage' it always means 'bonus hp damage' unless it specifically says otherwise such as 'bonus ability damage' or similar.
No, in RC it says that bonus precision damage is added to effects that deal ability damage as negative energy damage. It says nothing about non-precision damage bonuses.

[Dieuoffire]

ok with metamagic this can get nasty

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

sudden max, empower or split ray, arcane thesis...

Dare I ponder this too long?

None of those say 'add bonus damage' or similar, they each increase the spell's effect in a specific way. None of them say to add "+X" to the spell's damage, so all of those work.

You can combine Split Ray with Practical Metamagic (+1), Twin Spell with Practical Metamagic (+3), Lesser Rod of Maximize (+0), Invisible Spell (+0), and Arcane Thesis to cast it from a 2nd level slot. That gets two attack rolls, they can be against separate targets, and each hit deals 10 Int damage. If you include Empower (and Practical Metamagic), you would add half of 2d4+2 to each ray.

I'd be sure to have a decent ray spell that deals hp damage that you can also take Arcane Thesis for and be viable against opponents that are outright immune to mind-affecting.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No, in RC it says that bonus precision damage is added to effects that deal ability damage as negative energy damage. It says nothing about non-precision damage bonuses.

I was looking through the Ask Wizards archive and the FAQ trying to figure out where that was, it is indeed in the Rules Compendium. While that does specifically say precision damage, I wouldn't expect any DM to allow bonus spell damage to apply to anything but hp damage. The Warmage Edge says it only works with hp damage. The Bands of Blood Rage says melee weapon damage rolls, and also spell damage, implying hp damage. I've never seen an effect that increases how much hp damage/drain or negative levels a spell inflicts, apart from things that increase the spell's effect in general like Maximize, Empower, Twin, Split Ray, etc.

[Crake]

I was looking through the Ask Wizards archive and the FAQ trying to figure out where that was, it is indeed in the Rules Compendium. While that does specifically say precision damage, I wouldn't expect any DM to allow bonus spell damage to apply to anything but hp damage. The Warmage Edge says it only works with hp damage. The Bands of Blood Rage says melee weapon damage rolls, and also spell damage, implying hp damage. I've never seen an effect that increases how much hp damage/drain or negative levels a spell inflicts, apart from things that increase the spell's effect in general like Maximize, Empower, Twin, Split Ray, etc.

Negative levels aren't considered "damage" which would be why. Ability damage on the other hand, is considered damage. RC specifically states that preicsion damage is always HP (or nonlethal) damage, but unless I saw an actual source, I can only assume you're misremembering. The very fact that warmage edge specifically says HP seems to be even more of a point toward saying that the bands should apply ability damage, since it's all damage.

But let's be honest, the problem here isn't the bands, it's ray of stupidity. It was broken before anything else.

[emeraldstreak]

Negative levels aren't considered "damage" which would be why. Ability damage on the other hand, is considered damage. RC specifically states that preicsion damage is always HP (or nonlethal) damage, but unless I saw an actual source, I can only assume you're misremembering. The very fact that warmage edge specifically says HP seems to be even more of a point toward saying that the bands should apply ability damage, since it's all damage.

But let's be honest, the problem here isn't the bands, it's ray of stupidity. It was broken before anything else.

Careful. Martial characters can also do ability damage, claiming that a ubercharger gets to add all his damage bonuses to a source of ability damage is a slippery slope.

[Crake]

Careful. Martial characters can also do ability damage, claiming that a ubercharger gets to add all his damage bonuses to a source of ability damage is a slippery slope.

Except an ubercharger adds to his weapon damage, the ability damage is a rider effect, and thus things like power attack do not apply.

[emeraldstreak]

Except an ubercharger adds to his weapon damage, the ability damage is a rider effect, and thus things like power attack do not apply.

Are you willing to bet that all the bonuses are correctly labeled as 'to weapon damage' instead of 'to damage'?

[Crake]

Are you willing to bet that all the bonuses are correctly labeled as 'to weapon damage' instead of 'to damage'?

Considering the damage primarily comes from strength and power attack, which specifies melee damage rolls, which are separate from maneuver damage rolls... yeah. Unless something specifies all damage rolls, like knowledge devotion, which would indeed increase the ability damage of maneuvers, but very few things actually state damage rolls in general.

