Hellfire Warlock Questions

[Rater202]

First: What breaks if we edit this clause out of the Hellfire Blast and Hellfire Shield powers?
Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you do not have a Constitution score or are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability.You still take the con damage, but you don't lose the ability if you become immune to the con damage or lose your con score.

Second: Would a specific feat, possibly an epic feat and/or one with steep prerequisites, that makes you immune specifically to con damage from hellfire warlock class features, with the note that this does not prevent you from using it, be overpowered, underpowered, or just eh(this is assuming that the above clause has not been removed.)

Third: More of an opinion, since I'm kind of confused on RAW vs RAI: Would you allow Hellfire to count as Fire for the purposes of things that are vulnerable to fie damage, such as a creature with the cold subtype or a Troll, whose regeneration is engaged by fire damage? By RAW Hellfire is not fire in terms of energy damage, but it's also described as behaving like fire and burning hotter than natural fire.

[Zancloufer]

First clause: Probably nothing. It is kind of weird that Hellfire Warlock essentially tanks itself if you suddenly gain a specific immunity. There probably should be some clause for still paying a price even if you can't/don't take Con damage.

Second: Being immune to Con damage is in general a very powerful ability. On the flip side a feat that negates a single disadvantage from a decent class feature would be (almost) under-powered pre-epic. A simple feat the requires something like Hellfire Blast +6d6 and lets you ignore the Con damage would probably be fairly balanced due to feats being an extremely valuable resource.

Third: I don't think so. The fact it ignores Fire immunity is a trade of in exchange for not dealing extra damage against those who are weak to fire.

Fourth: (wait what) It is worth mentioning that in Neverwinter Nights 2 there are ways to gain immunity to ability/Con damage and you can use them at the same time as a Hellfire Blast. It really isn't that overpowered at all, infact I would say Hellfire Warlocks that have to pay for their bonus damage are practically useless.

[Gruftzwerg]

1: IIRC you can suppress your immunities and as such I don't see the need to change the warlock ability. You can already do what you intent to do here.

2: There are options to do this.
Shape Soulmeld: Strongheart Vest (feat) is the most common and easy to get. It counters the CON dmg on attacks (! doesn't work with AoE blast shapes, nor with Hellfire Shield, since those don't require an attack roll !). I consider it as high optimization. Not OP/gamebreaking, but high optimization. So take this option only if dmg optimization is fine at your table. My Hellfire Glaivelock does use this (see signature) and has an extended explanation if you are interested.

3: By RAW as you said it, it's not fire. RAI you could argue that it's supposed to be an upgraded version of fire. Balance wise it won't break the game (unless you have problems with dmg optimization at your table).

[tiercel]

I have to note that it seems funny that channeling negative energy is/can be an Evil act but channeling literal hellfire is not.

From an RP perspective it feels like there should be SOME price for hellfire, ‘cos that’s what devils do. If nothing else, if immunity (homebrew-feat-powered or otherwise) actually works and you can get “hellfire for free,” at the very least I’d think it would (at least eventually, the more it’s used) attract attention from Mephistopheles’ chain of command. —Note that this could be more of an adventure hook opportunity than a penalty per se, but would play more into the flavor as described.

In terms of making the hellfire blast count as actual fire when you want it to, it might seem reasonable to me to let the prereq brimstone blast essence be applied to hellfire blasts? (The wording is a little strange, does hellfire actually count as a blast essence, and if not, can you apply a blast essence to hellfire blasts normally?)

[Crake]

a feat that negates a single disadvantage from a decent class feature would be (almost) under-powered pre-epic.

Natural spell would like a word.

[Fizban]

First: What breaks if we edit this clause out of the Hellfire Blast and Hellfire Shield powers?You still take the con damage, but you don't lose the ability if you become immune to the con damage or lose your con score.
The entire concept of having to pay for the benefit you're getting. Being able to ignore your own immunity is what I would normally have expected, but getting it for free if you have no con score just means its free.

Second: Would a specific feat, possibly an epic feat and/or one with steep prerequisites, that makes you immune specifically to con damage from hellfire warlock class features, with the note that this does not prevent you from using it, be overpowered, underpowered, or just eh(this is assuming that the above clause has not been removed.)
Depends on what level you consider powered. Char-op seems to assume that the cost is always offset or negligible anyway, so from that perspective it's just a convenience feat. I find the feature obviously overpowered to begin with (because it is so easily gamed around), and so I would find a feat that ignores it without fail just as overpowered.

Third: More of an opinion, since I'm kind of confused on RAW vs RAI: Would you allow Hellfire to count as Fire for the purposes of things that are vulnerable to fie damage, such as a creature with the cold subtype or a Troll, whose regeneration is engaged by fire damage? By RAW Hellfire is not fire in terms of energy damage, but it's also described as behaving like fire and burning hotter than natural fire.
Nope. The books have a clear habit of making stuff that ignores energy resistances also ignore vulnerabilities, so unless it was already specifically worded to work that way, there's no reason to buck the trend. It's called Hellfire for fluff purposes and used regarding the Warlock because they build the class with zomg Evil fluff and the book has a bunch of other things that reference Hellfire. You can think of it like real life, where at ridiculous temperatures the question of whether it burns becomes less important than the fact that it's going to vaporize- but since hit points are an abstraction, the actual damage of an effect is just whatever the damage is (and thus clearly the duration and concentration of that "heat" is not enough to actually do much).


Fourth: (wait what) It is worth mentioning that in Neverwinter Nights 2 there are ways to gain immunity to ability/Con damage and you can use them at the same time as a Hellfire Blast. It really isn't that overpowered at all, infact I would say Hellfire Warlocks that have to pay for their bonus damage are practically useless.
The Neverwinter Nights games have always cut corners, changed things, and had gaping loopholes. And when I played, yeah Hellfire Warlock was pretty overpowered. You spend the whole game as a Warlock having a certain amount of reliable but not huge damage, and then suddenly it basically just doubles. Playing without Hellfire Warlock is just fine (you have some gasp, challenging fights!)- and when going into the epic-level DLC, taking Hellfire Warlock means you're massively delayed in taking the flat +1d6 blast damage feats as well as access to the Epic Spell feats.

