defining "immunity"

[Raishoiken]

Is the term "immune" or "immunity" defined in any book? If not wouldn't it default to the normal definition of something that the creature has a protection or exemption from? Which would include things like fortification and similar things that are total protections but aren't called by name an "immunity"

[Raishoiken]

Just checked the glossary, and there doesn't seem to be a blanket definition of immunity: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=&alpha=I

I'm pretty sure the definition/RAW would default to the specific immunity in question.

Is there some particular exploit or rules lawyering that you were looking into?

Scratch that, there is a glossary entry: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_immunity&alpha=



Funnily enough, this seems to contradict the PHB section as follows:



Perhaps the key there is "resistance" rather than "immunity", although...

Well that seems to slot 100% fortification into the category fairly squarely

[Elves]

Scratch that, there is a glossary entry: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_immunity&alpha=
Good find, it's not in the alphabetic listing for some reason.

[Darg]

Good find, it's not in the alphabetic listing for some reason.

Because it's not in the PHB most likely, unless they added it in the special edition. Apparently they made changes in that version that aren't available elsewhere.

[Segev]

Is the term "immune" or "immunity" defined in any book? If not wouldn't it default to the normal definition of something that the creature has a protection or exemption from? Which would include things like fortification and similar things that are total protections but aren't called by name an "immunity"

I'm curious why this question arises. What does allowing Fortification to qualify as "immunity" permit, that Fortification just making you take no critical hits without qualifying as "immunity" does not? :smallconfused:

[Darg]

I'm curious why this question arises. What does allowing Fortification to qualify as "immunity" permit, that Fortification just making you take no critical hits without qualifying as "immunity" does not? :smallconfused:

Probably has to do with the hellfire warlock thread and what immunity entails for that.

[Bonzai]

Probably has to do with the hellfire warlock thread and what immunity entails for that.

Yeah. There is a grey area with Hellfire Warlock and strong heart vest for example. Strongheart vest reduces ability damage. If it reduces it to 0, does that count as immunity? To me, immunity means no damage ever, while damage reduction still means you can be damaged, just at a reduced rate.

[Segev]

Yeah. There is a grey area with Hellfire Warlock and strong heart vest for example. Strongheart vest reduces ability damage. If it reduces it to 0, does that count as immunity? To me, immunity means no damage ever, while damage reduction still means you can be damaged, just at a reduced rate.

Ah. For Hellfire Warlock, I personally wouldn't let the Strongheart Vest work, because it's reducing the cost/cheating whatever powers claim the payment. I would go with binding Naebarius, instead: the cost is unquestionably paid, and you regenerate it. No question about whether the strictures are tripped. You definitely take the damage and pay the cost.

[Silly Name]

Yeah. There is a grey area with Hellfire Warlock and strong heart vest for example. Strongheart vest reduces ability damage. If it reduces it to 0, does that count as immunity? To me, immunity means no damage ever, while damage reduction still means you can be damaged, just at a reduced rate.

Immunity (in game terms) implies being absolutely unable to be affected by something, not merely resistant to the point sometimes you can shrug off said something. A dwarf who passes a saving throw against a poison thanks to her racial bonus isn't immune to poison, she's simply resistant to it.

In short: if something gives you immunity to X, it will say so outright. If it doesn't say you're immune to X, you're not.

[icefractal]

On Hellfire Blast, it would have been clearer if they used MtG style phrasing:
"Take one point of Constitution damage. If you do, add 2d6 per class level ..."

[Elves]

Don't get why people are offended at bypassing the hellfire blast cost with 1 feat (out of 7) but ok with bypassing it with 1 level (out of 20).


Or is t more likely that the person who wrote the saving throw section didn't understand the difference between resistances and immunities?
Depending where that immunity definition came from, they may not have caught the contradiction.
Probably it would be parsed as a specific exception (for spells) to the general immunity rule, but you could argue the p177 text is simply incorrect in using the elf example because they're immune, not resistant, & that it therefore wouldn't extend to other immunities either.

Seems like the devs themselves were split on whether you should be able to eg benefit from mind-affecting buffs while using mind blank.

[Segev]

Don't get why people are offended at bypassing the hellfire blast cost with 1 feat (out of 7) but ok with bypassing it with 1 level (out of 20).

1 level can throw off a lot in a build. Also, I think Naebarius takes a level and a feat, though I could be misremembering. Don't you need Improved Binding to get his stat-regen with only one level of Binder?

But that's beside the point. I am looking at it from a standpoint of whether the rules allow it. Whether a DM should permit it regardless of the RAW due to balance concerns at his table is another question.

The rules unquestionably allow Naebarius to work here. It's more questionable with the Strongheart Vest. The former never stops you from taking the damage. The latter does.

If all you're concerned about is whether it's balanced, you can discuss with the DM whether house ruling away the ability damage cost entirely is viable. I don't know if it is or not, but is one feat enough to pay for the amount of extra damage Hellfire Blast does without the cost? Is simply taking the PrC enough, and the cost is overkill?

[Darg]

To contribute further, the spell immunity spell refers to having unbeatable spell resistance as immunity. In that sense having enough of something in which you can't be harmed or affected by something is immunity. Hellfire Blast doesn't say you have to be immune to all constitution damage. The definition for immunity separates it per effect. In this way one is immune to the constitution damage of hellfire blast while using strongheart vest.

[Silly Name]

To contribute further, the spell immunity spell refers to having unbeatable spell resistance as immunity. In that sense having enough of something in which you can't be harmed or affected by something is immunity. Hellfire Blast doesn't say you have to be immune to all constitution damage. The definition for immunity separates it per effect. In this way one is immune to the constitution damage of hellfire blast while using strongheart vest.

If I have Fire Resistance 10, do I qualify for an hypothetical feat that has "Immunity to fire damage" as a prerequisite, because I am "immune" to fire damage that's 10 or less?

The line in Spell Immunity is a clarification of how it works: "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells." (Emphasis mine). It doesn't actually gain "Spell Resistance: infinite" in regards to the spells you choose.

As an aside, I probably wouldn't let the Hellfire Warlock/Strongheart Vest combo fly at my table, because it's cheating the forces that empower the Hellfire Warlock and they wouldn't be pleased. However, by pure RAW reducing damage to 0 is not the same as being immune to that damage.

[Darg]

If I have Fire Resistance 10, do I qualify for an hypothetical feat that has "Immunity to fire damage" as a prerequisite, because I am "immune" to fire damage that's 10 or less?

The line in Spell Immunity is a clarification of how it works: "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells." (Emphasis mine). It doesn't actually gain "Spell Resistance: infinite" in regards to the spells you choose.

As an aside, I probably wouldn't let the Hellfire Warlock/Strongheart Vest combo fly at my table, because it's cheating the forces that empower the Hellfire Warlock and they wouldn't be pleased. However, by pure RAW reducing damage to 0 is not the same as being immune to that damage.

By pure RAW the meaning of immunity is quite open to interpretation. Immunity means one thing that can be used in multiple ways. Would I be wrong saying strongheart vest doesn't provide immunity? No. Would I be wrong by saying it does? No.

Immunity to fire damage isn't a defined effect. As such is the reason why we are having this discussion. Fire immunity, however, is a defined ability which provides immunity to fire damage. Funnily enough it doesn't provide immunity to all fire effects. So a Blistering radiance would still blind an immune creature.

Searing spell by existing means that no creature has fire damage immunity. If immunity to something means that in all situations you are immune to something, then by definition if there is something that bypasses it then it can't be immunity. That is unless conditional immunity is still immunity. Resistance 10 fire means you are immune to fire damage of 10 or less. I would say you do have an immunity to fire damage in that case. Although requirements for feats generally refer to an ability and not a specific outcome.

[Cygnia]

Would Immunity offer protection if the spell in question isn't damaging? Like, say, Immunity to Cold against something like Freezing Glance (which doesn't do damage -- you need to make a Will save in order to not be frozen in place. But it does has the Cold descriptor attached to it)?

[Elves]

But that's beside the point. I am looking at it from a standpoint of whether the rules allow it. Whether a DM should permit it regardless of the RAW due to balance concerns at his table is another question.
Agreed, that's the right way to look at it.


The rules unquestionably allow Naebarius to work here. It's more questionable with the Strongheart Vest. The former never stops you from taking the damage. The latter does.
Hellfire Blast: "if you are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability."
It doesn't say immune to the Constitution damage from this ability, or unable to take this Constitution damage. Just immune to Constitution damage, period.
Having Constitution damage reduction of 1 isn't the same as being immune to it. You're fully capable of taking Con damage.

It's odd that this is still debated. It seems to tickle peoples' unfairness bone in a way that makes them unwilling to read the text straight on.


By pure RAW the meaning of immunity is quite open to interpretation.
It would be clear enough from implication, but Thurbane just showed there actually is a game def for it.

[Segev]

Hellfire Blast: "if you are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability."
It doesn't say immune to the Constitution damage from this ability, or unable to take this Constitution damage. Just immune to Constitution damage, period.
Having Constitution damage reduction of 1 isn't the same as being immune to it. You're fully capable of taking Con damage.

It's odd that this is still debated. It seems to tickle peoples' unfairness bone in a way that makes them unwilling to read the text straight on.

It comes down to the question the OP is asking. Is "immunity" defined in such a way that it the Strongheart Vest's effect qualifies, or not?

I'm saying it's arguable. And that Naebarius is not arguable. Whether your DM rules that any of it is allowed in his game is up to him, of course.

[Elves]

It comes down to the question the OP is asking. Is "immunity" defined in such a way that it the Strongheart Vest's effect qualifies, or not?
Has anyone ever argued that DR 1/- makes you immune to damage?

[Darg]

It would be clear enough from implication, but Thurbane just showed there actually is a game def for it.

That's what I was saying. The definition says "never harmed (or helped) by that effect." The existence of Searing spell negates that. The creature is no longer immune to fire damage. Once you start adding conditionals to the immunity to keep it's validity, it's no longer fully immune, but immune sometimes. "Sometimes not harmed (or helped) by that effect."


Has anyone ever argued that DR 1/- makes you immune to damage?

Was there ever a need to?

[Silly Name]

That's what I was saying. The definition says "never harmed (or helped) by that effect." The existence of Searing spell negates that. The creature is no longer immune to fire damage. Once you start adding conditionals to the immunity to keep it's validity, it's no longer fully immune, but immune sometimes. "Sometimes not harmed (or helped) by that effect."

Searing Spell and similar stuff works on the "specific exception to the general rule" rule. The fact there are ways to bypass or ignore immunity does not mean that the term "immunity" loses its conventional meaning, both in terms of rules and common usage of the world.

"The jabberwocky is immune to all weapons except the vorpal sword" is a perfectly valid sentence. The jabberwocky is still immune to weapons, with one specific exception. The game allows for such things. If you want to forbid a certain combination at your table, that's a perfectly legitimate option and is far easier than trying to contort definitions so that the famously-exploitable-if-taken-at-face-value rules agree with you.

Think of this in terms of the game "checking" for something. Hellfire Blast checks for "immunity to Constitution damage", and, as written, for nothing else. It doesn't check for "reducing Constitution damage to possibly 0", or "circumventing this limitation". It doesn't even check for "effectively immune", because that's not what it says it does.

I might reasong like this because I play MtG, but in that game this is a very important detail sometimes because two cards may carry the same effect but due to different wordings actually behave differently. For example, a card saying "creatures you control gain Lifelink" and another card that says "when a creature you control deals damage, you gain that much life" are functionally the same most of the time since Lifelink is a creature ability that makes it so when a creature deals damage, their controller gains that much life. But if an opponent plays a card that says "creatures your opponent control lose all abilities" then the second card is better because it's not granting your creatures any ability and so its effect remains active.

And if you try to argue otherwise, people will disagree with you, because that game runs on RAW (plus errata). Maybe your kitchen table playgroup thinks this is dumb and treats the two above cards as both granting Lifelink to creatures, but that's a houserule.

[Elves]

That's what I was saying. The definition says "never harmed (or helped) by that effect."
The effect in this case is Constitution damage ("immune to Constitution damage"), not hellfire blast.


The existence of Searing spell negates that. The creature is no longer immune to fire damage. Once you start adding conditionals to the immunity to keep it's validity, it's no longer fully immune, but immune sometimes. "Sometimes not harmed (or helped) by that effect
Searing Spell is necessarily an exception to the normal rule for immunity -- otherwise it becomes logically dysfunctional because its very existence would mean there's no such thing as fire immunity.


Was there ever a need to?
Would you take it seriously?

[Segev]

It's interesting how saying, "This is debatable, because there is debate," is met at times with an argument of, "No, it's not debatable," as if one were arguing against it, rather than merely stating that there is dispute.

I note that nobody is arguing that Binder 1->Improved Binding->Naebarius works. As I said, it's unquestioned that it does.

Of course, I suppose somebody could start debating/questioning it to prove me wrong, there. :smallwink:

The reason I even bother saying all this is because, if you want to do a hellfire warlock without having people arguing over whether your means of mitigating the Constitution damage so you can fire the hellfire blast willy-nilly is rules legal, you should use Naebarius. If you've got a DM who'll let you use another method, by all means use the method that works best for you in your game, where "works best" includes "works at all because the DM will permit it" as a necessary condition.

[Darg]

Would you take it seriously?

If there was a need to.

[Elves]

I'm firmly of the belief that when it comes to the Hellfire Warlock and Strongheart Vest interaction, the only RAW answer is "ask your DM".
In reality, you'd be hard pressed to find something that's more clearly and unambiguously RAW. But somehow it's been memed into an object of controversy just because some people feel it's unfair. It's the opposite of cheese. Ham? Peanut butter?


It's interesting how saying, "This is debatable, because there is debate," is met at times with an argument of, "No, it's not debatable," as if one were arguing against it, rather than merely stating that there is dispute.
I get what you mean. At the same time, is it debatable the earth is flat just because some people dispute it?


If there was a need to.
Being willing to accept absurdities (DR 1 = damage immunity) to get the outcome you want isn't a great philosophy.

[Darg]

I get what you mean. At the same time, is it debatable the earth is flat just because some people dispute it?

It's not exactly round either. It's technically an oblate spheroid.


Being willing to accept absurdities (DR 1 = damage immunity) to get the outcome you want isn't a great philosophy.

I never said anything about accepting it. You asked if I would take it seriously. I'm not about to laugh someone out of a room because they brought up a point. The point is to have a discussion at the very least. Coming at a subject from multiple angles helps solidify or break down support.

[Elves]

Agree to disagree then.
So what's the RAW argument it doesn't work?

There are 2 arguments I've seen brought:
- That not taking the damage from the ability means you can't use it. But the prohibition is only if you're "immune to Constitution damage", which you are not. Trivially false.
- That the use of "attack" in the fluff text means it only applies against attacks. But the description of its effect clearly says "Any time you take ability damage".

Saying "many DMs won't allow this" is all good, but that's different from saying it's not legal. It's strange because this forum is usually so tight on rules readings.