[Gruftzwerg]

since the thread went a lil bit more general about ability damage (and optimization), I would like to add a few things..


Ability damage that is tied to an attack roll can crit. The downside is, that spells can normally only crit on a 20 (19 with imp. crit feat).
Duskblade can channel his touch spells into his regular attacks with Arcane Channeling. This enables martial weapons with a far higher crit chance, e.g. Falchion crits on 18-20 (15-20 with Imp. Crit feat or keen ability = 30% critchance).

To turn the melee attack into a ranged attack, you need Bloodstorm Blade 2 (and let it count still as melee attack..^^). Now what's left is to get Whirlwind and attack every enemy (!not your friends!) in up to 50ft. range.

If you wanna see a full build, have a look on my Arcane Channeling build in my signature.

[Crake]

since the thread went a lil bit more general about ability damage (and optimization), I would like to add a few things..


Ability damage that is tied to an attack roll can crit. The downside is, that spells can normally only crit on a 20 (19 with imp. crit feat).
Duskblade can channel his touch spells into his regular attacks with Arcane Channeling. This enables martial weapons with a far higher crit chance, e.g. Falchion crits on 18-20 (15-20 with Imp. Crit feat or keen ability = 30% critchance).

To turn the melee attack into a ranged attack, you need Bloodstorm Blade 2 (and let it count still as melee attack..^^). Now what's left is to get Whirlwind and attack every enemy (!not your friends!) in up to 50ft. range.

If you wanna see a full build, have a look on my Arcane Channeling build in my signature.

According to the 3.5 FAQ, whether or not a spell's damage is multiplied on a critical with arcane channeling isn't exactly clear, but I think most people would consider it "additional damage" akin to precision damage, or the flaming weapon property, and say that the spell damage is not multiplied on a critical. Here's what the official answer on the matter is:


The rules aren’t as clear as they could be, but the Sage is
inclined to say no. Here’s the key sentence, from the PHB II,
page 20: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage
normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.”
If you score a critical hit, the attack deals the normal
(critical) damage. Then the spell resolves normally, but it’s just
a rider effect applied due to the successful attack roll—you’re
not actually using the spell in the normal manner, so it can’t
score a critical hit.

[Gruftzwerg]

According to the 3.5 FAQ, whether or not a spell's damage is multiplied on a critical with arcane channeling isn't exactly clear, but I think most people would consider it "additional damage" akin to precision damage, or the flaming weapon property, and say that the spell damage is not multiplied on a critical. Here's what the official answer on the matter is:

IMHO the Sage makes the wrong presumption (" but the Sage is inclined to say no ").
Yeah the rules aren't very clear here. But..


you’re not actually using the spell in the normal manner, so it can’t score a critical hit

Where does this rule come from..(if it is any at all)??

I only know the rule that crits occur on an attack roll with a natural 20 rolled (unless increased crit range somehow).
And for spells, there is the rule that spells tied to an attack roll normally crit on a 20 (unless crit range altered via feats/items/whatsoever).
Where does it say that spells only crit if used in a normal manner?
And what is that "normal manner"? (I guess touch & ray attacks?).

As said, I only know that when a spell is tied to an attack roll, it can crit. (!)



PHB II,
page 20: “If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage
normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.”
k, lets assume that attack did crit and now we come to the dmg:
1: attack deals its "normal crit damage".
2: the "spells effect on a crit" resolves

I really can't see where the Sage pulls that "normal manner" idea out and has a problem with this? Pls correct me if I missed something..

[Deophaun]

Considering the damage primarily comes from strength and power attack, which specifies melee damage rolls, which are separate from maneuver damage rolls... yeah. Unless something specifies all damage rolls, like knowledge devotion, which would indeed increase the ability damage of maneuvers, but very few things actually state damage rolls in general.
The collision weapon ability doesn't specify weapon damage; as long as you weild it, you (emphasis on the "you," not the weapon) deal an extra 5 points of damage.

[Mato]

Yeah the rules aren't very clear here.Actually they are very clear.

"If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved."
When you attack, critical or not, you handle the damage as you normally would. Then, as in after that, the effect of the spell resolves. It's very clearly after the attack and you are very clearly hitting them with the effect of the spell rather than the spell it's self.