[Bonzai]

2: There are options to do this.
Shape Soulmeld: Strongheart Vest (feat) is the most common and easy to get. It counters the CON dmg on attacks (! doesn't work with AoE blast shapes, nor with Hellfire Shield, since those don't require an attack roll !). I consider it as high optimization. Not OP/gamebreaking, but high optimization. So take this option only if dmg optimization is fine at your table. My Hellfire Glaivelock does use this (see signature) and has an extended explanation if you are interested.



I did try this and my DM shot it down, saying that I have to take the damage for it to work. So I ended up buying a few rods from the MIC that healed ability damage 3 times a day.

[icefractal]

Binding Naberius is another way to deal with it that unambiguously works, but it does mean your Con will effectively be 1-2 points lower than normal when in combat.

Undead Hellfire Warlocks seems pretty thematically fitting, so I'd houserule that you take Charisma damage instead if you don't have a Con score, and that you can voluntarily let the damage through any immunities you have.

For ignoring it entirely - a feat sounds fine balance-wise, although it becomes effectively a feat tax.
Yes, this boosts damage significantly beyond a standard Warlock, but a standard Warlock's damage is bad unless they're using Eldritch Glaive. I'm halfway inclined to say just ditch the cost entirely, but then this PrC becomes almost mandatory.

In a perfect world, base Warlock should do more damage, Eldritch Glaive shouldn't multiply it, and Hellfire Warlock ... might actually be fine without cost then, as the additional damage wouldn't be as significant. Maybe it should add something different like a burn effect.

Reading this PrC again, I'm unclear about something - does Hellfire count as a blast essence? Because if it does, that's a cost in itself, not being able to use Vitriolic Blast for example.

[Yogibear41]

If you can't take Con damage you can't empower your blasts simple as that. Strongheart vest stops you from taking the damage, but also stops you from empowering your blasts.

A homebrew feat or epic feature to avoid the Con damage would be just that: Homebrew, but it would be reasonable IMO.

You can always just take Binder for Naberius, nothing wrong with taking the damage, then healing the damage the next round.

[Elves]

Undead Hellfire Warlocks seems pretty thematically fitting
I don't know. Fluff wise the fact that your soul has been artificially prevented from entering the afterlife, perhaps indefinitely, might influence the devils' willingness to bargain for it.


If you can't take Con damage you can't empower your blasts simple as that.
That's...not the rule. It's only if you're immune to Con dmg. Strongheart vest doesn't grant immunity, only reduction.

[Darg]

Hellfire blast is not an essence, nor is it halved by eldritch chain secondary targets as it gives itself an exception. It is not an invocation, nor does it declare itself an essence or have an effective spell level.

There are ways of increasing the damage of eldritch blast to be a decent blaster, but warlocks were never designed to be damage dealers. Instead, they gain a very strong benefit in that they can add fairly strong effects to an infinitely castable ability. You can frighten/sicken, blind or light something on fire for major extra damage and some control as they try to put themselves out, lower spell resistance/nauseate/confuse, and eventually hand out negative levels like candy/stun anything not immune to mind affecting.

I think the double penalty for ranged attacks is a little harsh to overcome, but it is doable once you get precise shot. And it's not like the damage is terrible, it's more that damage can be optimized so high that the benefits of a warlock are less obvious.


I don't know. Fluff wise the fact that your soul has been artificially prevented from entering the afterlife, perhaps indefinitely, might influence the devils' willingness to bargain for it.


That's...not the rule. It's only if you're immune to Con dmg. Strongheart vest doesn't grant immunity, only reduction.

Immunity isn't a defined term. Due to the reduction, you are indeed immune to constitution damage of 1 or less which is the rule. It prevents you from taking the damage hence immunity. On top of the obvious intent, strongheart vest is a tough sell.

[Gruftzwerg]

Hellfire blast is not an essence, nor is it halved by eldritch chain secondary targets as it gives itself an exception. It is not an invocation, nor does it declare itself an essence or have an effective spell level.

There are ways of increasing the damage of eldritch blast to be a decent blaster, but warlocks were never designed to be damage dealers. Instead, they gain a very strong benefit in that they can add fairly strong effects to an infinitely castable ability. You can frighten/sicken, blind or light something on fire for major extra damage and some control as they try to put themselves out, lower spell resistance/nauseate/confuse, and eventually hand out negative levels like candy/stun anything not immune to mind affecting.


As Darg said, "Hellfire Blast" despite its name ain't declared as Blast Shape an is instead just another rider ability that can be stacked on top of the entire blast.

Many people ignore the dmg potential that results from this.

The magical keyword here is "Hellfire Vitriolic Blast". Hellfire also affect the damage per round component of Vitriolic Blast. This increases the damage/round component from 2d6 up to 8d6 hellfire.
And as a glaivelock you can easily stack the damage over time component. As shown with on my glaivelock build, you can manage to get up to 10 (touch) attack/round @ lvl 16 and up to 20 attacks/turn when you hit epic lvls. Each doing ~17d6 initial dmg + the stacking 8d6 damage over time component. I mean, when was the last time you did need dozens of d6 for you dmg rolls? It imho feels more like an optimized Shadowrun character when you do triple digit d6 dmg per turn.

And on a sidenote: clawlock ubercharges have great dmg without relying on hellfire at all. So there are at least a 2 types of "top tier dmg builds" for warlocks available.

As said, warlocks can get decent dmg, but the options are very limited. But compared to many other classes (e.g. Barb, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin..) it's on a fine spot imho.

There is even another cheesy option (another Hellfire combo), but I will reveal that within one of my next showcases on the forum. *grinevil*

Warlocks have a few good dmg options, it's just they are all niche and are build in a very specific way without to many choices to differentiate them.