[Raishoiken]

so i was ignorant to the whole hellfire blast thing up until like right now, my personal opinion is that since you aren't actually immune to constitution damage via the vest (since it only is a reduction in amount of damage taken, similar to normal damage reduction), it should technically fly. The ability doesn't say "if you somehow negate the ability damage it cant be used", even though it should.


The reason why i personally needed the definition for immunity was related to 100% fortification counting as an immunity to critical hits. It would also apply to similar abilities that say "auto-negate X kind of effect if it targets you" of which none immediately come to mind

[Darg]

The reason why i personally needed the definition for immunity was related to 100% fortification counting as an immunity to critical hits. It would also apply to similar abilities that say "auto-negate X kind of effect if it targets you" of which none immediately come to mind

100% fortification is technical immunity. You are immune. If you are no longer subject to something you are immune to it. The plant type and undead type say "not subject to critical hits," but other places refer to their "immunity" as an example.

[Elves]

Well yes, the feat/meld does specifically call out attacks.
There's nothing ambiguous about "Any time you take ability damage".


And secondly, the fact you simply cannot take the damage if the feat is allowed to work, would fall under at least one definition of "immunity", again IMHO.
You can't use hellfire blast if you're "immune to Con damage". Not from this ability, but in general. Does strongheart vest mean you can't take Con damage? No. It's as simple as that.


The fact this is still being debated 13 years after the last official 3.5 book was published is at least some kind of indicator that the RAW isn't all that cut and dried.
Statements like that are self-perpetuating -- if it's been talked about for 15 years there must be something to it, right? And that statement can be repeated, adding a year each time. What if you look under the hood and there isn't?

What I think it's an indicator of is that people think it feels like cheating and confuse that with it being legally dubious.


The reason why i personally needed the definition for immunity was related to 100% fortification counting as an immunity to critical hits. It would also apply to similar abilities that say "auto-negate X kind of effect if it targets you" of which none immediately come to mind
Technically it's unclear:

immunity: A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect.
If you have immunity you're never harmed by that effect, but that doesn't necessarily mean that never being harmed by that effect means you have immunity.
But by common sense they should count.

[Raishoiken]

Both excellent points that a DM should take into account when making a ruling.

However, I do feel like you are somewhat cherry picking parts of each relevant description that support your POV, and disregarding others.

What about the strongheart vest suggests that hellfire warlock doesnt work with it?

[Darg]

What about the strongheart vest suggests that hellfire warlock doesnt work with it?

That it requires that the effect be an attack.


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.

It isn't italicized and so isn't fluff text. So it is a statement that limits the how broad the next statement actually is.

[Drelua]

That it requires that the effect be an attack.

It isn't italicized and so isn't fluff text. So it is a statement that limits the how broad the next statement actually is.

I can see some argument about whether this is a restriction or a description, I would argue that the next sentence saying "any time you would take ability damage" should take priority over a less absolute statement. The part where it says an attack doesn't say that's all it does, the next sentence seems to say it's more broadly applicable. That part's definitely debatable though, I'd say.

I think maybe there might be some misunderstanding here, it's debatable if the strongheart vest works for this, but I would say by strict RAW it's not really debatable that Hellfire Warlock works either way. If the strongheart vest does apply to that CON damage, the ability still works because you're not immune to CON damage.

[Elves]

It isn't italicized and so isn't fluff text.
In the soulmeld descriptions, the italicized text is a physical description of the soulmeld. The roman text then typically provides some context before proceeding to give the crunch. This for example is all romanized:


Because war has always been a part of mortal history, warrior souls are plentiful. Meldshapers can readily tap into this font of martial knowledge to improve their own prowess on the field of battle, in particular honing the sense of approaching danger that allows skilled warriors to get the drop on their foes. (sentence 1; context) Your bluesteel bracers enhance your reactions and keep your mind in a state of constant battle readiness, granting you a +2 insight bonus on initiative checks. (sentence 2; mechanics)

More to the point:


So it is a statement that limits the how broad the next statement actually is.
Is that how English actually works?
"Attacks that would reduce your ability scores" are a subset of "time[s] you would take ability damage". So take this:

The sweater protects you from snowstorms. Any time you would become cold, it warms you up.

By your reading, that means the sweater only keeps you warm in a snowstorm.
The subset specification can't grammatically constrict the subsequent general statement. Thus, in practice, the first sentence functions as a context or summary statement.

[Raishoiken]

In the soulmeld descriptions, the italicized text is a physical description of the soulmeld. The roman text then typically provides some context before proceeding to give the crunch. This for example is all romanized:



More to the point:


Is that how English actually works?
"Attacks that would reduce your ability scores" are a subset of "time[s] you would take ability damage". So take this:

The sweater protects you from snowstorms. Any time you would become cold, it warms you up.

By your reading, that means the sweater only keeps you warm in a snowstorm.
The subset specification can't grammatically constrict the subsequent general statement. Thus, in practice, the first sentence functions as a context or summary statement.

Prolly couldnt have said it better myself

[Darg]

In the soulmeld descriptions, the italicized text is a physical description of the soulmeld. The roman text then typically provides some context before proceeding to give the crunch. This for example is all romanized:

Strongheart Vest breaks the mold and goes straight into the rules text. Look at every single other soulmeld. The background text is it's own separate paragraph. If we go by previous examples, the rules text is fluff too. Which is not the case.




More to the point:


Is that how English actually works?
"Attacks that would reduce your ability scores" are a subset of "time[s] you would take ability damage". So take this:

The sweater protects you from snowstorms. Any time you would become cold, it warms you up.

By your reading, that means the sweater only keeps you warm in a snowstorm.
The subset specification can't grammatically constrict the subsequent general statement. Thus, in practice, the first sentence functions as a context or summary statement.

What you are trying to do is equate everyday grammar with grammar that is establishing rules. Also the comparison isn't remotely similar.

The dust mask protects you from the nonlethal damage of duststorms. Any time you would take nonlethal damage, the amount of the damage is reduced by 1 point, to a minimum of 0.

It establishes that it protects you from duststorms. It would not mean that you reduce all nonlethal damage.

Edit: Wanted to point out how much I hate wizard's use of the word "any." They don't use it improperly per se, but they sure do use the word a lot to mean one thing when it would be correct to mean several other things. In this way it creates misunderstandings. Maybe I should have phrased it as "they sure do use the word a lot to mean 'any' thing when it would be correct to mean 'any' thing."

[Elves]

The dust mask protects you from the nonlethal damage of duststorms. Any time you would take nonlethal damage, the amount of the damage is reduced by 1 point, to a minimum of 0.
subset statement - returns true.
general statement - returns true.


Edit: Wanted to point out how much I hate wizard's use of the word "any." They don't use it improperly per se, but they sure do use the word a lot to mean one thing when it would be correct to mean several other things. In this way it creates misunderstandings. Maybe I should have phrased it as "they sure do use the word a lot to mean 'any' thing when it would be correct to mean 'any' thing."
Or...maybe it means "any".

[Darg]

subset statement - returns true.
general statement - returns true.

Doesn't make it false the other way. No one said you are wrong, but neither is the other side.

[Raishoiken]

speaking on immunities, i have thought of another question i may make another thread out of:


does the static plane's effect that makes residents untouchable to outsiders an immunity? Or is it just a limitation on what visitors can do, rather than an actual defense

[Vaern]

Immunity to fire damage isn't a defined effect. As such is the reason why we are having this discussion. Fire immunity, however, is a defined ability which provides immunity to fire damage. Funnily enough it doesn't provide immunity to all fire effects. So a Blistering radiance would still blind an immune creature.
"Fire immunity" and "cold immunity" are both defined in the DMG, but as far as I can tell not a single creature in the Monster Manual has any such ability. The definitions for fire and cold immunity reference the descriptions of fire and frost giants, who have "immunity to fire" and "immunity to cold" respectively. I don't think it's too far of a leap to say that "[energy] immunity" and "immunity to [energy]" are functionally identical based on the information available.


Would Immunity offer protection if the spell in question isn't damaging? Like, say, Immunity to Cold against something like Freezing Glance (which doesn't do damage -- you need to make a Will save in order to not be frozen in place. But it does has the Cold descriptor attached to it)?

Immunities to energy, at least based on the DMG definition of fire immunity and cold immunity, only appear to care about damage and don't seem to apply to any sort of additional mechanical effects or rider effects. Presumably, a creature who is immune to cold could be hit with an orb of cold and take zero damage due to cold immunity, but still be subject to a fortitude save vs. blindness, unless there's a relevant rule somewhere that I'm just not seeing. Or, as Darg mentioned, blistering radiance can still blind a creature that is immune to fire.

[Segev]

What about the strongheart vest suggests that hellfire warlock doesnt work with it?

It's actually in the description of the ability that causes the Constitution damage: "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." (emphasis added)

You can try to argue that the bolded part is "just flavor" or is somehow negated by the latter portion, but it is definitely in the middle of other rules text, and very clearly is explaining how this power is being granted: "diabolical forces" are taking "part of your essence" and "you cannot use this ability" if they don't get their pay. If you're using a Strongheart Vest, you're not taking the damage, so the diabolical forces don't grant you the hellfire.

Now, as I've said, this is debatable, because you can argue over whether the explanation for why immunity to constitution damage makes you unable to use the feature is actually part of the rules, or just fluff. But it does make intent perfectly clear, and it can arguably be read as clarification on the rest of the rule, not just as something you can ignore in the text.

The reason why Naebarius is a solution that is unquestionable is because there's no question that the "diabolical forces" are getting the "part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" that they "demand." You just are then recovering it magically quickly. Since they're getting their pay, there's no reason they wouldn't give you the hellfire.

[Raishoiken]

It's actually in the description of the ability that causes the Constitution damage: "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." (emphasis added)

You can try to argue that the bolded part is "just flavor" or is somehow negated by the latter portion, but it is definitely in the middle of other rules text, and very clearly is explaining how this power is being granted: "diabolical forces" are taking "part of your essence" and "you cannot use this ability" if they don't get their pay. If you're using a Strongheart Vest, you're not taking the damage, so the diabolical forces don't grant you the hellfire.

Now, as I've said, this is debatable, because you can argue over whether the explanation for why immunity to constitution damage makes you unable to use the feature is actually part of the rules, or just fluff. But it does make intent perfectly clear, and it can arguably be read as clarification on the rest of the rule, not just as something you can ignore in the text.

The reason why Naebarius is a solution that is unquestionable is because there's no question that the "diabolical forces" are getting the "part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" that they "demand." You just are then recovering it magically quickly. Since they're getting their pay, there's no reason they wouldn't give you the hellfire.


arguably you could say that the strongheart vest, being a part of your vital essence anyway, likely is what they take from instead of your inner goodies. So they still get essentia(l) energy, but you remain unharmed. Being straight immune to it would essentially be them being unable to steal the energy from you at all to make the trade


I would definitely say a dm wouldn't be wrong for ruling that the combo doesnt work though

[Drelua]

It's actually in the description of the ability that causes the Constitution damage: "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." (emphasis added)

You can try to argue that the bolded part is "just flavor" or is somehow negated by the latter portion, but it is definitely in the middle of other rules text, and very clearly is explaining how this power is being granted: "diabolical forces" are taking "part of your essence" and "you cannot use this ability" if they don't get their pay. If you're using a Strongheart Vest, you're not taking the damage, so the diabolical forces don't grant you the hellfire.

Now, as I've said, this is debatable, because you can argue over whether the explanation for why immunity to constitution damage makes you unable to use the feature is actually part of the rules, or just fluff. But it does make intent perfectly clear, and it can arguably be read as clarification on the rest of the rule, not just as something you can ignore in the text.

The reason why Naebarius is a solution that is unquestionable is because there's no question that the "diabolical forces" are getting the "part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" that they "demand." You just are then recovering it magically quickly. Since they're getting their pay, there's no reason they wouldn't give you the hellfire.

This makes much more sense to me than saying Strongheart Vest only works on attacks. Not that I can't understand that reading, just by the text it could go either way to me. But say someone poisons you, Strongheart Vest should reduce the ability damage from that. What if you step in a poisoned bear trap, does that count as an attack? Or you drink the same poison on purpose, because you're a barbarian and someone bet you wouldn't, or maybe you're in a very high stakes drinking game. These definitely aren't attacks, so the vest doesn't protect you from the same poison depending how it was administered? I know that's not really a way to interpret rules, but if the text could go either way I'm going with whatever makes more sense to me.

But if you're not holding up your end of the deal, it makes sense that you don't get the benefit. It's either not going to work, or the demon you made the deal with is going to realize it just got cheated, and no more hellfire for you. At least, not in the way you want, you may be on the receiving end of some hellfire at some point soon. Or maybe not so soon, but for the rest of eternity.

[Elves]

It's actually in the description of the ability that causes the Constitution damage: "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." (emphasis added)

1, that's flavor text. It has no way of functioning as a game-mechanical statement.
2, it's a straightforward x therefore y statement. Because of this reason, the following restrictions apply. The result of the bolded clause is summed in the clause that follows. It's a logically complete sentence. So even if you (wrongly) read the bolded text as crunch, that still gives you no basis to tack on additional restrictions.

I don't know what it is about this trick that gets some peoples' goat. But it's clear as day.

[Drelua]

1, that's flavor text. It has no way of functioning as a game-mechanical statement.
2, it's a straightforward x therefore y statement. Because of this reason, the following restrictions apply. The result of the bolded clause is summed in the clause that follows. It's a logically complete sentence. So even if you (wrongly) read the bolded text as crunch, that still gives you no basis to tack on additional restrictions.

I don't know what it is about this trick that gets some peoples' goat. But it's clear as day.

I can see how it could be considered rules text, it establishes that there is an entity in the setting that is giving you the ability to use hellfire in exchange for something. It's not unreasonable to say that entity will not be happy if you don't hold up your end.

It's kinda like if you had an ability that said you have permission from the king to act in his name as long as you perform a certain service, and just said "cool, thanks, bye" and never did the thing. The GM would probably say you can't keep acting in the king's name, at least not for long, and if you kept using that privilege the king would send some people after you to explain some things, probably with violence. This isn't just an ability your character has, it's a transaction your character is capable of doing but if they don't pay the transaction doesn't happen.

That's one side anyway, I can see it going either way. I don't think you're being fair in saying people just don't like it because they think it's unfair, they're just choosing not to ignore some of the text. Sometimes there's text you have to ignore, and sometimes whether or not you should follow certain text is in a grey area. I think this is a grey area that doesn't have definite answer unless there's something official, which of course we all know isn't going to happen at this point if it hasn't already.

[SangoProduction]

I never said anything about accepting it. You asked if I would take it seriously. I'm not about to laugh someone out of a room because they brought up a point. The point is to have a discussion at the very least. Coming at a subject from multiple angles helps solidify or break down support.

Get out of here with your civil discussion! This is an online forum!
(lol. No, you're good.)

[Darg]

Get out of here with your civil discussion! This is an online forum!
(lol. No, you're good.)