Gruftzwerg before you engage in ad hominian attacks to discredit a rules source released as such by the official website produce be someone who actually wrote several of the rules you're failing to interpret as a means to propagate an unofficial and anonymous opinion on an unofficial forum. You should at least be able to fool people with your nonexistent credibility. Disagreeing with something so simplistically understood won't help with that.

At the thread's topic.

Do feats that affect damage, such as Weapon Specialization, increase the amount of ability damage done with an attack such as a shadow’s touch attack?
Although they do use the same word, damage and ability damage are completely different. Feats and other sources that give bonuses to damage do not affect ability damage unless they specifically say so.It is irrelevant if you disagree with the FAQ since the blood bands do not specifically say they increase ability damage.

When an attack succeeds, it deals damage. The weapon used determines the amount of damage dealt. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points, unless it’s specified as some other sort of damage. Certain attacks, creatures, and magical effects can cause other sorts of damage, such as ability damage, energy drain, or nonlethal damage. When you hit with such an attack, apply the effects of the attack as that attack’s description dictates.
What matters is people were provided an official rule's source for questions like this.

They need to learn how to use it. A minimum standard on this board should be to educate people about their resources instead treating it like an opportunity to brag to them about how your personal disagreeance with them has led you to a point where you are unable understand them.

[Venger]

No.

There was an official ruling from WotC a long while back that bonus damage added to spells can only deal hp damage, not additional ability damage/drain or negative levels. So getting +5 to Enervation won't deal 1d4+5 negative levels, it deals 1d4 negative levels and 5 points of necromantic damage. The same would apply to Ego Whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/egoWhip.htm) and similar abilities. Basically, if something says 'bonus damage' it always means 'bonus hp damage' unless it specifically says otherwise such as 'bonus ability damage' or similar.
What book is this rule in?


According to the 3.5 FAQ[...]


[quote from the FAQ]

FAQ ≠ RAW

[Crake]

FAQ ≠ RAW

I'm not quoting the FAQ for RAW, I'm quoting it for the sound logic. In the absense of RAW, you need to follow logic, so if you disagree, please explain what you disagree with and why.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually they are very clear.

"If the attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved."
When you attack, critical or not, you handle the damage as you normally would. Then, as in after that, the effect of the spell resolves. It's very clearly after the attack and you are very clearly hitting them with the effect of the spell rather than the spell it's self.

the effect of the spell resolves..
have a look here:
Actions in Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)
go to "Critical Hits" and you'll find:

Spells and Critical Hits

A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit.
Since you still need an attack roll to unleash the effect of the spell, I guess that qualifies for Crits. It even doesn't matter how you look at it. The original spell text demands an attack roll and the altered text by Arcane Channeling still requires an attack roll. Both qualify for critical hits.



Gruftzwerg before you engage in ad hominian attacks to discredit a rules source released as such by the official website produce be someone who actually wrote several of the rules you're failing to interpret as a means to propagate an unofficial and anonymous opinion on an unofficial forum. You should at least be able to fool people with your nonexistent credibility. Disagreeing with something so simplistically understood won't help with that.


First, normally I tend to backup FAQ in Sage in most discussions so far. (e.g. size changes ain't bonuses and thus have no rulebase to stack, as by the FAQ). So it's not my intend to discredit someone, but I feel bit discredited by your speech now.. ;)

But here, I have to disagree with the Sage. And I think that the quote
but the Sage is inclined to say no already implies that the Sage wasn't sure. And it's just my opinion that he was wrong in this chase.
This is in no way discrediting, when I disagree with his assumption.
And it wasn't anything more than an assumption he gave us, otherwise the answer wouldn't start with "but the Sage is inclined to say no ".

[Venger]

I'm not quoting the FAQ for RAW, I'm quoting it for the sound logic. In the absense of RAW, you need to follow logic, so if you disagree, please explain what you disagree with and why.

Logic has no place in discussion of RAW.

letting damage bonus apply to rolls for ability damage is clearly a stupid idea from a game balance perspective. RAW, a factotum can add cunning insight to an ability damage roll from ray of stupidity, for example, but I can't see a gm letting it fly in practical play. that said, it's a houserule (albeit a reasonable one) that has no basis in actual RAW. this is the same scenario

[Crake]

Logic has no place in discussion of RAW.

Logic has everything to do with RAW discussion, because logic is what you use to interpret writing. I'm not talking about real world logic, I'm talking about interpretive logic.