[Elves]

Immunity isn't a defined term.
It's a clearly understood and used term. For example, undead are immune to physical ability damage. That means they never take that ability damage.

Mitigation or reduction is not immunity. With strongheart vest, you're fully capable of taking Constitution damage. Therefore you aren't immune. This is basic.

You want it to not be allowed, and in play you can always disallow it. But when we read the text we should be clear-eyed about what it says. Understand it, then change it as you see fit.

[Rater202]

The magical keyword here is "Hellfire Vitriolic Blast". Hellfire also affect the damage per round component of Vitriolic Blast. This increases the damage/round component from 2d6 up to 8d6 hellfire.

Could you explain that for me?

[Elves]

Could you explain that for me?
"Creatures struck by a vitriolic blast automatically take an extra 2d6 points of acid damage on following rounds."
"A hellfire blast deals your normal eldritch blast damage plus an extra 2d6 points of damage per class level."

The argument is that the vitriolic DOT counts as eldritch blast damage...not sure it works though. That extra 2d6 is phrased as a separate rider effect, nor arguably is it your "normal eldritch blast damage".


Rereading, let me add:

It prevents you from taking the damage hence immunity.
If someone has resist fire 10 and takes no damage from a spell that deals 1d8 fire, would you say they're immune to fire? Of course not. And the phrasing here is general -- "if you are immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability." Not 'if you don't take the Constitution damage from this ability', etc. It couldn't be more clear.

[Gruftzwerg]

"Creatures struck by a vitriolic blast automatically take an extra 2d6 points of acid damage on following rounds."
"A hellfire blast deals your normal eldritch blast damage plus an extra 2d6 points of damage per class level."

The argument is that the vitriolic DOT counts as eldritch blast damage...not sure it works though. That extra 2d6 is phrased as a separate rider effect, nor arguably is it your "normal eldritch blast damage".
Yeah, the "Vitriolic Blast" is a rider effect on Eldritch Blast. Hellfire targets (the entire) Eldritch Blast and as such affects the vitriolic DOT too.



Rereading, let me add:

If someone has resist fire 10 and takes no damage from a spell that deals 1d8 fire, would you say they're immune to fire? Of course not. And the phrasing here is general -- "if you are immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability." Not 'if you don't take the Constitution damage from this ability', etc. It couldn't be more clear.

yeah, damage reduction (or prevention) doesn't equal Immunity. And Hellfire only disallows Immunities, not prevention/reduction.

[Darg]

Rereading, let me add:

If someone has resist fire 10 and takes no damage from a spell that deals 1d8 fire, would you say they're immune to fire? Of course not. And the phrasing here is general -- "if you are immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability." Not 'if you don't take the Constitution damage from this ability', etc. It couldn't be more clear.

I'm not going to argue because it is simply moot. Strongheart Vest only works on attacks anyway:


The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores.

This line limits the scope of the soulmeld.

[Elves]

I'm not going to argue because it is simply moot. Strongheart Vest only works on attacks anyway:
That's not true either. Look at the next sentence. It literally says "Any time you would take ability damage, the damage is reduced by one point." The use of the word attack in the earlier sentence functions as fluff because it's not part of the mechanical description of its powers.

[Gruftzwerg]

The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores. Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution damage or Strength damage, the amount of the damage is reduced by 1 point, to a minimum of 0.

"Any time" clearly refers to "attacks" from the previous sentence. Imho Darg is right on this.

But..^^

It doesn't require you to be the target of the "attack". Nor that you get "hit" by an attack. The source (of the ability damage) just needs to be an "attack", that's all it asks for. This works for all Eldritch Blast abilities that require an attack roll: e.g. regular EB, Chain Blast, Glaive,...
It doesn't work with the AoE shapes nor does it work with the Hellfire Shield (since it auto-hits without an attack roll and thus doesn't count as "attack" in 3.5).

You might now think that binding Naberius would be superior to the Strongheart Vest but that is not the chase. Naberius helps to use it on AoE shapes too, but only helps once per turn.
Strongheart Vest on the other hand activates on each attack and thus becomes more interesting for those warlocks that have multiple attacks per turn. E.g. Escalation Mage Glaivelock that has up to 10 attacks (20 when epic) per turn. You clearly want the Strongheart Vest here.

[Elves]

"Any time" clearly refers to "attacks" from the previous sentence.
That makes...absolutely no sense. Zero. At least if we're still speaking English.

However it is a pretty funny point that the hellfire blast is indeed an attack that would reduce your ability scores. Cheers on that one.

[Darg]

That makes...absolutely no sense. Zero. At least if we're still speaking English.

However it is a pretty funny point that the hellfire blast is indeed an attack that would reduce your ability scores. Cheers on that one.

In this case it's pretty straight forward. The first sentence sets up the scope of the effect which is protecting from attacks. The second tells you that any situation where you take ability damage is valid. Because of the first sentence, the second is limited to only situations in which you are attacked. It's actually pretty common english. However, it would have been better if they just removed the word "any" from the books entirely because of it's ambiguous meaning when not further clarified as WotC is wont to do. They like to do this thing where they imply a "one" after the word any just because you can use any without making it "any one" even though leaving it as "any" could also mean "any several or all." Seriously, any is way too ambiguous for use making a structured system.

As for attacks, it is much more broad than just the glossary definition of something requiring an attack roll:


Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. For instance, invisibility is dispelled if you attack anyone or anything while under its effects. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents (such as disarm and bull rush) are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Summon monster I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

You aren't attacking yourself with hellfire blast, the con damage is simply a consequence of attacking something else.

[Elves]

What they also do a lot is put a little flavor text and then describe how that's implemented mechanically.

In this case, you have a grammatically independent and self-contained sentence that says "Any time you would take ability damage, the damage is reduced by one point." Play word games as you like, there is no way to construe that as anything but...Any time you would take ability damage, the damage is reduced by one point.