Good riddance! I don't need you guys anyways!
(Gave me a nice chuckle, that did)

[Elves]

I can see how it could be considered rules text,
So, like I said, read it as rules text. "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."

"Because x, y." Because the diabolical forces demand part of your essence, you can't use this ability if you don't have a Con score or are immune to Con damage. There's no basis for conjecturing additional restrictions. A DM who puts more restrictions on is houseruling, which is fine but outside the realm of RAW.


It's not unreasonable to say that entity will not be happy if you don't hold up your end.
So maybe they send a devil after you because they're unhappy with how you're "cheating" them.

A DM could rule that swinging a spiked chain risks hitting adjacent party members, because it's "not unreasonable" that a weapon like that is hard to control. Or they might ban a combo they see as unfair. Neither belongs in a discussion of what's rules-legal.


I can see it going either way.
Like I said, this trick is the opposite of cheese: the permissive reading is the straightforward one, while the detractors try to contort the text in different ways, abandoning good reading practices in order to reach the conclusion they want.

I'm always happy to admit it when something is genuinely ambiguous. This isn't such a case.


Get out of here with your civil discussion! This is an online forum!
(lol. No, you're good.)
If someone seriously claims that DR 1/-- equals damage immunity, it's not uncivil to say that doesn't make sense.

[Segev]

If someone seriously claims that DR 1/-- equals damage immunity, it's not uncivil to say that doesn't make sense.

If you have DR 1/--, and take a 1 hp damage hit, you are immune to that damage.

You can certainly argue the other way, but in context of that 1 hp damage attack, it is not an inarguable thing either way.

Also, if "because x, y is so" has the conditions of x be meaningless to the interpretation of y, you're neither engaging in rules text nor English communication. If x is the cause of y, then that tells you context for how to interpret y.

If you were told, "Because Jeff invented the first fully commercially usable quantum computer, he has exclusive right to the design," but you actually had invented it and had the means to prove it, would you expect the exclusive right to the design to be upheld in a court of law when you offered that proof? The exclusive right is stated clearly to be Jeff's, so even if the because statement is not true nor fulfilled, by your logic the latter clause is unaffected.

I don't actually care, mind you, if a DM rules that a Strongheart Vest works for the hellfire blast. I do care that people understand the debate and not incorrectly assume that any disagreement with their ruling on the issue is obviously wrong or motivated by bias against the result.

[Elves]

If you have DR 1/--, and take a 1 hp damage hit, you are immune to that damage.
As I've pointed out, the text doesn't say "immune to this Constitution damage", "immune to the Constitution damage from this ability" or anything like that. It says "immune to Constitution damage".


If you were told, "Because Jeff invented the first fully commercially usable quantum computer, he has exclusive right to the design," but you actually had invented it and had the means to prove it, would you expect the exclusive right to the design to be upheld in a court of law when you offered that proof? The exclusive right is stated clearly to be Jeff's, so even if the because statement is not true nor fulfilled, by your logic the latter clause is unaffected.
That's a wrongly constructed example. The dynamic here is that you want the "because" statement to mean more than it says -- to imply something that you feel should be an extension of it, but which is not reflected in the text. Using your example, it would be Jeff claiming that because of his invention, he also gets to have his face carved on Mount Rushmore, or gets a monopoly on all quantum computing technology, or whatever.

Jeff may feel that that's the logical extension of him having "invented the first fully commercially usable quantum computer", but legally, that statement only justifies his exclusive rights to his design, nothing else. In the same way, you feel banning Con damage evasion is the logical extension of a statement whose only stated effect is to ban Con damage immunity and people with no Con scores -- but that's not enough to make it RAW.

(This is on top of the issue that the clause you're basing this on doesn't parse as a mechanical statement.)


I do care that people understand the debate and not incorrectly assume that any disagreement with their ruling on the issue is obviously wrong or motivated by bias against the result.
Let's look at the arguments that have been made for it not working. (The very fact that several, in succession, have been suggested, all relying on sketchy readings, should be a sign that this is a motivated argument rather than an honest conclusion.)

1) "You don't take the Constitution damage from hellfire blast, so you're immune to Constitution damage." This statement doesn't compute. Again, the ability doesn't say Con damage from this ability.
2) "The subset clause in sentence 1 ['attacks'] overrules the general clause in sentence 2 ['any']." Like I showed, this is semantically impossible.
3) "A statement which justifies a certain rule should also (even though it need not of necessity) be extended to another rule which I'm suggesting, but which is not present in the text." And that may be a fine ruling to make at your table, but it's not RAW.

None of these are valid. If the sides were reversed and these were arguments for the permissive position, they'd be called shameless cheese and not RAW.

I couldn't care less about this unimportant issue. But rules should be read with rigor and consistency. That's especially important in artificial rule systems like games and law, where unlike in science, there's no physical test you can put them to -- their proofs remain abstract. So the only thing supporting consensus is good faith. That's not something I can force on anyone, so at a point there's nothing more to say, but that's not the same as arguments that were inconclusive.

[YellowJohn]

The reason why i personally needed the definition for immunity was related to 100% fortification counting as an immunity to critical hits. It would also apply to similar abilities that say "auto-negate X kind of effect if it targets you" of which none immediately come to mind

Whether Heavy Fortification counts as 'Immunity' is a topic almost as debated as Hellfire Warlock/Strongheart Vest :smallamused:.

One angle I don't think I've seen discussed before is that other grades of Fortification exist.

Would you allow Light/Moderate fortification to give you a 25%/75% chance to negate any effect to which 'Immunity to Critical Hits' applies?
If 'Yes', then Heavy Fortification is absolutely immunity to Critical Hits.
If 'No', then it feels inconsistent to treat it as such. Note that the 'Fortify' property at no point uses the word Immunity; just because it fits the standard English definition of Immunity doesn't mean it must therefore count as immunity from a RAW perspective. Obviously many people do. Others don't. Only your DM knows which applies at your table.

[MR_Anderson]

RAW will not answer what you are asking, but using deductive reasoning I will answer your question.


100% fortification is technical immunity. You are immune. If you are no longer subject to something you are immune to it. The plant type and undead type say "not subject to critical hits," but other places refer to their "immunity" as an example.

Fortification is not technically immunity. As you mention about “Type” (also “Sub-Type”), immunity is tied to the physical characteristics of a creature or object that is the target. Thus why Elves are immune to sleep.


The reason why i personally needed the definition for immunity was related to 100% fortification counting as an immunity to critical hits. It would also apply to similar abilities that say "auto-negate X kind of effect if it targets you" of which none immediately come to mind

Fortification states that it “Protects” and protecting is not tied to Type.

Immunity is solely a Transmutation school effect.

Protection is mainly Abjuration, but is also found in Divination, Evocation, and Conjuration.

I’d rule Fortification is absolutely not immunity as it states it is a protection, sorry.

However, the way I would possibly consider is if it was argued that the armor stopped the attacking from coming through to the individual, meaning no damage too.

[Drelua]

So, like I said, read it as rules text. "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."

"Because x, y." Because the diabolical forces demand part of your essence, you can't use this ability if you don't have a Con score or are immune to Con damage. There's no basis for conjecturing additional restrictions. A DM who puts more restrictions on is houseruling, which is fine but outside the realm of RAW.

It's not a simple matter of interpreting it as a "because x, y" statement. It also says that there is a powerful evil outsider, probably a Lord of Hell or something, granting you this power in exchange for payment. So why shouldn't a Lord of Hell be able to cut you off if you take something without paying for it? That's a reasonable interpretation of the text. It definitely doesn't trigger the immunity to CON damage clause, but when you use an ability that says its functioning is dependent on an NPC/god/something in between, that text puts the ability's functioning in the hands of the GM. It's a bit like casting miracle, where you ask your god to do a thing and the GM decides if it works. You're buying hellfire from a very powerful entity that gives it to you in exchange for your life force or whatever you want to call it.


So maybe they send a devil after you because they're unhappy with how you're "cheating" them.

So you agree that it's reasonable that the creature granting this power would be unhappy they didn't get their payment, but don't think they could stop providing hellfire? It's not an ability you have, like a sorcerer's inborn magical ability, it's an ability you pay for. There is a creature or creatures agreeing to provide a service, if they don't get paid, you get cut off.


Let's look at the arguments that have been made for it not working. (The very fact that several, in succession, have been suggested, all relying on sketchy readings, should be a sign that this is a motivated argument rather than an honest conclusion.)

1) "You don't take the Constitution damage from hellfire blast, so you're immune to Constitution damage." This statement doesn't compute. Again, the ability doesn't say Con damage from this ability.
2) "The subset clause in sentence 1 ['attacks'] overrules the general clause in sentence 2 ['any']." Like I showed, this is semantically impossible.
3) "A statement which justifies a certain rule should also (even though it need not of necessity) be extended to another rule which I'm suggesting, but which is not present in the text." And that may be a fine ruling to make at your table, but it's not RAW.

None of these are valid. If the sides were reversed and these were arguments for the permissive position, they'd be called shameless cheese and not RAW.

I agree that none of these are valid, but you aren't describing Segev's reasoning accurately. It's not a broad statement on how rules are read, if I'm understanding him right, it's a reaction to the text establishing the source of this power. It's not a question of semantics, but of establishing an in-universe explanation for where the power comes from, not dissimilar to divine magic that comes from a god. When it comes from a powerful outsider, that outsider can take it away if you make them angry. That's a well established component to a lot of magic in D&D.

[Arael666]

Immunities to energy, at least based on the DMG definition of fire immunity and cold immunity, only appear to care about damage and don't seem to apply to any sort of additional mechanical effects or rider effects. Presumably, a creature who is immune to cold could be hit with an orb of cold and take zero damage due to cold immunity, but still be subject to a fortitude save vs. blindness, unless there's a relevant rule somewhere that I'm just not seeing. Or, as Darg mentioned, blistering radiance can still blind a creature that is immune to fire.

I would argue that it depends on the type of immunity and it's description. For instance, the silence spell provides immunity against sonic attacks, as in the attack itself, so anything that is considered an attack (such as a spell with the sonic descriptor that causes hit point damage) would not cause damage or even trigger secondary effects.

Edit:. The silence spell actually says "provides defense", so the target of the spell is not actually immune, the sonic attack is negated by the silence area. I believe this doesn't fall under the "imunity" definition, right?

[MR_Anderson]

However, the way I would possibly consider is if it was argued that the armor stopped the attacking from coming through to the individual, meaning no damage too.

To elaborate, the armor would be immune in this case, and the wearer would not, but would receive protection as he is in side.

This would be like the chicken of the sea being protected from my belly while still inside a can, yet if I find a can opener, it isn’t actually protected from my belly, the can is.

[Raishoiken]

RAW will not answer what you are asking, but using deductive reasoning I will answer your question.



Fortification is not technically immunity. As you mention about “Type” (also “Sub-Type”), immunity is tied to the physical characteristics of a creature or object that is the target. Thus why Elves are immune to sleep

Fortification states that it “Protects” and protecting is not tied to Type.


Immunity does not have to be tied to type, and also someone earlier in the thread found the in game definition for immunity (which i can edit into my post later when i find it), and 100% fortification falls squarely into that definition



Immunity is solely a Transmutation school effect.

Protection is mainly Abjuration, but is also found in Divination, Evocation, and Conjuration.



I’d rule Fortification is absolutely not immunity as it states it is a protection, sorry.


Is "protection" a defined game term like immunity is? If so, and it is a mutually exclusive state from protetion then sure. If it isnt mutually exclusive, it still is an immunity by definition.
Also, spells that grant immunity to things may be mostly or even only transmutatoon school spells, but that wouldn't mean that only transmutation spells get to grant immunity to things



However, the way I would possibly consider is if it was argued that the armor stopped the attacking from coming through to the individual, meaning no damage too.

That would be immunity to damage, not critical hits

[Segev]

As I've pointed out, the text doesn't say "immune to this Constitution damage", "immune to the Constitution damage from this ability" or anything like that. It says "immune to Constitution damage".And you have an argument, there. But you haven't managed to prove that interpreting the described immunity in context of the entire sentence is incorrect. You've only asserted it.


That's a wrongly constructed example. The dynamic here is that you want the "because" statement to mean more than it says -- to imply something that you feel should be an extension of it, but which is not reflected in the text.You asserting that "because" statement doesn't actually mean anything doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate that this is actually true.


Using your example, it would be Jeff claiming that because of his invention, he also gets to have his face carved on Mount Rushmore, or gets a monopoly on all quantum computing technology, or whatever.Incorrect. Nowhere does my argument suggest any such thing, and you have not provided a logical reason to assume that it would extend to there.


Jeff may feel that that's the logical extension of him having "invented the first fully commercially usable quantum computer", but legally, that statement only justifies his exclusive rights to his design, nothing else.And, in fact, Jeff did not invent the first fully commercially usable quantum computer. So the because statement was invalidated. But your argument is that the "because" statement is not relevant to the fact that Jeff has a legal exclusive right to make and sell commercially available quantum computers. So it doesn't matter whether Jeff actually did invent them, or you did, Jeff has the legal right, and there's nothing to be done about it.

That you have to try to pretend Jeff is asking for unrelated things while also pretending Jeff actually DID invent the quantum computer in question, despite neither thing being true in the example I gave, suggests to me that my example cuts to the heart of your argument and proves your argument wrong. Otherwise, you'd be able to address what I said rather than having to try to change it to something entirely different before "refuting" it. Now, maybe you just didn't understand the example, but if so, please explain to me in detail how you go from, "'Because Jeff invented the quantum computer, he has exclusive right to sell them,' except Jeff didn't invent it so you want to prove that you DID, and you expect that will change who has the exclusive right to sell them," to, "Because Jeff invented the quantum computer, he gets to demand his face be put on Mount Rushmore." I don't see the logical connection between my scenario example and your assertion of what it also allows.


In the same way, you feel banning Con damage evasion is the logical extension of a statement whose only stated effect is to ban Con damage immunity and people with no Con scores -- but that's not enough to make it RAW. Except that you're ignoring half of the sentence in order to say that statement "only" bans con damage immunity or lacking a con score. The context is clearly established by the part you're trying to ignore.


(This is on top of the issue that the clause you're basing this on doesn't parse as a mechanical statement.)You have yet to prove this. Asserting it doesn't make it so.


Let's look at the arguments that have been made for it not working. (The very fact that several, in succession, have been suggested, all relying on sketchy readings, should be a sign that this is a motivated argument rather than an honest conclusion.)


None of these are valid. If the sides were reversed and these were arguments for the permissive position, they'd be called shameless cheese and not RAW. Again, assertion doesn't make it so. You haven't shown this to be the case in at least one situation, and are desperately trying to ignore part of the RAW by claiming "it's not mechanical" with no support other than your assertion in order to hold to this position.


I couldn't care less about this unimportant issue.Agreed.


But rules should be read with rigor and consistency.Also agreed.


That's especially important in artificial rule systems like games and law, where unlike in science, there's no physical test you can put them to -- their proofs remain abstract. So the only thing supporting consensus is good faith. That's not something I can force on anyone, so at a point there's nothing more to say, but that's not the same as arguments that were inconclusive.Also true.

And good faith reading of rules and laws must rely on understanding and accepting the context in which they're written. Dismissing something as immaterial is bad faith.

Now, you CAN still argue as you are, because this IS debatable. But it is DEBATABLE, because how much force the "because" clause has is questionable. Personally, again, if a DM ruled that the Strongheart Vest worked, on the basis that it's not immunity, I wouldn't have too much problem with it. I'd ask for the in-game fluff reason why the diabolical powers didn't mind being cheated, and if the DM said they're getting the essence from the essentia invested, I'd marvel at the infinite energy source but I wouldn't really care all that much. It works. I also won't fault any DMs who say, "No, you try to do that, and no hellfire comes forth because the buffer of essentia isn't actually paying the diabolical forces their fee."

Both readings treat the rules with rigor and take into account context.

Note that I'm not reading the "Because" statement as a limiting clause, either. I'm reading it as a clarification clause. Why the rule is there. Given why the rule is there, exactly what constitutes "immunity" is clarified to be "to this damage." No, it doesn't say "to this damage," but it is perfectly clear.

If a rule says, "because sugar is high calorie, you can't have cake and ice cream while on this diet," does that mean you can eat all of the cookies and candy bars you want? They're not cake or ice cream!

What if a rule said, "Because broccoli is good for you, you should eat it with at least one meal per day while on this diet?" Would that mean you could only eat broccoli, since it didn't say you could eat anything else? You may eat it at more than one meal per day, so that's not preventing you from having more than one meal. Just saying you should eat at least one meal that has broccoli in it. It doesn't say you can have anything else, so does that mean you can't?

Or maybe we should interpret "because...is high calorie" and "because...is good for you" as guidelines on how to properly implement and interpret these rules. To give them context.

If the reason magic comes in spell slots is because you literally put cartriges into a spellgun in a setting, and the rules only say "this is why the rules for 3.5 vancian-ish casting work this way here," does that mean that you don't need the gun nor the cartriges to cast spells because that "doesn't parse as rules text?"

[Vaern]

Edit:. The silence spell actually says "provides defense", so the target of the spell is not actually immune, the sonic attack is negated by the silence area. I believe this doesn't fall under the "imunity" definition, right?

Right. I'd consider throwing sonic effects into a silenced area to be akin to casting a magical effect into an anti-magic field. Creatures in the area are not immune to the effect; the effect is simply prevented from functioning altogether.

[Raishoiken]

Right. I'd consider throwing sonic effects into a silenced area to be akin to casting a magical effect into an anti-magic field. Creatures in the area are not immune to the effect; the effect is simply prevented from functioning altogether.

This is in the ballpark of my next question:

Is the static planar trait which prevents outsiders from affecting residents essentially the same? Just an area of "this cant happen" which affects the visitors, rather than an immunity given to residents?

[Elves]

So you agree that it's reasonable that the creature granting this power would be unhappy they didn't get their payment, but don't think they could stop providing hellfire?
A court might get mad at someone for using a legal loophole, but if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean they can be convicted for it. (I think devils would understand legal loopholes better than anyone. Folktales are full of exploits where people cheat the devil of his due.)


It's a bit like casting miracle, where you ask your god to do a thing and the GM decides if it works.
For powerful requests, miracle and wish explicitly rely upon DM adjudication. This doesn't.


It's not a broad statement on how rules are read, if I'm understanding him right, it's a reaction to the text establishing the source of this power. It's not a question of semantics, but of establishing an in-universe explanation for where the power comes from, not dissimilar to divine magic that comes from a god.
A DM decides a good-aligned god refuses to grant a cleric PC a spell with the [evil] descriptor. That's "reasonable", right? After all, the context has been established that the source of the spells is a good-aligned being with a certain moral outlook. Whether you think that's a good rule or not, there's no textual justification for it -- it's a house rule, and doesn't belong in a discussion of what's rules-legal. That a house rule is based on the DM's personal interpretation of the lore doesn't make it any more official.


But you haven't managed to prove that interpreting the described immunity in context of the entire sentence is incorrect. You've only asserted it.
You have yet to prove this. Asserting it doesn't make it so.
The proof is it's not stated in the text. That's not an assertion, that's a fact.
If you want proof that it says "immune to Constitution damage" and not "immune to the Constitution damage from this ability", check the book.


You asserting that "because" statement doesn't actually mean anything doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate that this is actually true.
It does mean something. It means what its consequence is stated to be: you can't use the ability if you have no Con score or are immune to Con damage.


And, in fact, Jeff did not invent the first fully commercially usable quantum computer.
That's mixing my example with yours.
Your example didn't match your argument man. You're not trying to call the validity of clause 1 into question. That would be the equivalent of saying "actually, the hell hounds, not the devils, are granting you hellfire". It's a non sequitur.


Except that you're ignoring half of the sentence in order to say that statement "only" bans con damage immunity or lacking a con score.
That's...exactly what the statement says.


If a rule says, "because sugar is high calorie, you can't have cake and ice cream while on this diet," does that mean you can eat all of the cookies and candy bars you want? They're not cake or ice cream!
And there are many fad diets like that, which claim that cutting out particular foods is enough. It may seem obvious to you that the diet should really be saying "don't eat high calorie foods" ("you can't use this ability if you don't suffer the Con damage"), but in this case it's a no-cake, no ice-cream diet, and there are plenty of ways to make your damage fat in spite of it.

[Segev]

And yet, "because sugar is high in calories, this diet forbids cake and ice cream," is a factual augment with a rule rooted in truth. If you look at what it suggests, you can tell how to apply it. The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written. You can argue all you like that the text doesn't say that, but it does say who is providing the power and what they demand for it.

[Vaern]

This is in the ballpark of my next question:

Is the static planar trait which prevents outsiders from affecting residents essentially the same? Just an area of "this cant happen" which affects the visitors, rather than an immunity given to residents?

The description of static planes in Manual of the Planes says that the effect preventing you from affecting residents or objects on the plane is similar to casting a time stop spell, so it would be a case of "this can't happen" rather than actual immunity.

[Drelua]

A court might get mad at someone for using a legal loophole, but if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean they can be convicted for it. (I think devils would understand legal loopholes better than anyone. Folktales are full of exploits where people cheat the devil of his due.)

For powerful requests, miracle and wish explicitly rely upon DM adjudication. This doesn't.

A DM decides a good-aligned god refuses to grant a cleric PC a spell with the [evil] descriptor. That's "reasonable", right? After all, the context has been established that the source of the spells is a good-aligned being with a certain moral outlook. Whether you think that's a good rule or not, there's no textual justification for it -- it's a house rule, and doesn't belong in a discussion of what's rules-legal. That a house rule is based on the DM's personal interpretation of the lore doesn't make it any more official.

I'm pretty sure the rule is that a good cleric can't cast [evil] spells, so that's not really a "DM decides" situation, but that's beside the point.

What I'm saying is that the feat says that this is a transaction. It's not really comparable to a court being mad about a loophole, because the person on trial isn't expecting the court to give them something. In that situation, the court can't do anything about it. But in this situation, saying the devil lords or whatever can't do anything about it is a huge assumption. It's not a case of "I did an illegal thing but this outdated, forgotten old law says it was technically fine because it was the 12th Thursday of a leap year." It's more like "hey, I know I was supposed to pay all those parking tickets, but when you tried to cash the cheque my account was empty so, can I have my driver's license back now?"

Interpreting that bit as flavour text is completely understandable, but so is interpreting it as a rule. This isn't just a case of establishing rules with "if x, then y" statements, but of establishing how things work in-universe. The text can be interpreted as saying you have to pay for the hellfire, that's not twisting things because it seems unfair, that's looking at how things are stated to work in the setting. If you have to pay the devil a price every time you use a certain power, and you don't pay, it's fair to say you don't get the power.

[Herbert_W]

The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written. You can argue all you like that the text doesn't say that, but it does say who is providing the power and what they demand for it.

Can we at least acknowledge that the people who wrote that text goofed?

The problem here is that the writers wanted the players to not be able to do a certain thing - which is getting hellfire without meaningful ability damage - so they tried to enforce that by banning two specific ways to accomplish that thing. They failed to consider that there are other ways to do that thing.

By analogy, suppose that person A needs person B to stay out of a room. If person A says "Please don't go through that door" and then person B enters through another door, then person A goofed. Sure, person B is in the wrong as well - they disregarded A's clear intent, which is a not-nice thing to do even if it isn't technically against A's stated wishes - but that doesn't change the fact that A should have said "Please stay out of that room."

This situations sucks, because it's not possible to say in advance how any particular DM will rule when mechanics directly contradict lore. When mechanics and lore align (or with strict-RAW games such as MtG or chess) you don't need to plan around a given DM or judge; you are guaranteed to get what the rules say that you get. That guarantee breaks here.

Personally, I'd be inclined to rule that the fiends who demand payment for the use of hellfire made the same mistake in-universe as the writers made IRL. Fiends have a reputation for being geniuses who'll twist every bargain they make in their favor - but that's mostly just propaganda. I'm envisioning the trade-life-for-hellfire system as an automated one that was made deliberately difficult to change so as to prevent other forms of abuse, so the fiends won't be able to do anything to directly stop the players besides setting up high-CR encounters. These fiends might even be persuaded to regard the use of this loophole as an acceptable loss, since it relies on a combination of abilities that are each quite rare, so long as the PCs don't teach this technique to others.

Of course, that's just a solution. It's not the solution to the general problem that players can't predict what a given GM who hasn't seen this trick yet will say. Short of a way to send a message back in time to the writers, that's an unsolvable problem.

[Drelua]

Can we at least acknowledge that the people who wrote that text goofed?

I would be very surprised if there were very many, if any, people on this board not willing to acknowledge this. WotC routinely failed to consider various ways words could be interpreted, which is understandable since they were putting out quite a lot of books when 3.5 was active, but still annoying.

Paizo might be even worse, they expect everyone to read everything they wrote exactly how they intended, and if you ask for clarification there's a decent chance they'll call you a munchkin and say it's obvious. I don't really use the paizo boards, I don't know that I've ever gotten a useful answer there. Any time a google search leads me there, my question is not answered and I'm if anything more confused than I was before I got there. Or I get an answer that makes no sense and ruins the fun thing I thought I could do.

[icefractal]

Paizo might be even worse, they expect everyone to read everything they wrote exactly how they intended, and if you ask for clarification there's a decent chance they'll call you a munchkin and say it's obvious. Oh man, I hate that. Like, I'm fine with:
"Yeah, that's technically broken, but it's almost always houseruled as ___, which works fine." or "The interpretation that's the most functional is ___, so that's the one you should use." or anything of that nature.

But "No it's obvious, it has to work like ___ or it'd be broken, so clearly it does work that way and you'd have to be crazy to think it worked any other way."
Because apparently the writers are perfect and could never make a mistake? You see it in 5E discussions sometimes too - not "this can be fixed by changing ___ slightly" but "since the GM has the power to make rulings, obviously they rule it this way and there is no problem, there was never a problem, there's nothing to discuss here, go away."

Is this something people like? They'd rather have the GM maintain kayfabe and act like the rules are a perfect system passed down from Saint Gygax which can never fail, only be failed? Maybe so.

[Darg]

When going between tables it's nice to have consistency so you don't make costly mistakes. In general though, I don't see these rule lawyering discussions really happen personally. Then again my circles are small. I only ever experience these things online. Awhile back I posited that ki whirlwind and spring attack worked together on the forum here, got a lot of resistance to it, and my DM said that it sounded cool.

Though, sometimes the original quirks in the rules make things interesting. My groups have been playing with charging overruns for years and I learned recently that they were completely removed. We also play with the you can touch up to 6 willing targets as a full-round action rule for touch spells which has been nice. It was kind of a culture shock learning that most people don't play that way even though the rules say you can.

[Drelua]

When going between tables it's nice to have consistency so you don't make costly mistakes. In general though, I don't see these rule lawyering discussions really happen personally. Then again my circles are small. I only ever experience these things online. Awhile back I posited that ki whirlwind and spring attack worked together on the forum here, got a lot of resistance to it, and my DM said that it sounded cool.

Though, sometimes the original quirks in the rules make things interesting. My groups have been playing with charging overruns for years and I learned recently that they were completely removed. We also play with the you can touch up to 6 willing targets as a full-round action rule for touch spells which has been nice. It was kind of a culture shock learning that most people don't play that way even though the rules say you can.

I don't think that's a bad thing, it's useful to have a place to look things up/ask questions where people are very good at interpreting rules and debating them without getting mad. These forums in particular are great for civilized discussion about weird, overly complicated rules. Now, for something like this I'd probably just go with whatever I thought was most fair, but it's good to know what the "right" answer is, or if there even is one.

Rules lawyers are like real lawyers. You may not like them, and you probably don't want to deal with them most of them time, but when you need one you'll be very happy if you can find a good one.

[MR_Anderson]

Immunity does not have to be tied to type, and also someone earlier in the thread found the in game definition for immunity (which i can edit into my post later when i find it), and 100% fortification falls squarely into that definition

“immunity - A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect.“

Notice that immunity is defined as a characteristic of a creature. It is not an ability, it is innate.


Is "protection" a defined game term like immunity is? If so, and it is a mutually exclusive state from protetion then sure. If it isnt mutually exclusive, it still is an immunity by definition.

Protection does not have an entry, or more accurately, I did not find one.


Also, spells that grant immunity to things may be mostly or even only transmutatoon school spells, but that wouldn't mean that only transmutation spells get to grant immunity to things

Transmutation spells change the physical characteristics of things, and since immunity is an innate characteristics this is the school that can provide physical immunities.

You may find an immunity in Abjuration or other schools for non-physical immunities, but the majority come through Transmutation.

Remember, the definition of Immunity says a creature can not suppress their immunity. yet writers use the example of elves suppressing immunity to sleep.


That would be immunity to damage, not critical hits

I was trying to show that immunity isn’t only a characteristic of a creature type or subtype, but also can be an innate characteristic of an object, and how to present Fortification to a DM to argue immunity and not protection.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the difference between Immunity and Protection...
You can be immune to something, and you’re safe.
I can protect you from something, and you’re safe.
You can possibly protect yourself.
However, I can not protect you just because I happen to be immune.
Immunity is an innate characteristic, where as protection can come from many sources and means.

I said at the beginning of my last post, RAW will not answer this, so you have to use critical thinking to bring an understanding to interpretation.

This is how I run immunity and protection when I DM, it falls perfectly within how the game works and makes sense. Players can argue against it, but there is a method behind it that brings structure to the game, and they don’t need question things, as it is a pretty clear standard.

[Elves]

And yet, "because sugar is high in calories, this diet forbids cake and ice cream," is a factual augment with a rule rooted in truth. If you look at what it suggests, you can tell how to apply it.
If someone uses a legal tax loophole, it's factual that they're paying fewer taxes than the law suggests they really should be. But if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean you can convict them of tax evasion. To make what they're doing illegal, you have to change the law (in this case, create a house rule).