You aren't attacking yourself with hellfire blast, the con damage is simply a consequence of attacking something else.
But it's an attack and it would reduce your ability score. That satisfies the wording. It's a funny point, admit it.

[icefractal]

You might now think that binding Naberius would be superior to the Strongheart Vest but that is not the chase. Naberius helps to use it on AoE shapes too, but only helps once per turn.
Strongheart Vest on the other hand activates on each attack and thus becomes more interesting for those warlocks that have multiple attacks per turn. E.g. Escalation Mage Glaivelock that has up to 10 attacks (20 when epic) per turn. You clearly want the Strongheart Vest here.Eldritch Glaive is a single invocation (a full round action) which gives you multiple attack rolls; it doesn't count as using Eldritch Blast multiple separate times. Although if you're also Quickening one, that would be.

Actually, I'd always assumed it was a normal full attack, including attacks from Haste, etc. But now that I'm looking at the wording, it looks like you might only get the attacks from BAB.

If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you can (as part of the full-round action) make as many attacks with your eldritch glaive as your base attack bonus allows. For example, a 12th-level warlock could attack twice, once with a base attack bonus of +6, and again with a base attack bonus of +1.

[Gruftzwerg]

As for attacks, it is much more broad than just the glossary definition of something requiring an attack roll:



Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. For instance, invisibility is dispelled if you attack anyone or anything while under its effects. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents (such as disarm and bull rush) are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Summon monster I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.


You aren't attacking yourself with hellfire blast, the con damage is simply a consequence of attacking something else.
1) The quote describes the exception for "spells" that reference "attacks" as trigger in their effects like invisibility (which triggers to cancel itself) or "Sanctuary" (triggers a save roll to prevent the "attack").
Strongheart Vest ain't a spell and as such only follows the general definition of "attack". And that requires some kind of attack roll.

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.
Attacks require an attack roll. Your quote is an specific exception for spells only that doesn't apply in our situation here (Strongheart Vest feat/ability).
And Strongheat Vest doesn't require you to be the target of the attack. Nor does it require you to be hit by the attack. As soon as an "attack" causes some kind of ability damage, it activates. It's worded that loosely..

here the same rule with different wording in the "Actions in Combat - Attack" section:

Attack
Attack Rolls

An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.
The general rules for "Attack" require an attack roll, since it is part of the definition. Spell effect may have exceptions to this (like Invisibility and Sanctuary) .


Eldritch Glaive is a single invocation (a full round action) which gives you multiple attack rolls; it doesn't count as using Eldritch Blast multiple separate times. Although if you're also Quickening one, that would be.

Actually, I'd always assumed it was a normal full attack, including attacks from Haste, etc. But now that I'm looking at the wording, it looks like you might only get the attacks from BAB.

Yeah Hellfire deals ability damage per Eldritch Blast use and which the entire Eldritch Glaive full attack is. But with quickening Eldritch Glaive you get 2 times per round dmg. And when epic with the feat for double shapes you can use eldritch glaive 4 times in a round. Still in favor for Strongheart Vest unless your go for AoE shapes.

And Eldritch Glaive is a Full Attack. It obeys the general rule for attacks and full attack, since it doesn't call out an exception for itself.

Multiple Attacks

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack.
As soon as you make more than one attack it is a full attack.



Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Full Attack confirms that it counts for all chases of multiple attacks, despite its source (even special sources). Normally this requires a Full-Round-Action as payment to get the Full Attack. But Eldritch Glaive creates a specific exception since it itself is consuming the Full-Round-Action and gives the Full Attack within its duration.
Combined with a quickened Glaive (e.g. Escalation Mage), you get 2 Full Attacks. The quickened glaive gets speed up to a swift action duration for the full attack, leaving the rest of the turn for the regular glaive.

[icefractal]

That's the thing though - it doesn't (AFAICT) give a "full attack", it gives a number of attacks based on your BAB, as part of a special full-round action. Unlike some things, it doesn't specifically call out not getting extra attacks, but it doesn't have anything to allow them either.


Full Attack confirms that it counts for all chases of multiple attacks, despite its source (even special sources). If that were true, Scorching Ray would take a full-round action. And Landshark Boots wouldn't work. And a bunch of other things.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's the thing though - it doesn't (AFAICT) give a "full attack", it gives a number of attacks based on your BAB, as part of a special full-round action. Unlike some things, it doesn't specifically call out not getting extra attacks, but it doesn't have anything to allow them either.

If that were true, Scorching Ray would take a full-round action.

Scorching Ray creates a specific exception for itself (similar to Eldritch Glaive) by giving you multiple attacks.
"Multiple Attacks" is defined as a full attack action (! not full round action). And as said, normally a full attack requires a Full-Round-Action, but Scorching Ray creates a specific exception for itself (by having a standard action activation cost and giving you a Full Attack).
Scorching Ray counts as a Full Attack, not more, not less. Besides from some kind of special RAW abuse this won't affect your game in 99,99% of your games. Just being/counting as (special) Full Attack doesn't really change anything that I would be aware of.

[Asmotherion]

All hellfire warlocks are multiclass Binders and best friends with the Vestige Naberius, as he allows for a loophole into the contract that gives them Hellfire.

[Telonius]

All hellfire warlocks are multiclass Binders and best friends with the Vestige Naberius, as he allows for a loophole into the contract that gives them Hellfire.

This is pretty much my initial thoughts on it. The drawback is somewhat dangerous, the way to mitigate it is relatively easy (as long as you have access to the books). If you put another solution into a feat, what you're doing is changing the tax from a level in Binder, to a feat.

If you're trying to homebrew a fix anyway, how about this: Hellfire Warlock is now a 6-level class. +1d6 extra hellfire each level, to the max of 6d6 at level 6. (I'm sure Mephistopheles would be happy with that number setup). You get immunity to the Con damage at level 6.