The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written.
It's not. It's a story you're telling about what you feel might happen based on the flavor text. In your view, the fact that you're using a legal loophole in the terms the devils have set out would result in them terminating your service. (That explanation is itself full of assumptions -- that this works like cable TV, rather than an ancient pact with limits that were graven in stone three thousand years ago, or any other explanation you could make up).

To myself and Herbert_W, the story is that, like a good warlock, you've made a pact with Hell and then used a loophole to outsmart the devils at their own game (the oldest recorded folktale, The Smith and the Devil, is about doing just that). Someone else might tell the story that because your strongheart vest doesn't make you immune to Con damage, the devils actually are skimming soul energy from you, but the strongheart vest prevents you from suffering any physical detriment from it. Someone else might agree with you that the devils would be mad, but say the result is that they'd send bounty hunters after you and blacklist you from making any further pacts.

It's not about which of us is "right" -- it's that we've moved outside of the rules and into the realm of narrative conjecture. The text states the specific limits the devils have set. You may feel that those limits are inadequate to achieve their purpose, but a house rule isn't RAW just because [you feel] it fulfills the RAI. That's rules lawyering 101.


The problem here is that the writers wanted the players to not be able to do a certain thing - which is getting hellfire without meaningful ability damage - so they tried to enforce that by banning two specific ways to accomplish that thing. They failed to consider that there are other ways to do that thing.
It's a lesson in rule writing. Tell people what the destination is instead of trying to close every road that doesn't lead there. It's more efficient and less open to loopholes. Of course, exploitability also makes for interesting character building.

[Drelua]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text. It's in the middle of an ability description, sandwiched in between the rule that says you take 1 con damage and the con damage immunity clause. If you read that as rules text, clarifying the previous statement as well as setting up the next, then the ability doesn't function unless you actually pay for it.

You're certain it's not rules text, which is fine, but you're also saying anyone that says it is rules text is saying so in bad faith, out of some bias against that I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrate. If it cannot possibly be rules text, why? What rule is there that something like that phrase cannot be a rule?

The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact." The story I'm telling is that the diabolical forces demanding your essence in exchange for this power is a thing that happens every time you use this power. The reason I can see this interpretation working is because that phrase is in the middle of the paragraph describing what happens when you activate the power. Whether or not their demand must be met for the ability to function isn't entirely clear, but it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the text.

Personally, I'd probably allow the Strongheart Vest to work, Eldritch Blast damage doesn't scale great so 3 levels and a feat for +6d6 isn't too unfair. You're still probably behind 1d6/level, so it's not like you'll be oneshotting everything, or likely anything level appropriate. So I'm definitely not biased against it working. I just think you're deciding something is flavour text when that's very rarely where flavour text goes.

[Crichton]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text. It's in the middle of an ability description, sandwiched in between the rule that says you take 1 con damage and the con damage immunity clause. If you read that as rules text, clarifying the previous statement as well as setting up the next, then the ability doesn't function unless you actually pay for it.

You're certain it's not rules text, which is fine, but you're also saying anyone that says it is rules text is saying so in bad faith, out of some bias against that I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrate. If it cannot possibly be rules text, why? What rule is there that something like that phrase cannot be a rule?

It doesn't matter if it's rules text or not. That sentence doesn't say 'if you mitigate or otherwise don't pay the price demanded, this ability doesn't work.' But even if you take that entire sentence as rules text (which I think it is), it doesn't prohibit mitigation of the Con damage, aside from the specific means it lists.


The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact."

You're incorrect here. In order to become a Hellfire Warlock and to have this particular ability, you have to come from the Warlock base class, which states "Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power." (Complete Arcane pg 5)

So any user of this ability is indeed chained by a pact, as is the extraplanar entity that grants them their abilities. As has been mentioned, finding loopholes in 'deals with the devil' is a very very common plot point in virtually all myths about the subject.

Not that it matters, since the rules text of the Hellfire Blast class ability, including the sentence you referenced above, is ironclad in that it doesn't prevent mitigation from negating its function. ONLY being immune to Con damage or not having a Con score at all can prevent this ability from function, and nothing else can, unless the rules text is altered.



Whether or not their demand must be met for the ability to function isn't entirely clear, but it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the text.
Again, incorrect. It IS entirely clear from the text, and thus is not a reasonable conclusion. The text says only 2 different and specific conditions can prevent the ability from functioning, and reduction of Con damage isn't one of those conditions.

The reasons why those stated conditions prevent it are described in the text, but that doesn't allow the rules to be extended to allow other conditions to prevent it from functioning, no matter how much those other conditions are in the spirit of the reasons given. Those reasons do provide ample justification for an alteration to the text via a houserule, but by the text itself, it does not and cannot prevent Hellfire Blast from functioning if the Con damage is reduced (even if it's reduced to zero, since that's not the same as immunity, according to the listed definition of immunity quoted earlier)

[Darg]

I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?

[Crichton]

I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?

That's a tricky issue, and one whose ruling is irrelevant to the RAW of the hellfire warlock debate, since there's no comparable rules language in BoED to compare to the Hellfire Blast wording. The trick is, most components have to be provided as/before the spell is cast, but the Sacrifice component of Sanctified spells explicitly doesn't occur until AFTER the spell's duration expires, which means that the spell has already happened before the check to see if you're capable of paying that cost.

[Elves]

The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact." The story I'm telling is that the diabolical forces demanding your essence in exchange for this power is a thing that happens every time you use this power.
My point is that once you're telling stories, you've gone past RAW and into speculation.


I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?


A sanctified spell usually has no material compo-nents (exceptions are noted). Instead, it drawspower from the sacrifice of the spellcaster in theform of ability damage, ability drain, or occasion-ally greater sacrifices (a level or even the caster’slife). The sacrifice occurs when the spell’s durationexpires.
The vest applies "any time" you take ability damage, so it should apply.

The counterargument would have to be that a "sacrifice in the form of ability damage" means not just taking the ability damage but actually suffering it. While that's an iffy distinction to draw, "sacrifice" isn't a formal term so it's not against RAW.

The problem is the ability damage comes at the end of the spell's duration, so you could hardly stop someone from casting the spell on that account.

In order to do so, you'd have to rule either that the sacrifice damage ignores the strongheart vest or that you can't cast the spell at all if you have the vest shaped or have some other form of immunity. Both of which do go beyond RAW.

- Eh, ninja'd.

[Drelua]

You're incorrect here. In order to become a Hellfire Warlock and to have this particular ability, you have to come from the Warlock base class, which states "Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power." (Complete Arcane pg 5)

Yes, Warlocks have a contract, but I don't think it's fair to assume that contract encompasses a prestige class representing "a secretive group of specialist warlocks." Their contract gives them the ability to be a Warlock, I don't think it encompasses everything that can be done with the abilities they get from that. They're chained by a contract, yes, but I don't see how that contract applies to the class features of a specific prestige class, even one tailored for Warlocks. I have a lease agreement, doesn't mean that contract does much of anything when I'm buying furniture except give me a place to put the furniture.


My point is that once you're telling stories, you've gone past RAW and into speculation.

I have to disagree with that, some abilities are complicated enough that they can't be interpreted in a way that doesn't involve complex interaction with a specific NPC or other entity. Geas/quest, planar binding, dominate person, all involve a series of situation-specific interactions and commands that I would say form as much of a story as this. If telling stories is automatically not RAW, then neither is making a Paladin fall for committing an evil act. D&D is largely about telling stories, something so integral to the point of the system can't be entirely separated from the rules. Well, in theory it's about story telling, in practice it's about violence and dice.

I'm being told that line has to be flavour text because there's no way to interpret it as a rule, but I've already said how I can see it being interpreted it as a rule. It's an exchange that happens every time. Strongheart Vest prevents the exchange from occurring. Not how I'd rule it, but I can see how some people would see it that way. I tend to take rules as a suggestion for actual play anyway.

But I think at this point it's clear we're not about to suddenly see eye to eye on this, so I'm gonna try not to repeat myself too much more than I already have.

[Zombimode]

Regarding "flavour text": can you guys point me to book and page where this is defined?

Something like "This part of the description is flavour text. It has no bearing on the functioning of the spell/ability."

Because I can't find it in my D&D 3.5 rule books. I can find it in D&D 4e, and in MTG. But not in 3.5.


To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.

[Crichton]

I'm being told that line has to be flavour text because there's no way to interpret it as a rule, but I've already said how I can see it being interpreted it as a rule.


No, you're not being told that. Did you read my earlier post? Even when you read that line as rules text, it still ONLY prevents Hellfire Blast from function in two specifically listed circumstances, neither of which is reduction or mitigation of the ability damage.

What specific clause in that text is leading you to believe it can prevent the function of Hellfire Blast for a character who has a Con score and isn't immune to Con damage?

[Drelua]

No, you're not being told that. Did you read my earlier post? Even when you read that line as rules text, it still ONLY prevents Hellfire Blast from function in two specifically listed circumstances, neither of which is reduction or mitigation of the ability damage.

What specific clause in that text is leading you to believe it can prevent the function of Hellfire Blast for a character who has a Con score and isn't immune to Con damage?

People are saying it's flavour text, so yes, I am being told that. I didn't say you said it. If you interpret the line saying it's an exchange as rules text, then it's reasonable to think that exchange isn't occuring if you don't give anything. Getting something for nothing is, by definition, not an exchange.

Is there a clear rule anywhere on what happens if you're protected from paying the cost of activating an ability? Not that I'm aware of, but there could be one somewhere. Unless there is, I still think this could go either way.

[Darg]

Regarding "flavour text": can you guys point me to book and page where this is defined?

Something like "This part of the description is flavour text. It has no bearing on the functioning of the spell/ability."

Because I can't find it in my D&D 3.5 rule books. I can find it in D&D 4e, and in MTG. But not in 3.5.


To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.

If it isn't italicized it is all part of how an effect works (quote at the bottom). The spell with the most egregious example of descriptive text with influence and minimal mechanical advantage would be the spell Foresight. It has 3 lines of mechanical benefit and 20 others describing what the spell allows you to do without mechanical reinforcement.

This idea that part of the descriptive text has no bearing because another part has a contentious reading has no basis in RAW. As RAW points out:


DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
This portion of a soulmeld description details what the soulmeld does and how it works in its most basic form. The effect can be enhanced or modified by investing essentia into the meld or binding it to a chakra.

There is no flavour text in that.


Descriptive Passages: The first thing you’re likely to note is a descriptive passage in italics. This serves much the same purpose as the italicized descriptions of monsters in the Monster Manual: It lets you know what the spell looks like, sounds like, or feels like to cast. The text in this section presents the spell from the spellcaster’s view and describes what its typically like to cast the spell. The descriptive passages shouldn’t be considered to be binding rules. A grand gesture indicated by a spell’s descriptive passage is unnecessary if you use the Still Spell feat to cast it, and even though a descriptive passage describes you casting a spell on another creature, it might be possible to cast the spell on yourself, depending on the spell’s target entry and the rules for spellcasting in the Player’s Handbook.

The only non-rules text is italicized. Even if something doesn't have a direct mechanical benefit, it still shapes how it can be used.

[Herbert_W]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.

[Raishoiken]

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.


Isn't essentia like.. soul energy or something? i haven't read incarnum in a minute, but i think tricking the fiends with that energy instead of their normal stuff should fit thematically. Chronos ate a rock and didnt notice so maybe it could be something similar

[Elves]

People are saying it's flavour text, so yes, I am being told that.
It's not "ignore that text". It's that it doesn't support the extrapolated consequences Segev argued for, because its consequence is clearly stated.


To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.
Exactly. Everything is read "as rules text". To say something is flavor text isn't an assertion that it's invalid, but an observation on its lack of import as rules text. In the bluesteel bracers example I quoted: "Because war has always been a part of mortal history, warrior souls are plentiful." This doesn't have any effect on the in-game use of the bracers, but that's not because I say so, I say so because it doesn't. In this case, the clause under discussion serves to justify the clause that follows; there's no basis in the text for extending its import; and because it could therefore be trimmed without affecting the game-mechanical use of the ability, it can fairly be called flavor text, but that's not actually a tenet of my argument.

[Drelua]

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.

That's probably the most reasonable interpretation. I just don't think it would be wrong, strictly speaking, to argue that since it says 'diabolical forces demand in exchange...' in the section describing what happens when you activate the ability, in the same sentence that says you take 1 con damage when you use hellfire it doesn't work if you're immune to con damage, I can see room for an argument that it doesn't work unless there is an exchange. Since an exchange requires a give and take, if you take no con damage I don't think it can accurately be called an exchange.

Not how I'd rule it, but I can see it being a viable interpretation. I wouldn't argue with a GM for going with that reasoning.

[Raishoiken]

That's probably the most reasonable interpretation. I just don't think it would be wrong, strictly speaking, to argue that since it says 'diabolical forces demand in exchange...' in the section describing what happens when you activate the ability, in the same sentence that says you take 1 con damage when you use hellfire, I can see room for an argument that it doesn't work unless there is an exchange. Since an exchange requires a give and take, if you take no con damage I don't think it can accurately be called an exchange.

Not how I'd rule it, but I can see it being a viable interpretation. I wouldn't argue with a GM for going with that reasoning.


with quotes like:
incarnum being

very literally, the
essence of all creatures


and

esentia being

the substance of a character’s personal soul energy


i think it may be fair to say the fact that it's a field of essentia/incarnum covering your booty when it comes to the con damage, that the powers at be may just be getting their dues through that means rather than through a more harmful method. Since it's in a conveniently manifested field and all, its probably a much less painful process

[Drelua]

with quotes like:
incarnum being

and

esentia being

i think it may be fair to say the fact that it's a field of essentia/incarnum covering your booty when it comes to the con damage, that the powers at be may just be getting their dues through that means rather than through a more harmful method. Since it's in a conveniently manifested field and all, its probably a much less painful process

That's more of a justification than an interpretation. But it's also sort of like saying "I tried to give you that money I owe you, but there was an impenetrable barrier between us that I made out of money, so I couldn't get it to you. So we're even right?" It might be made of the stuff they want, but if they aren't getting any of it, then it doesn't really matter what it's made of. There's still no exchange happening.

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

[Herbert_W]

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

One should always CYA when working with fiends.

[Raishoiken]

That's more of a justification than an interpretation. But it's also sort of like saying "I tried to give you that money I owe you, but there was an impenetrable barrier between us that I made out of money, so I couldn't get it to you. So we're even right?" It might be made of the stuff they want, but if they aren't getting any of it, then it doesn't really matter what it's made of. There's still no exchange happening.

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

i'm positing that it's possible that they're taking what they want from the barrier made of soul bits, rather than from your inner soul bits still inside you



One should always CYA when working with fiends.

Precisely

[Drelua]

i'm positing that it's possible that they're taking what they want from the barrier made of soul bits, rather than from your inner soul bits still inside you

It works as an explanation, but since no rule says that you lose anything when your Strongheart Vest protects you it isn't really supported in the text. It works, but there's nothing in the rules that says it should be true.