So, there are still drawbacks. You still take some damage along the way, and a six-level investment is a lot more significant (3-levels is barely more than a dip). But it's streamlined. You don't have to fiddle around with Binder or arguments about Strongheart Vest.

[icefractal]

Scorching Ray counts as a Full Attack, not more, not less. Besides from some kind of special RAW abuse this won't affect your game in 99,99% of your games. Just being/counting as (special) Full Attack doesn't really change anything that I would be aware of.Wait, are you saying that Scorching Ray would then get extra attacks from Haste? Because I've never seen that interpretation used.

I'm not really seeing the difference between:
* Scorching Ray (CL 11): Gives you three attacks regardless of other factors.
* Eldritch Glaive (BAB 16): Gives you four attacks regardless of other factors.

[Gruftzwerg]

Wait, are you saying that Scorching Ray would then get extra attacks from Haste? Because I've never seen that interpretation used.

I'm not really seeing the difference between:
* Scorching Ray (CL 11): Gives you three attacks regardless of other factors.
* Eldritch Glaive (BAB 16): Gives you four attacks regardless of other factors.

The difference is that Eldritch Glaive summons some kind of weapon which can be used to attack repeatedly without expanding it.

Scorching Ray on the other hand is limited by the amount of rays conjured. Haste allows for one more attack, but it doesn't conjure any more Scorching Ray for you other then your regular amount from the spell. If the spell would conjure e.g. "a magical bow that shoots Scorching Rays" (like Hank's Bow (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/news_20061227.jpg)), Haste would work, but that is not the chase here.

That's what I meant as I said that in most chases it won't change anything..^^

[Darg]

Scorching ray is not a full attack. It is a standard action cast time spell.

Eldritch Glaive is not a full attack, it is a full-round action (I don't consider it a cast so no AoO, but that is a different discussion.)

To take advantage of extra attacks you must use the full attack action unless there is an exception, such as cleave or snap kick (both of these can benefit hideous blow and cleave can benefit eldritch glaive). Neither scorching ray, nor Eldritch glaive can benefit from the extra attack from haste.

[Gruftzwerg]

Scorching ray is not a full attack. It is a standard action cast time spell.

Eldritch Glaive is not a full attack, it is a full-round action (I don't consider it a cast so no AoO, but that is a different discussion.)

To take advantage of extra attacks you must use the full attack action unless there is an exception, such as cleave or snap kick (both of these can benefit hideous blow and cleave can benefit eldritch glaive). Neither scorching ray, nor Eldritch glaive can benefit from the extra attack from haste.

Welcome back to my little series: Primary Source Rule strikes back again :smallwink:

Multiple attacks of any kind are defined as "full attack" as shown in the quote of my previous post. As such it is the general rule as soon as something gives you more than a single attack(-roll) per turn. Primary Source Rule demands that it either obeys that general rule or creates a specific call out to be an exception. Do you see any of the mentioned spells denying its Full Attack status? No.., as such they are Full Attacks. Because both create a situation where the Primary Source Rule for Multiple Attacks gets into effect.

As said, Scorching Ray can't profit from haste since it "conjures" a certain amount of attacks related to your clvl.
Eldritch Glaive on the other hand ca profit from Haste due to conjuring a weapon (until the start of your next turn) which doesn't get consumed when attacking. As such, it can profit from the extra attack from haste.

Full Attack != Full Round Action
The terms are not interchangeable. While the general rule is that a Full Attack (action) does need a Full Round Action as usage cost, it can be easily trumped by more specific things. E.g. Shadow Pounce, which lets you do a full attack every time you teleport. SP also alters the usage/activation cost for Full Attack.
Same for Eldritch Glaive and Scorching Ray. Even without mentioning Full Attack, they have to work under that general rule, since no exception was called out. Scorching Ray is still very limited with any kind of Full Attack abuse due to how the spell works. Eldritch Glaive on the other hand can easily abuse Haste since anything needed is already given (a full attack).

[icefractal]

As said, Scorching Ray can't profit from haste since it "conjures" a certain amount of attacks related to your clvl.But it also gives all 1-3 attacks at the same attack bonus (not iterative), and it can gives you more attacks than your BAB (Wizard 11 using Scorching Ray: three attacks, but only BAB +5).

In short, it appears to bear no resemblance to a full-attack. The only thing it has in common is "making multiple attacks".

[Gruftzwerg]

But it also gives all 1-3 attacks at the same attack bonus (not iterative), and it can gives you more attacks than your BAB (Wizard 11 using Scorching Ray: three attacks, but only BAB +5).

In short, it appears to bear no resemblance to a full-attack. The only thing it has in common is "making multiple attacks".

full attack != iterative attacks


Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (1), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (2) or for some special reason (3) you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Full Attacks aren't sole iterative attacks. We have 3 defined subcategories of Full Attacks. And the 3rd covers all oddities like Claws, Tentacles or like in our chase Scorching Ray.
But as said, I still don't see any big abuse potential for Scorching Ray being a Full Attack. Haste doesn't let Scorching Ray produce more attacks than your clvl would allow.

[Darg]

full attack != iterative attacks



Full Attacks aren't sole iterative attacks. We have 3 defined subcategories of Full Attacks. And the 3rd covers all oddities like Claws, Tentacles or like in our chase Scorching Ray.
But as said, I still don't see any big abuse potential for Scorching Ray being a Full Attack. Haste doesn't let Scorching Ray produce more attacks than your clvl would allow.

A full attack is a full-round action, but a full-round action does not have to be a full attack. There are also exceptions to the rule that extra attacks require a full attack action. Haste requires the specific action of making a full attack to benefit from the extra attack right there in the description. Neither scorching ray nor eldritch glaive make a full attack.

[Elves]

Rules Compendium categorizes full attack as its own action, and the conventional reading would be that eldritch glaive isn't a full attack but rather a special full-round action that has a clause permitting you to take iterative attacks.