[Elves]

But it shows you that once we're arguing about the fluff implications surrounding an ability, there are many possible explanations. None of them are right or wrong -- that's for the DM to decide -- but none of them are based in the text, even if they're extrapolated from it.

[icefractal]

The flavor's a bit weird the intended way too.
"At any cost ... I must win ... Hellfire Blast! I can feel fragments of my soul being ripped away ... my life force fades ..."
* drinks potion of Lesser Restoration *
"Oh, huh. That fixed it. I guess a 2nd level spell can grow more soul essence."

[Drelua]

But it shows you that once we're arguing about the fluff implications surrounding an ability, there are many possible explanations. None of them are right or wrong -- that's for the DM to decide -- but none of them are based in the text, even if they're extrapolated from it.

That much I can agree with, but my reasoning is entirely based on the text. I'm not really trying to argue for a certain interpretation over any other, which I may not have made clear, I just don't think there has to be just one viable interpretation. Unless there's a reason the line about it being an exchange can't be enforced as a rule, I don't think there's anything proving that it should go one way or the other. It's arcane magic, but it's also something close to a divine source. Archfiends can have clerics, so having it work like divine magic in that the diabolical forces can say you can't have hellfire if you don't pay for it makes sense to me. I wouldn't object to someone ruling that the demand for your essence works similarly to a deity demanding worship, or that their tenets are followed, in exchange for a cleric's access to spells.

[MR_Anderson]

But it shows you that once we're arguing about the fluff implications surrounding an ability, there are many possible explanations. None of them are right or wrong -- that's for the DM to decide -- but none of them are based in the text, even if they're extrapolated from it.

I agree and disagree with this.

I disagree that the understanding of immunity can not be extrapolated. I’ve tried to explain this extrapolation, but admit that there are actual mistakes in the books when talking about Immunity.

I do however very much agree that it is the DM’s decision, because it isn’t directly RAW.

[tiercel]

I’m not sure that it should be surprising that “immunity” generally is problematic, given the infamous special case of golem “Immunity to Magic” which is not, in fact, immunity to magic (go ahead and Fiery Burst or orb of force that “immune to magic” stone golem into inert shards with your magic, haha).

[Vaern]

I prefer how 3.0 Immunity to Magic worked for golems.

IIRC, epic creatures like demiliches and epic golems still have 3.0 magic immunity after being updated for 3.5 which grants full immunity to all magic and supernatural effects.
Demiliches also have turn resistance, despite turn undead being (Su) meaning that they are already fully immune to it.

[Segev]

If someone uses a legal tax loophole, it's factual that they're paying fewer taxes than the law suggests they really should be. But if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean you can convict them of tax evasion. To make what they're doing illegal, you have to change the law (in this case, create a house rule).

Technically, there are no "tax loopholes." Tax law is tax law.

There is not, to my knowledge, any "intent" written into it. Literally none. It doesn't say, "Because this money is earned through grinding up orphans, there is an orphan tax," or anything like that. If there's an orphan tax, the tax law just says, "$X per ton of orphans over Y ground up in Z time," or something along those lines. There might be intent inferred from that, but nothing else.

In contracts, on the other hand, my understanding is that a clear intent-line such as the one spelled out in the Hellfire Warlock's rules would be used to very carefully parse the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

Yes, it should have been written differently to remove all ambiguity. "If you do not [take this damage], you do not [get the effect]," would be the cleanest way to write it, I think. Where the bracketed bits can be edited to specify clearly the constitution damage and the hellfire blast's extra damage, etc. etc.

Regardless, I am not actually arguing that you're WRONG if you read it the other way, and discount the "because" clause as having zero effect. I am simply saying that it is arguable. And that Naebarius inarguably solves the problem for the warlock, while the vest may or may not do so depending on a DM's ruling.

[Herbert_W]

That's probably the most reasonable interpretation. I just don't think it would be wrong, strictly speaking, to argue that since it says 'diabolical forces demand in exchange...' in the section describing what happens when you activate the ability . . .

OK, that's interesting. I interpreted the phrase "demand in exchange" to represent a general state of affairs, not an event that occurs each and every time a hellfire warlock uses this ability. Your interpretation implies that an individual or group of fiends is actively involved in the exchange every time it happens. The active involvement of fiends would make it harder to cheat the system.


. . . I can see room for an argument that it doesn't work unless there is an exchange. Since an exchange requires a give and take, if you take no con damage I don't think it can accurately be called an exchange.


Ooh, that's also interesting. You're envisioning this exchange as working like a vending machine - you put "part of your essence" in and get hellfire out, right?

However, the only mention of an exchange in the rules is the phrase "demand in exchange." This means that what is demanded is expected as the return-half of an exchange. Nothing says that an exchange must occur, only that it is demanded.

To spell this out more clearly, the rules state is that:


"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"
#1 above is the cause of #2 above.


There's no mention of how #1 causes #2 in RAW, only that the causal relationship exists. Maybe the fiends proactively refuse to give hellfire to people who they know are unable to pay. Maybe the payment must be rendered before the hellfire is delivered, like a vending machine. Maybe it's something else.

Heck, the rules don't even nail down the relationship between "part of your essence" and the ability damage! Maybe the ability damage is the removal of essence. Maybe this is a "blood is the silver of the will" type of situation, where the con damage is like a straw that allows the fiends to slurp a sip of soulstuff - which requires a person to be able to take con damage to work, but not necessarily that they actually take it. Maybe it's something else.

We can easily fill in answers to those questions. We can declare that the fiends are like a vending machine, not debt collectors. We can rule that the ability damage is inherently necessary for or identical to the essence transfer. These are all viable interpretations.

Viable, however, is not the same thing as RAW.


The flavor's a bit weird the intended way too.
"At any cost ... I must win ... Hellfire Blast! I can feel fragments of my soul being ripped away ... my life force fades ..."
* drinks potion of Lesser Restoration *
"Oh, huh. That fixed it. I guess a 2nd level spell can grow more soul essence."

I think the flavor here is fine, so long as we assume that Lesser Restoration gets a small snippet of soul from somewhere in order to replace what was lost instead of regrowing it. Presumably whatever God grants the spell will also supply substitutory soulstuff, albeit in small quantity commensurate to the level of the spell.

Thematically, this is pretty strong. A cleric working with a hellock might think that they're doing the world some good as they repeatedly cast LR on their buddy to enable them to take down monsters - unaware that they're slowly siphoning the soul-substance supplied by their deity down into hell.

[MR_Anderson]

Technically, there are no "tax loopholes." Tax law is tax law.

THANK YOU!!!

No one complains about the “Tax Loophole” deduction for being single/married/head of household to reduce your tax payment.

[Raishoiken]

IIRC, epic creatures like demiliches and epic golems still have 3.0 magic immunity after being updated for 3.5 which grants full immunity to all magic and supernatural effects.
Demiliches also have turn resistance, despite turn undead being (Su) meaning that they are already fully immune to it.

Wouldn't orb spells still function on things immune to magic anyway just like vs 3.5 golems??? Isn't all of the magic gone once the orb is conjured and propelled? like it'd be just mundane acid at that point in the case of orb of acid? Sure it's the result of magic but isn't actually magic at that point right? Like if i fabricate some iron into a guillotine wouldn't that guillotine still cut a 3.0 golem's arm off?

[Elves]

In contracts, on the other hand, my understanding is that a clear intent-line such as the one spelled out in the Hellfire Warlock's rules would be used to very carefully parse the meaning of the rest of the sentence.
The rule of thumb is for ambiguity to be interpreted against the party that wrote the contract. And the terms, in this case, are unambiguous.

Plus, the involvement of a court in modifying a contract goes beyond RAW.


THANK YOU!!!

No one complains about the “Tax Loophole” deduction for being single/married/head of household to reduce your tax payment.
Loophole is a term of judgment, not a legal term. It suggests that something is an unintended way to evade a restriction. Here we have the strongheart vest loophole.

[Herbert_W]

No one complains about the “Tax Loophole” deduction for being single/married/head of household to reduce your tax payment.

This conversation is straying dangerously close to being political, so I'll be vague: people can and do complain about pretty much every aspect of taxes - but even people who complain about those features don't call them loopholes, because they know that they are deliberate incentive structures. It's not a loophole if it's neither accidental nor hidden.

I'd also like to second what Elves said, that "loophole" is a term of judgement, not law. Here's an old joke that I'm sure you've heard:


In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

The same principle applies to loopholes. According to the rules, there's no loopholes, but in people's judgement of the rules, there are some. No rule or law will explicitly say "this is a loophole" - either because the loophole is unintentional and the writers don't know to point it out, or because it's intentional and they're trying to hide it. "Loophole" is a term of judgement that indicates an exploitable difference between the way that the rules do function and how they should function.

[tiercel]

I prefer how 3.0 Immunity to Magic worked for golems.

Right? It pretty much lived up to the name, and required casters to

know specific golem weaknesses and prepare those spells, and/or
use magic that only has indirect effects, and/or
(gasp) actually rely on working with noncasters


not a form of “immunity” that meant


“welp, lemme staple “SR: No” onto my not-fireball and just blast this “magic immune” creature to bits with my magic”

[icefractal]

True magic immunity is harder to define though. What exactly does being "immune" to Wall of Stone mean? You can walk through one?

Sure, things like the Orb series are easy - because the Orb of X spells are garbage conceptually (they're ok mechanically, but personally I'd make them Evocation with a built-in +10 vs SR instead). And there's some other "SR: No because Conjuration" spells like Acid Arrow that you can easily figure out. But for a lot of spells the interaction is less obvious.

An antimagic field extending 1" from the creature that doesn't affect its own spells/effects would be one possibility. That's not quite the same, and would give some additional benefits (ignoring some protective spells when melee attacking, for instance), but it seems legit as an ability for high-CR creatures.

[Drelua]

OK, that's interesting. I interpreted the phrase "demand in exchange" to represent a general state of affairs, not an event that occurs each and every time a hellfire warlock uses this ability. Your interpretation implies that an individual or group of fiends is actively involved in the exchange every time it happens. The active involvement of fiends would make it harder to cheat the system.



Ooh, that's also interesting. You're envisioning this exchange as working like a vending machine - you put "part of your essence" in and get hellfire out, right?

However, the only mention of an exchange in the rules is the phrase "demand in exchange." This means that what is demanded is expected as the return-half of an exchange. Nothing says that an exchange must occur, only that it is demanded.

To spell this out more clearly, the rules state is that:


"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"
#1 above is the cause of #2 above.


There's no mention of how #1 causes #2 in RAW, only that the causal relationship exists. Maybe the fiends proactively refuse to give hellfire to people who they know are unable to pay. Maybe the payment must be rendered before the hellfire is delivered, like a vending machine. Maybe it's something else.

Heck, the rules don't even nail down the relationship between "part of your essence" and the ability damage! Maybe the ability damage is the removal of essence. Maybe this is a "blood is the silver of the will" type of situation, where the con damage is like a straw that allows the fiends to slurp a sip of soulstuff - which requires a person to be able to take con damage to work, but not necessarily that they actually take it. Maybe it's something else.

We can easily fill in answers to those questions. We can declare that the fiends are like a vending machine, not debt collectors. We can rule that the ability damage is inherently necessary for or identical to the essence transfer. These are all viable interpretations.

Viable, however, is not the same thing as RAW.

I'm not really talking about a causal relationship, just a way of interpreting how a demand from a source of power works. I guess it's not 100% clear that the CON damage is the "part of your essence," but it's the most logical explanation. But a series of maybes isn't an argument that this isn't RAW, just that the RAW is ambiguous.

If clerics of archfiends can be prevented from preparing spells for being Good or doing something else to make them unhappy, why shouldn't "diabolical forces" be able to block someone from accessing hellfire if they didn't pay for it? I'm not talking about in universe stories or explanations, but rules that say how this works. The rules text says this is an exchange, so why should it work if you're losing nothing and therefore not performing an exchange? You could argue that you're giving something that isn't measured in game terms, but that isn't clearly supported in the text. Why shouldn't the diabolical forces be able to enforce their demands?

Unless there's a rules answer to those questions, which there could be but I haven't seen it yet, I'm not convinced there is one RAW explanation. Some things are unclear and don't have one right answer. I think this is one of them. When I say a viable interpretation, I mean a ruling that [I]could/I] be RAW, that doesn't go against the rules in any way, not a ruling that can work in practice. So unless there are other rules providing clarification, I don't think one ruling is any 'more RAW' than the other.

[tiercel]

True magic immunity is harder to define though. What exactly does being "immune" to Wall of Stone mean? You can walk through one?

Sure, things like the Orb series are easy - because the Orb of X spells are garbage conceptually (they're ok mechanically, but personally I'd make them Evocation with a built-in +10 vs SR instead). And there's some other "SR: No because Conjuration" spells like Acid Arrow that you can easily figure out. But for a lot of spells the interaction is less obvious.

An antimagic field extending 1" from the creature that doesn't affect its own spells/effects would be one possibility. That's not quite the same, and would give some additional benefits (ignoring some protective spells when melee attacking, for instance), but it seems legit as an ability for high-CR creatures.

Presumably Wall of Stone would be a desirable option since the magic does not directly interact with the golem at all, and the result is actually nonmagical (unlike grease or glitterdust, which rely on a spell’s duration to exist, can be dispelled, etc.; note that even the “one inch antimagic” would do nothing to the stone).

Heck, the golem creator/owner would have to know of such a tactic and give it specific orders about what to do in case of sudden new wall, because with Int 0 by default a golem would likely just... stop reacting once walled off from any apparent intrusion/threat.

—Also on rereading I missed that golem 3.5 Immunity to Magic is supposed to stop most Su effects, which is even more puzzling because Su normally bypasses SR, but golems can ignore Su that don’t target their exceptions, but NOT no-SR spells. What.

[Crichton]

I'm not really talking about a causal relationship,

Then you're either not reading the same text the rest of us are, or aren't familiar with the way subordinate clauses work in English grammar. The part of this sentence you're having this hangup about is a subordinate clause, which means it needs a main clause to make it complete and cannot be taken as a complete thought or sentence by itself. This is not open to interpretation, it's the base meaning of the 'Because [X]' structure in English.

In this case, the text of the 'Because' clause serves no other rules purpose AT ALL other than to explain why the main clause is in effect.


The sentence structure here is not ambiguous in any way.
Here, let's try structuring it out and giving it the reversal test:


Because [REASONS], if [CONDITIONS], you cannot use this ability.

or flipped around, the meaning is still the same:

If [CONDITIONS], you cannot use this ability, because [REASONS].


Grammatically the main clause of this sentence is 'you cannot use this ability' and that clause is qualified by the conditional clause 'If [CONDITIONS]'
The reason for those qualifications are then explained by the subordinate because clause. But the because clause doesn't add any further restrictions to the main clause or to the conditional clause, nor can it operate independently. That's the very meaning of what a subordinate clause is.


This is not in any way grammatically ambiguous or open to multiple conflicting interpretations, at least from the grammatical standpoint.

(More info on how subordinate clauses work here (https://www.grammarly.com/blog/subordinate-clause/), and on 'because' clauses here (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/because-because-of-and-cos-cos-of) because I'm a grammar nerd and grad student in linguistics and can't help but cite sources)






why shouldn't "diabolical forces" be able to block someone from accessing hellfire if they didn't pay for it? I'm not talking about in universe stories or explanations, but rules that say how this works.

Why shouldn't the? Because the rules don't say that's how this works. They say it works a different way. That's why.


The rules text says this is an exchange,
No, that's not what the rules text says. The rules text says that this being an exchange is the reason why the two specific listed items can cause this not to work. That's all the rules text says, and nothing more



I'm not convinced there is one RAW explanation. Some things are unclear and don't have one right answer. I think this is one of them. When I say a viable interpretation, I mean a ruling that [I]could/I] be RAW, that doesn't go against the rules in any way, not a ruling that can work in practice. So unless there are other rules providing clarification, I don't think one ruling is any 'more RAW' than the other.


You keep saying RAW, but the only RAW part of your position here stems from a misunderstanding of what the rules text is actually saying and what it can be applied to. The because clause you base your whole argument on does not and cannot impose the restrictions you are saying it does.
It can and does provide ample justification for a DM to alter this text via houserule, but that's a RAI, not RAW, position to take.

[Vaern]

Sure, things like the Orb series are easy - because the Orb of X spells are garbage conceptually (they're ok mechanically, but personally I'd make them Evocation with a built-in +10 vs SR instead). And there's some other "SR: No because Conjuration" spells like Acid Arrow that you can easily figure out. But for a lot of spells the interaction is less obvious.

I agree. I may or may not have gone on a rant about them at some point. I don't remember if it was on here or elsewhere. But for good measure, I'll go ahead and spoiler my rant.

Conjuration (creation) = manipulation of matter to create an object or creature. Acid fits because it's a physical material, which just happens to deal damage in a way that resembles the more conventional energy types in the game and is therefore treated as such (Rules Compendium sidebar). There are also things like incendiary cloud which creates a cloud of smoke and white-hot embers, but not straight-up pure fire energy.

Evocation = manipulation of energy to create a desired effects. Throwing balls of fire at people, blasting foes with deadly frost, hurling lightning, creating sound so loud it scrambles people's innards into jelly, and sniping people with projectiles of pure force are all common effects of evocation. Every orb spell other than orb of acid is straight-up blasting with different forms of energy, which is generally what you would expect to be evocation.

Conjuration spells typically don't scale by damage with level. As far as core spells go, acid arrow, acid fog, and incendiary cloud all deal static damage; you're creating or summoning the same kind of acid which is going to be the same strength regardless, and being a more powerful conjurer only allows you to keep the effect in existence for longer. Other conjurations like summon monster and the like are similar: Simply having a higher caster level doesn't allow you to summon anything more powerful - you need a new, higher-level spell for that. Of course, once you step away from core you start seeing exceptions here and there that don't follow this trend - like the Orb spells.

Evocation spells tend to either scale directly with level (typically 1d6/level) or produce additional projectiles that effectively amount to straight damage output (ie magic missile, scorching ray). Being a more powerful evoker means you can pump more power directly into your spells, making the immediate effect more potent.

They're basically consistent with what you might expect from offensive evocation spells, both conceptually and mechanically. Blast things with energy, pure and simple. Just make them evocations with SR: Yes. And there's no need to add any built-in spell penetration on top of that - they're already decently strong as-is.

When creating and balancing new content for the homebrew section I like to look at existing similar effects (if available), comparing my homebrew shenanigans to what's already out there as a way to determine whether it's overpowered. Let's apply this to orb of cold. It's a short-range single-target attack that scales with caster level. If we look for similar effects, we can find polar ray as a single-target attack with the exact same damage scaling with the exact same range... but with a few minor differences.
The orb only verbal/somatic components, while the ray requires a focus and thus can't be used if your spell components are lost or stolen.
The orb carries an extra rider effect on a failed save.
The orb ignores spell resistance.
The orb is available 4 spell levels earlier on top of that meaning you can easily justify learning more varieties, have more spell slots to cast them from, and they have more room for metamacking.
Plus, if you don't like cold damage or blinding your target, the orb was made as a series of spells and is readily available every flavor, compared to the ray which as far as I'm aware (and I may easily be mistaken) is the only ray that just deals straight damage with no save and would require a feat investment for energy substitution.
Honestly, I think Polar Ray is just a bit weak for its level and the only reason it's set at 8 is to boost its damage cap to 25d6. But the fact that the orb spells have so many benefits over it and are essentially strictly better versions of the same spell at a significantly lower level speaks to power creep. They would still be potent single-target blasting spells if you took their SR: No away - just maybe not so potent that they remain staples on literally every caster who wants to have a damaging spell or two on hand, even if they consider blasting to be a sub-optimal use of action economy.

[Elves]

True magic immunity is harder to define though. What exactly does being "immune" to Wall of Stone mean? You can walk through one?
Presumably you use targeting. It's immune to any spell that would target it.

That's where you run into the inconsistent way early spells were written. For example, glitterdust says: "Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread". Creatures and objects aren't an area! It should say: "Area: 10-ft.-radius spread, Targets: Creatures and objects in area".

[icefractal]

So let's take Acid Fog. Should that work on golems?
Pro: Dumping flasks of acid on them would work, and once created the acid from the spell is non-magical.
Con: It would be suppressed in an AMF, so is it really non-magical? And if this works, a lot of spells work, which weakens the "truly immune to magic" feel.

Acid Fog is a little weird conceptually now that I think about it. It creates large amounts of acid, non-magical once created, but leaves no pools of acid around? I suppose it could work by continuously conjuring acid of a type which denatures and evaporates very quickly.

[Darg]

So let's take Acid Fog. Should that work on golems?
Pro: Dumping flasks of acid on them would work, and once created the acid from the spell is non-magical.
Con: It would be suppressed in an AMF, so is it really non-magical? And if this works, a lot of spells work, which weakens the "truly immune to magic" feel.

Acid Fog is a little weird conceptually now that I think about it. It creates large amounts of acid, non-magical once created, but leaves no pools of acid around? I suppose it could work by continuously conjuring acid of a type which denatures and evaporates very quickly.

Golem entries specifically state how the immunity works. The golems in the SRD are immune only to spells and SLAs that are subject to spell resistance. I don't know of any golem that is different from that. So yes, Acid Fog would affect most if not all golems.

[tiercel]

Presumably you use targeting. It's immune to any spell that would target it.

That's where you run into the inconsistent way early spells were written. For example, glitterdust says: "Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread". Creatures and objects aren't an area! It should say: "Area: 10-ft.-radius spread, Targets: Creatures and objects in area".

If we are talking about 3.0 immunity (or, as Vaern pointed out, epic creature immunity such as that of demiliches), then presumably glitterdust should have no effect on a golem—but still hits the whole area regardless of the immune creature within or partially within it—whereas 3.5 golem immunity specifically allows “SR No” spells like gitterdust to directly affect golems.


So let's take Acid Fog. Should that work on golems?

If we mean “real magic immunity” 3.0/Epic style, then I’d argue no; acid fog is pretty clearly magical (cf. any kind dispelling or antimagic interaction, no matter what “SR No” might seek to imply.)

As Darg notes, of course, under 3.5 golem “immunity” means that acid fog would work normally except for any special exemptions about a particular golem interacting with, e.g., acid damage.

I agree with Vaern’s spoilered rant about “SR No Conjurations” generally, especially when they work suspiciously like Evocation spells with “SR No” stapled on and the school rubbed out.

[Darg]

I just realized that the MM3 describes Immunity to magic this way:


Immunity to Magic (Ex): A mud golem is immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects that allow spell resistance, except as follows.

Supernatural effects never allow spell resistance so....

[Herbert_W]

When I say a viable interpretation, I mean a ruling that [I]could/I] be RAW, that doesn't go against the rules in any way, not a ruling that can work in practice. So unless there are other rules providing clarification, I don't think one ruling is any 'more RAW' than the other.

I think you have a subtle misunderstanding about how RAW works. The only thing that can override a rule in RAW is another, more specific, rule (or a rule from a primary source overriding a secondary one, but that's not relevant here). The very first class feature description in the hellfire warlock class description states that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire. If a hellfire warlock is blocked from using hellfire then that's an exception to the rule that says that they can use it. Such an exception is only possible through the use of a more specific rule.

The existence (or lack thereof) of such a rule is what makes these fiends different from other sources of power. Clerics can be stripped of their spellcasting only because there's a rule that says that they can, which overrides the rule that says that clerics can cast spells. Likewise, paladins loose their powers when they fall because there's a rule that says that they do, which overrides the rules that say that they have powers. Casting certain spells can permanently remove a character's spellcasting ability because there's a specific rule that says that it can, which overrides the rules that say that those characters can cast spells. There's lots of examples, and each works because of a specific rule that says that it does.

There's no such rule for the diabolical forces in play here (outside of the two specific exceptions for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage). By the rules, a hellfire warlock could commit any transgression against hell and retain use of hellfire, up to and including punching Asmodeus in the face. Heck, there aren't even alignment restrictions on this class!

There is, however, a chain of maybes that leads to the conclusion that fiends can and will block access to hellfire if CON damage isn't actually taken. It's a plausible chain of inferences from a worldbuilding perspective, but it's still a chain of maybes. I talked about maybes earlier to illustrate the point that there's more than one possibility; nothing in this chain of maybes is a certain inference from the rules, so nothing in it has the force of rules behind it. Without the force of a specific rule, it cannot override a general rule.

There's also this, which leads me to believe that you've subtly misremembered the rules:


The rules text says this is an exchange . . .

The idea that an exchange must occur is reasonable speculation based on the rules, and is very clearly what the writers envisioned when they wrote the rules. However, this is never stated. That's probably an accidental omission, but still, it's not stated. The only mention of the word "exchange" (or swap, trade, etc.) is in the phrase "demand in exchange". That means that something is demanded which if delivered would be the return-half of an exchange.

So, there's a general rule which states that hellfire warlocks can use hellfire. There's two specific exceptions, for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage. By RAW, all other hellfire warlocks can use hellfire whenever they use eldritch blast, unless some other specific rule prevents them from doing so.

[Segev]

there is no exception made for death to the rule that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire, either. Does that mean the rules for death are not operative?

[Drelua]

Then you're either not reading the same text the rest of us are, or aren't familiar with the way subordinate clauses work in English grammar. The part of this sentence you're having this hangup about is a subordinate clause, which means it needs a main clause to make it complete and cannot be taken as a complete thought or sentence by itself. This is not open to interpretation, it's the base meaning of the 'Because [X]' structure in English.

In this case, the text of the 'Because' clause serves no other rules purpose AT ALL other than to explain why the main clause is in effect.

So you're saying that when someone says "because Y is true, X is true," that doesn't establish that Y is true? Not trying to be snarky, but that's my understanding of what you're trying to tell me. That the text doesn't say that an exchange is demanded, only that a demand for an exchange is the reason for the CON damage immunity clause. I don't understand how saying because can make something not true on its own but true as a cause.


The sentence structure here is not ambiguous in any way.
Here, let's try structuring it out and giving it the reversal test:

Because [REASONS], if [CONDITIONS], you cannot use this ability.

or flipped around, the meaning is still the same:

If [CONDITIONS], you cannot use this ability, because [REASONS].

Maybe I'm not just not understanding more formal grammar, but in either of these cases I would think the [reasons] would be true. If I were to say "because you must have both feet firmly on the ground to use this ability, it cannot be used while flying," would it function while swimming, because I only said it didn't work if you were flying, and swimming isn't flying? Again, this is not snark but a serious question.


Grammatically the main clause of this sentence is 'you cannot use this ability' and that clause is qualified by the conditional clause 'If [CONDITIONS]'
The reason for those qualifications are then explained by the subordinate because clause. But the because clause doesn't add any further restrictions to the main clause or to the conditional clause, nor can it operate independently. That's the very meaning of what a subordinate clause is.

This is not in any way grammatically ambiguous or open to multiple conflicting interpretations, at least from the grammatical standpoint.

(More info on how subordinate clauses work here (https://www.grammarly.com/blog/subordinate-clause/), and on 'because' clauses here (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/because-because-of-and-cos-cos-of) because I'm a grammar nerd and grad student in linguistics and can't help but cite sources)

I'm sorry, neither of these links really clarified anything for me. To use one of their examples, when they say "because of the rain, the tennis match was cancelled," this tells me 3 things: a tennis match was stopped, it was raining, and that there is a causal link. I'm getting the impression that you're saying this sentence would not establish that it was raining, which doesn't make sense to me. I would think a more elaborate subordinate clause would still be able to establish some things. In this case, it establishes the in-universe explanation of how channeling hellfire works, where the power comes from, albeit vaguely, and that the CON damage is a form of payment as opposed to just being what happens when one handles hellfire.


Why shouldn't the? Because the rules don't say that's how this works. They say it works a different way. That's why.

Do they? You could argue that the subordinate clause doesn't matter, and I'd probably go with that myself just because it doesn't seem imbalanced to me, but I still think it could be interpreted as a restriction. Yes, it says it works in a different way, but since both restrictions are compatible that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

My roommate is a linguistics major, and they said it doesn't matter if it's a subordinate clause because you're talking about syntax and this is more a semantic problem. The things said in a subordinate clause are still generally true, especially when they aren't just a condition but a statement that can stand on it's own. The statement "because diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange" is not a sentence fragment, it can stand without the main clause.


You keep saying RAW, but the only RAW part of your position here stems from a misunderstanding of what the rules text is actually saying and what it can be applied to. The because clause you base your whole argument on does not and cannot impose the restrictions you are saying it does.
It can and does provide ample justification for a DM to alter this text via houserule, but that's a RAI, not RAW, position to take.

Okay, what about precedent? It's clear to me from what is written that it doesn't work if you're immune to CON damage because the diabolical forces' demand cannot be met. Maybe it's a houserule to take the next logical step, maybe it's just looking at how the rest of the system works. The subordinate clause is in a section classified as rules text, and being subordinate doesn't mean the things said therein are not true. Information is still being communicated there.

I don't disagree with hellfire warlock being allowed to work with a strongheart vest, I just don't really disagree with it not being allowed either. What I do disagree with is that there is a cut and dry answer. Maybe I am stepping just outside of RAW, but I think it can be read as establishing the source of hellfire, and that that source can choose not to grant it if its demand cannot be met. It doesn't specifically say what happens if it could theoretically be met but isn't, so you can either just read what it says, in which case it works, or look for precedent. If you consider other granted abilities like clerics' magic to be a valid precedent, then I can see not allowing it to function. This is not RAI because it doesn't look at intention, only what is written.

Edit: just saw your response after posting this, Herbert_W. Brief response below.