I actually find Gruft's argument kind of interesting though. "If you get more than one attack per round, you must use a f ul l-round action to be able to ma ke your additional attacks." I do see a case here that any full-round action as part of which you can make iterative attacks would qualify as a full attack action under this definition, and that eldritch glaive could thus benefit from haste et al.

[Gruftzwerg]

A full attack is a full-round action, but a full-round action does not have to be a full attack. There are also exceptions to the rule that extra attacks require a full attack action. Haste requires the specific action of making a full attack to benefit from the extra attack right there in the description. Neither scorching ray nor eldritch glaive make a full attack.
Primary Source Rule still rules here..
"Multiple Attacks" makes a general definition that as soon as you do more than a single attack you are full attacking.
Normally (general rule) you have to pay a Full Round Action to get a Full Attack Action. Note that both terms use "Action" in different was here. Full Round Action is a "resource for action management", while the Full Attack is a physical "action type" that normally consumes those action management resources.
Due to the general definition of "Multiple Attacks" in 3.5, everything that uses multiple attacks has to either obey that rule or call out a specific exception.
The exceptions that both Scorching Ray and Eldritch Glaive have is that they alter the resource cost for the action. Both grant multiple attacks and as such give you a (special exception) Full Attack. Since they don't call out exceptions to not count as Full Attack, they follow the Multiple Attacks rule by default. The sole exceptions created is the altered action cost to gain the Full Attack.


Rules Compendium categorizes full attack as its own action, and the conventional reading would be that eldritch glaive isn't a full attack but rather a special full-round action that has a clause permitting you to take iterative attacks.

I actually find Gruft's argument kind of interesting though. "If you get more than one attack per round, you must use a f ul l-round action to be able to ma ke your additional attacks." I do see a case here that any full-round action as part of which you can make iterative attacks would qualify as a full attack action under this definition, and that eldritch glaive could thus benefit from haste et al.

As said, 3.5 uses "Action" for both: as resource type to get actions (1) and as action types (2) that (normally/generally) consumes/require those resources as payment.
As soon as Eldritch Glaive give you the permission to make additional attacks it has to obey the "Multiple Attacks" rule that causes you to gain a "Full Attack" by that definition. These are specific exceptions created by the ability that trump the general rule that the Full Attack requires you to play the action cost. The effect of the ability gives you the additional attacks for its own action cost.

Just think about "touch spells" who also alter resource management and costs. Touch spells also alter the resource cost and gives you an "attack action" within its own cost/duration. It's just that Eldritch Glaive (and spells like Scorching Ray) can give you multiple attacks and as such give you a "Full Attack" (compared to the standard attack a touch spell gives you).

Or (Greater) Cleave. Cleave can alter your standard action to give you possibly multiple attacks. As soon as you get em, you count as doing a full attack (with a standard action activation cost). It trumps the general resource cost rules for actions.

[Elves]

Or (Greater) Cleave. Cleave can alter your standard action to give you possibly multiple attacks. As soon as you get em, you count as doing a full attack (with a standard action activation cost). It trumps the general resource cost rules for actions.
There I strongly disagree. Full attack is defined as a full-round action.

Any full-round action that lets you make iterative attacks as part of it, such as eldritch glaive, might technically qualify as a full attack according to the Rules Compendium definition. But this wouldn't extend to other action types.

[Gruftzwerg]

There I strongly disagree. Full attack is defined as a full-round action.

Any full-round action that lets you make iterative attacks as part of it, such as eldritch glaive, might technically qualify as a full attack according to the Rules Compendium definition. But this wouldn't extend to other action types.

1) Multiple Attacks sets the general rule that as soon as you use more than a single "attack" that you are considered to making a Full Attack.
Both Eldritch Glaive and Scorching Ray qualify for this and don't deny this (as such they follow the general rule). Both spells give you "multiple attacks".

2) Full Attack on the other hand set the general rule that it requires a full round action as an activation cost.
Both Eldritch Glaive and Scorching Ray are specific exceptions here since they have their own activation cost and thus trump the general rule for Full Attacks requiring a full round action activation cost (like Cleave does).

[Elves]

1) Multiple Attacks sets the general rule that as soon as you use more than a single "attack" that you are considered to making a Full Attack.

You're misreading.

"A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack." - SRD

This says you have to full attack to make extra attacks; it doesn't logically follow that any time you make extra attacks you're therefore full attacking.

Rather, a case that proves this statement untrue (an ability that lets you make extra attacks without full attacking) constitutes an exception to it.

Specific over general goes both ways. When you have a general rule and a case that violates it, the violating case is an exception to rather than a grounds to redefine the general rule.

[Gruftzwerg]

You're misreading.

"A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack." - SRD

This says you have to full attack to make extra attacks; it doesn't logically follow that any time you make extra attacks you're therefore full attacking.

Rather, a case that proves this statement untrue (an ability that lets you make extra attacks without full attacking) constitutes an exception to it.

Specific over general goes both ways. When you have a general rule and a case that violates it, the violating case is an exception to rather than a grounds to redefine the general rule.

You are missing the definition of "Full Attack" in your logic. "Multiple Attacks" is only half of the cake and refers to Full Attack. Full Attack says:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
The (general) rules of Full Attack is defined in such a way that it even covers all more specific (special) exceptions. This causes a higher barrier to trump this rule. Just being more specific ain't enough to simply trump it. You need an explicit statement against the definition set by Full Attack to not follow it. None of the abilities we mentioned do make such denials. As such they obey the Full Attack rule.

[Elves]

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some other reason, you must use a full-round action to be able to make your additional attacks.
Exactly. The rule is that to make additional attacks, you have to use a full-round action, aka a full attack action.
If you have an ability that lets you make additional attacks as part of a different action, that's an exception to this rule.
It doesn't mean your other action counts as a full attack action.

An exception, by definition, leaves the normal rule intact.

[Gruftzwerg]

Exactly. The rule is that to make additional attacks, you have to use a full-round action, aka a full attack action.
If you have an ability that lets you make additional attacks as part of a different action, that's an exception to this rule.
It doesn't mean your other action counts as a full attack action.

An exception, by definition, leaves the normal rule intact.

Reread the quote pls again. You are ignoring that iteratives are only 1/3 of the mentioned Full Attack subcategories. It mentions TWF/Double Weapons as second subcategory and as last any other special reason.

The problem is the last part of the sentence that sets the (general) rule, that even anything special (read "more specific rules) have to follow this general rule. Due to this specific wording any more specific rule/ability has still to obey this general rule, since they get targeted by it. It would need a special specific call out that explicitly say to not operate under the Full Attack rule or how it works differently.

The parts that work differently is that spells which grants (an) attack/s alter the resource invested to gain that/those attack/s. As mentioned, Touch Spells do it by default (give you a single "attack action" for free within their duration). And spells/abilities like Eldritch Glaive/Scorching Ray do the same. They give you multiple attacks for free within their duration (without paying the "action cost").
But they still are Full Attacks by definition due to giving "Multiple Attacks".

___________________

Do you (or anybody else) feel the need of further discussing this? If yeah, maybe we should move the discussion to a separate thread. Dunno if the OP is fine with this and if we ain't derailing the thread here?

[Elves]

I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Statement: "To get a cookie, you must go to the store."
If I give you a cookie in the park, does that mean you went to the store?
No, it means this was an exception to the statement.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Statement: "To get a cookie, you must go to the store."
If I give you a cookie in the park, does that mean you went to the store?
No, it means this was an exception to the statement.

Sorry but your example doesn't represent any of the information and rules given in our example.

Where is the rule that more special/specific situations are handled the same?
"... or for some other reason, you must use a full-round action..."

And how is getting a cookie in the park more special/specific to getting it in the store?

___________________

Statement:

"Multiple Cookies - As soon as you eat more than a single cookie (per hour) you are in a sugar rush. This count also for double-layered cookies (TWF/dual weapon) and any other additional special cookies you eat/get for any reason."

Any additional cookie, despite its source has to follow that general rule. Just being more special ain't enough. To create an exception you would need an explicit call out that explicitly targets the sugar rush rule. E.g. a low/zero sugar cookie that bypasses that rule. Just any special cookie doesn't help here. It has to have these special properties for that.

__________________

Back to our situation.

Due to the wording of Multiple Attack and Full Attack you would need a specific statement to bypass em. Just being more special ain't enough here. As such, both Eldritch Glaive and Scorching Ray operate under the Full Attack rule.

[Elves]

Multiple Cookies - As soon as you eat more than a single cookie (per hour) you are in a sugar rush.
That's where you're misreading. A "must" statement is not an equivalency. That's what my example was meant to highlight.

Your quote would be something like "A full attack is when you make extra attacks".

Instead, it says that you must take a full attack action in order to make extra attacks. A case that proves this statement untrue would be an exception to it. The specific over general rule allows such exceptions to occur.

Another example. "You must take the freeway to arrive at your destination". If you find a dirt backroad that leads you to your destination, does that mean the backroad was actually the freeway? No: it means you found an exception to the directions you got.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's where you're misreading. A "must" statement is not an equivalency. That's what my example was meant to highlight.

Your quote would be something like "A full attack is when you make extra attacks".
Poorly worded I admit. But I think that "attack actions overall" can either be an "Attack" or "Full Attack". So it has to be either one or define and name a new category as exception. Or call out any reason to no follow that general pattern. That is not the chase here. And I think that you are not arguing here that Eldritch Glaive gives multiple "Attack" (singular!).



Instead, it says that you must take a full attack action in order to make extra attacks. A case that proves this statement untrue would be an exception to it. The specific over general rule allows such exceptions to occur.
The problem as mentioned several times is that the general definition of Full Attack includes all "special" chases too. Special is something that ain't normal, thus creating an exception to the norm. This causes all special ways to get additional attacks to still follow the general rule unless they make an explicit call out against this. Just being more "specific" ain't enough to trump a general rule that includes those "specific" (special) scenarios too. You are still missing this argument I've been poking around ;)



Another example. "You must take the freeway to arrive at your destination". If you find a dirt backroad that leads you to your destination, does that mean the backroad was actually the freeway? No: it means you found an exception to the directions you got.
Again your example does not reflect our situation at all. Your example's definition lacks to force you to something as soon as some conditions are meat. An approach like ..
"You have to use the freeway as soon as more than 1 seat is occupied"
.. would be much more fitting here. We don't say "passanger" on purpose to show that all "special" reason that occupy the seat are still valid for this "general" rule. Now show me how you occupy more than a single seat without having to follow this rule? You would need an explicit counter statement for that.
Same in our situation with Full Attack. Since it covers all special chases too, it requires an explicit counter statement to not follow the general rule anymore.

Your assumption would be true if Full Attack wouldn't explicitly include special (exceptional) chases too.


edit: changed a sentence to give a better example.

[Elves]

Again your example does not reflect our situation at all.
It's the same wording as our situation: "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks".


Your example's definition lacks to force you to something as soon as some conditions are meat.
It doesn't do that. That's not what that statement means grammatically.


Your assumption would be true if Full Attack wouldn't explicitly include special (exceptional) chases too.
The "special reason" wording is superfluous. Let's strip the sentence down.

"If you get more than one attack per round, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

You're interpreting it to say that any time you can make additional attacks, that counts as a full attack. It doesn't. "Must" here isn't saying x = y, but that to get y output, you must do x. That's usually true, but there are other actions that give y output, and we have a specific over general protocol so that there's no logical problem with that.

However, because of the wording, it does seem to me that full round actions such as eldritch glaive could technically be classified as full attacks. (That's a nonstandard reading though.)

Edit: Let me ask, and not at all in a denigrating way, is English your first language? I can see how the must phrasing there could seem to say something else.

[Gruftzwerg]

It's the same wording as our situation: "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks".


It doesn't do that. That's not what that statement means grammatically.


The "special reason" wording is superfluous. Let's strip the sentence down.

"If you get more than one attack per round, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

You're interpreting it to say that any time you can make additional attacks, that counts as a full attack. It doesn't. "Must" here isn't saying x = y, but that to get y output, you must do x. That's usually true, but there are other actions that give y output, and we have a specific over general protocol so that there's no logical problem with that.

However, because of the wording, it does seem to me that full round actions such as eldritch glaive could technically be classified as full attacks. (That's a nonstandard reading though.)

Edit: Let me ask, and not at all in a denigrating way, is English your first language? I can see how the must phrasing there could seem to say something else.

English is my 3rd language yeah. And I admit that my English ain't perfect. But that doesn't blind me of text parts that you are ignoring constantly here. My ability to translate has nothing to do with your ability to ignore rule text parts ;)

(0.) Multiple Attacks says that as soon as you use more than a single attack you must use Full Attack. Note that this doesn't say that you have to pay the regular cost for Full Attack, because that is part of the Full Attack rule. This sets the general rule that all multiple attacks per turn have to be Full Attack.

(If the rules where to stop here, your assumptions would be true. But that is not the chase here)

(1.) Full Attack defines itself as, iterative attacks from high BAB (a), extra attacks from TWF/Dual Weapon (b) and any special reasons for additional attacks(c). Further it sets the general rule that it costs a Full Round Action.

(2.) Eldritch Glaive makes use of multiple attacks and thus has to be a Full Attack (see 0.)

(3.) Eldritch Glaive has its own action cost and gives you the attacks. By gaining the attacks (effect), their regular activation cost to gain em is bypassed. This is a clear situation of Specific Trumps General

Eldritch Glaive is still a Full Attack, since the definition of that includes "special reasons" to get additional attacks too. This means that the general rule also counts for more special "specific" reasons too. This causes Full Attack to ignore the regular "specific trumps general" rule, when it comes to determine if something is a Full Attack or not! It would need an explicit "exception" call out that targets that rule to bypass it. Finally note that this restriction (can't be trumped without an explicit call out) only is forced upon the definition what is a Full Attack and not on the Action cost part of that rule text.

I don't have a problem with translating "must" here. Imho, you are having trouble to see that "must" only applies to the action cost (which can be trumped as normal with Specific Trumps General). But it doesn't affect how Full Attack defines what counts as Full Attack at all. It is defined by the 3 mentioned subcategories of Full Attacks (see 1. a,b,c). And this definition has a special defense against "Specific Trumps General" since it includes "all Special reasons" in its definition already (see 1c). This is the part you are missing here and I'm trying to kindly point out for you over the last page(s).

PS: I hope I didn't sound harsh or mean here. Not my intention. No ill/negative thoughts here. I'm optimistic (or at least I hope^^) that we'll come to some conclusion somehow ;)

[Elves]

(1.) Full Attack defines itself as, iterative attacks from high BAB (a), extra attacks from TWF/Dual Weapon (b) and any special reasons for additional attacks(c).
Again, it does no such thing. It says you must take this action in order to get those extra attacks -- a statement to which other abilities prove exceptions. It doesn't define a full attack action as any action in which you take extra attacks, which is what would be necessary for those special actions to redefine it in the way you want.

Eldritch glaive *could* plausibly be read as a full attack action, but for another reason: the definition of full attack says only that you must take a full-round action to get extra attacks, not that you must "take a full attack action", which permits that other full-round actions can double as a full attack. But there's no basis for that to apply to other action types.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, it does no such thing. It says you must take this action in order to get those extra attacks -- a statement to which other abilities prove exceptions. It doesn't define a full attack action as any action in which you take extra attacks, which is what would be necessary for those special actions to redefine it in the way you want.
I have already shown you that we have rule that explicitly say that:

(0.) Multiple Attacks says that as soon as you use more than a single attack you must use Full Attack. Note that this doesn't say that you have to pay the regular cost for Full Attack, because that is part of the Full Attack rule. This sets the general rule that all multiple attacks per turn have to be Full Attack.

(If the rules where to stop here, your assumptions would be true. But that is not the chase here)
The "Multiple Attacks" rule already did that. And Full Attack defines itself as (1 + a,b,c). And 1c includes any special reason, which expands the definition to all exceptional special reasons to get multiple attacks. As such those are still Full Attacks (further confirming the "Multiple Attacks" rule).


Eldritch glaive *could* plausibly be read as a full attack action, but for another reason: the definition of full attack says only that you must take a full-round action to get extra attacks, not that you must "take a full attack action", which permits that other full-round actions can double as a full attack. But there's no basis for that to apply to other action types.

Eldritch Glaive gives "Multiple Attacks" = Full Attack action (note that this rule only talks about "action types" you can take and not the associated "action cost/tax" you pay with your action resources every turn. That is handled in the Full Attack rule).

It's the Full Attack rule that sets the general rule that if you want to take multiple attack, you have to pay the action cost/tax of a Full Round Action. This general rule can be bypassed by more specific rules like Eldritch Glaive which has its own action cost/tax.
Compare it with a generic Touch Spell which has its own Action cost/tax, but gives you a single (touch) "Attack Action" within its own effect. Eldritch Glaive just has the difference that it can give you multiple attacks and as such gives you a Full Attack Action within its effect.

[Elves]

(0.) Multiple Attacks says that as soon as you use more than a single attack you must use Full Attack. Note that this doesn't say that you have to pay the regular cost for Full Attack, because that is part of the Full Attack rule. This sets the general rule that all multiple attacks per turn have to be Full Attack.

And Full Attack defines itself as (1 + a,b,c).
It seems like it's just not getting through to you that when it says you "must" take a full attack action in order to make extra attacks, that isn't the same as saying any time you take extra attacks counts as a full attack -- rather, those cases are exceptions to the rule it laid down.

Made the same post like 3 times so at this point there's nothing more to say.