I think you have a subtle misunderstanding about how RAW works. The only thing that can override a rule in RAW is another, more specific, rule (or a rule from a primary source overriding a secondary one, but that's not relevant here). The very first class feature description in the hellfire warlock class description states that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire. If a hellfire warlock is blocked from using hellfire then that's an exception to the rule that says that they can use it. [snipped]

So does applying logic to the rules text immediately mean it isn't RAW? See my reasoning above on why the line about a demand could be read as stating a restriction, or as you put it a more specific rule. Again, I'm not applying anything from outside the text of the rules system, and precedent in general is essential to reading a set of rules.


There's no such rule for the diabolical forces in play here (outside of the two specific exceptions for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage). By the rules, a hellfire warlock could commit any transgression against hell and retain use of hellfire, up to and including punching Asmodeus in the face. Heck, there aren't even alignment restrictions on this class!

Yes, because nothing says there is any requirement that you must respect/like/have a similar alignment to the diabolical forces. Whether or not they like you has no bearing on whether or not they can apply restrictions to the things they are trading, so I don't see how this comparison applies. I am reacting to what is written, nothing like this is written, so it isn't really comparable.

[/quote]There's also this, which leads me to believe that you've subtly misremembered the rules:

The idea that an exchange must occur is reasonable speculation based on the rules, and is very clearly what the writers envisioned when they wrote the rules. However, this is never stated. That's probably an accidental omission, but still, it's not stated. The only mention of the word "exchange" (or swap, trade, etc.) is in the phrase "demand in exchange". That means that something is demanded which if delivered would be the return-half of an exchange.[/quote]

I disagree, saying that they "demand in exchange" a part of your essence and you must be capable of surrendering it establishes, to me, that this is an exchange that they can refuse.


So, there's a general rule which states that hellfire warlocks can use hellfire. There's two specific exceptions, for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage. By RAW, all other hellfire warlocks can use hellfire whenever they use eldritch blast, unless some other specific rule prevents them from doing so.

...unless you read the demand for an exchange as a 'specific rule,' which seems reasonable to me.

[Remuko]

I think you have a subtle misunderstanding about how RAW works. The only thing that can override a rule in RAW is another, more specific, rule (or a rule from a primary source overriding a secondary one, but that's not relevant here). The very first class feature description in the hellfire warlock class description states that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire. If a hellfire warlock is blocked from using hellfire then that's an exception to the rule that says that they can use it. Such an exception is only possible through the use of a more specific rule.

The existence (or lack thereof) of such a rule is what makes these fiends different from other sources of power. Clerics can be stripped of their spellcasting only because there's a rule that says that they can, which overrides the rule that says that clerics can cast spells. Likewise, paladins loose their powers when they fall because there's a rule that says that they do, which overrides the rules that say that they have powers. Casting certain spells can permanently remove a character's spellcasting ability because there's a specific rule that says that it can, which overrides the rules that say that those characters can cast spells. There's lots of examples, and each works because of a specific rule that says that it does.

There's no such rule for the diabolical forces in play here (outside of the two specific exceptions for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage). By the rules, a hellfire warlock could commit any transgression against hell and retain use of hellfire, up to and including punching Asmodeus in the face. Heck, there aren't even alignment restrictions on this class!

There is, however, a chain of maybes that leads to the conclusion that fiends can and will block access to hellfire if CON damage isn't actually taken. It's a plausible chain of inferences from a worldbuilding perspective, but it's still a chain of maybes. I talked about maybes earlier to illustrate the point that there's more than one possibility; nothing in this chain of maybes is a certain inference from the rules, so nothing in it has the force of rules behind it. Without the force of a specific rule, it cannot override a general rule.

There's also this, which leads me to believe that you've subtly misremembered the rules:



The idea that an exchange must occur is reasonable speculation based on the rules, and is very clearly what the writers envisioned when they wrote the rules. However, this is never stated. That's probably an accidental omission, but still, it's not stated. The only mention of the word "exchange" (or swap, trade, etc.) is in the phrase "demand in exchange". That means that something is demanded which if delivered would be the return-half of an exchange.

So, there's a general rule which states that hellfire warlocks can use hellfire. There's two specific exceptions, for characters lacking a CON score or immune to CON damage. By RAW, all other hellfire warlocks can use hellfire whenever they use eldritch blast, unless some other specific rule prevents them from doing so.

exactly this. i agree.


there is no exception made for death to the rule that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire, either. Does that mean the rules for death are not operative?

are you talking about death as the "dead" condition? I'm fairly certain a dead character still can use hellfire, but the dead condition prevents them from taking the action required to do so.

[Herbert_W]

there is no exception made for death to the rule that a hellfire warlock can use hellfire, either. Does that mean the rules for death are not operative?

Using hellfire requires either eldritch blast or a swift action for hellfire blast and hellfire infusion respectively - so, in either case, it requires an action. How hellfire interacts with death depends on whether dead characters can take actions. We're touching on the classical RAW-flaw where DnD doesn't clearly define what "dead" means, which is a discussion that's been had many times before. In order to avoid getting sidetracked by that discussion, I'm going to list some possibilities and not commit to which one holds:


Dead characters can't take actions, because dead means dead. Dead hellfire warlocks technically still have hellfire available to them, but they can't take the action to actually use it. In this regard, dead hellfire warlocks are similar to out-of-turn and unconscious ones.
Dead characters can take actions by RAW, which is blatantly anti-RAI, but it's still RAW.
Specific dead characters can take actions, such as in a Ghostwalk campaign. If this applies to a hellfire warlock, then they can use hellfire.

In no case does the wording of the rules for hellfire create problems that didn't already exist.


So does applying logic to the rules text immediately mean it isn't RAW? See my reasoning above on why the line about a demand could be read as stating a restriction, or as you put it a more specific rule. Again, I'm not applying anything from outside the text of the rules system, and precedent in general is essential to reading a set of rules.

There's a difference between deductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leaves no room for other possibilities: "This says that X implies Y. This says that X. Therefore Y." Abductive reasoning requires judgement about what's plausible and therefore goes beyond what's written: "This says X. Y is the most plausible interpretation for X. Therefore probably Y." Inductive reasoning is probabilistic and requires judgements about what situations are similar enough to induct across: "A for X. A for Y. Therefore likely also A for Z." If you're engaged in abductive or inductive reasoning, then you are applying something from outside of the rules system: your own judgement about what's plausiable to abduct or similar to induct. (The judgement that you're applying is good. It's just not RAW.)

There's a difference between RAW and RAI. Some amount of abduction and induction is absolutely necessary when interpreting RAI, outside of rare cases where the creator plainly states their intentions. Precedent in general is essential to inferring RAI, but RAW follows just from what's written and nothing else.

You're backfilling from the specific things that the rules say are true (the fiends "demand in exchange" a part of your essence and you must be capable of surrendering it), to why those things are true (this is an exchange that they can refuse). That's abductive reasoning.

You're suggesting that fiends should be able to deny access to hellfire if their demands (specifically for essence) aren't met, because clerics face similar possible loss of power. That's inductive reasoning.

In both cases, your reasoning is based on good judgement that's perfectly sensible from a worldbuilding perspective. It's still your judgement though. That's not RAW.

[Elves]

Maybe I am stepping just outside of RAW, but I think it can be read as establishing the source of hellfire, and that that source can choose not to grant it if its demand cannot be met.
Yeah, this is stepping outside of RAW. It's not the rules, it's a story being told about the rules. It's how you feel the devils might behave, but it's not a logical necessity of the text.

Every DM has to and should be open about about making rulings that aren't RAW, but it's good to remember where that line starts and ends. A house rule may fit with the fluff of a written rule or may even seem to fulfill its intent but that doesn't make it an official rule.


This has been going back and forth for a week so it's probably time to wrap it up. I guess Segev's position here is "there's an argument to be had", personally I don't see it. I don't know where Darg ended up. But all of these arguments seem like stretches, I doubt you'd accept them if they were arguments for something permissive, and before you justify making weird arguments in the name of balance, remember we're arguing over the sum difference between one feat and a one-level dip for Naberius.

[Crichton]

So you're saying that when someone says "because Y is true, X is true," that doesn't establish that Y is true? Not trying to be snarky, but that's my understanding of what you're trying to tell me. That the text doesn't say that an exchange is demanded, only that a demand for an exchange is the reason for the CON damage immunity clause. I don't understand how saying because can make something not true on its own but true as a cause.

No one said Y is false. Maybe that's where your misunderstanding is. Y can be true, and at the same time have no weight/authority in the rules.

In this case, yes, the contents of the Because Clause are true, but because (hah!) they're contained within that Because Clause, the only relevance they can have is to establish the reasons for the statement in the Main Clause. That's what a subordinated clause using 'because' does: it establishes a causal relationship between the subordinate clause and the main clause.



Maybe I'm not just not understanding more formal grammar, but in either of these cases I would think the [reasons] would be true.
The [reasons] ARE true. They just don't carry any rules-authority, other than explaining why the main clause is in effect.




If I were to say "because you must have both feet firmly on the ground to use this ability, it cannot be used while flying," would it function while swimming, because I only said it didn't work if you were flying, and swimming isn't flying? Again, this is not snark but a serious question.
In an exception-based, specific-trumps-general rules system like D20? Yes, it would function while swimming, unless some other text somewhere specifically said otherwise. (assuming of course the undefined ability in question doesn't have a general rules state that it works unless something says otherwise. Your hypothetical example doesn't have enough context and isn't detailed enough to establish what the ability is or what it's 'general' state is)



I'm sorry, neither of these links really clarified anything for me. To use one of their examples, when they say "because of the rain, the tennis match was cancelled," this tells me 3 things: a tennis match was stopped, it was raining, and that there is a causal link.
Yes, all 3 of those things are true. But you seem to not quite be understanding the logical importance of the causal link. The rain is the *reason* the match was cancelled. The demand made by the diabolical forces is the *reason* the two listed exceptions cause Hellfire Blast to not function. Outside of explaining the reason for the main clause, the subordinate causal clause has no relevance, import, or authority.



I'm getting the impression that you're saying this sentence would not establish that it was raining, which doesn't make sense to me.
No, Im not saying that at all. See above. Y being true and Y mattering outside the causal relationship are two very different things.





I would think a more elaborate subordinate clause would still be able to establish some things. In this case,


it establishes the in-universe explanation of how channeling hellfire works
Yes

where the power comes from, albeit vaguely
Yes

that the CON damage is a form of payment as opposed to just being what happens when one handles hellfire.
Not quite. It establishes that payment in the form of 'part of your essence' is DEMANDED in exchange for granting Hellfire Blast. It does not, however, at all anywhere, establish that the payment must be delivered. It ONLY states that those two specific exceptions can cause it to fail.





Do they? You could argue that the subordinate clause doesn't matter, and I'd probably go with that myself just because it doesn't seem imbalanced to me, but I still think it could be interpreted as a restriction. Yes, it says it works in a different way, but since both restrictions are compatible that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
It does mean one doesn't exist, because the one in question doesn't actually establish a restriction in any way. The statement of the because clause is true, but it doesn't say anything that, in rules-terms, adds another restriction.


My roommate is a linguistics major, and they said it doesn't matter if it's a subordinate clause because you're talking about syntax and this is more a semantic problem. The things said in a subordinate clause are still generally true, especially when they aren't just a condition but a statement that can stand on it's own. The statement "because diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange" is not a sentence fragment, it can stand without the main clause.

Yes, the clause is a complete statement. But two things here: A) it's *inside* a subordinate clause, meaning its only functional import is to establish a causal relationship. B) nothing in the statement itself actually imposes a new restriction on Hellfire Blast. It could be worded as a separate sentence of its own, without the 'because' and nothing in the rules would change, because none of the words in that sentence alter the way the existing ability functions. You've yet to demonstrate that they do so.




Okay, what about precedent? It's clear to me from what is written that it doesn't work if you're immune to CON damage because the diabolical forces' demand cannot be met. Maybe it's a houserule to take the next logical step, maybe it's just looking at how the rest of the system works.
Yes, that would be a houserule. A justified one, given the reasons for the existing restrictions, but it is an addition to the RAW, so by definition is a houserule.


The subordinate clause is in a section classified as rules text, and being subordinate doesn't mean the things said therein are not true. Information is still being communicated there.
Yes, information is being communicated, but again, none of that information establishes another condition under which HB ceases to function.

As others have noted, that sentence only states that a demand is made for part of your essence. It does not anywhere establish that that demand MUST be met in order for HB to function. It's a logical conclusion that it would, but it isn't stated, and even that demand is couched inside a clause that is causally subordinate to the clause that actually does establish restrictions on HB's function.






Maybe I am stepping just outside of RAW
You are, and here's why:

but I think it can be read as establishing the source of hellfire, and that that source can choose not to grant it if its demand cannot be met.
Where does it say this can happen? It doesn't ever say that


It doesn't specifically say what happens if it could theoretically be met but isn't
Exactly. It doesn't say, and to top that, it's inside a sentence that actually does say what conditions have to be met for it to not function.


so you can either just read what it says, in which case it works
This is what RAW means. Anything other than this is RAI or houserule addons/alterations, by definition





or look for precedent. If you consider other granted abilities like clerics' magic to be a valid precedent, then I can see not allowing it to function. This is not RAI because it doesn't look at intention, only what is written.
What text exactly are you thinking of when you consider those to be a valid precedent? Where does it establish, specifically, that HB is equivalent to a cleric's divinely granted magic? Clerics have text in their class description detailing how this happens to them. Hellfire Warlocks also have text in their class description detailing the specific conditions under which HB wont function, and they're very specifically limited to just two different conditions. The two are not the same, in the rules, even if they are in theme or spirit.





I disagree, saying that they "demand in exchange" a part of your essence and you must be capable of surrendering it establishes, to me, that this is an exchange that they can refuse.
Nowhere in the text does it state that you 'must be capable of surrendering it' so your claim here is inference, and you've already exceeded what the text itself says.




...unless you read the demand for an exchange as a 'specific rule,' which seems reasonable to me.
Again, it cannot be a specific rule, because it does not specifically say what happens/doesn't happen. They can 'demand' as loudly as they want, but they cannot refuse unless the warlock has no CON score, or is immune to CON damage, because those are the only two things the rules actually say can stop it.



We've probably gone 'round and 'round on this far more than anyone wants, but I thank all involved that it's been a kind, civil discussion.

[Segev]

are you talking about death as the "dead" condition? I'm fairly certain a dead character still can use hellfire, but the dead condition prevents them from taking the action required to do so.

Does it? The hellfire warlock ability says they can take the action to do it. I don't see any specific rule overriding that, and it's a specific rule that override's the dead condition's rule about not being able to take actions.

Note: I don't find this line of reasoning particularly convincing, but I find it just as convincing as the attempts to claim that the hellfire warlock's ability to use hellfire is as unrestricted as implied by the declaration that it requires a specific exception, that somehow declaring the diabolical forces won't give it if they don't get their due doesn't qualify.

Again: I don't mind somebody ruling that the strongheart vest works. I am only consistently pointing out that it is, at best, ambiguous.

And this is why I hold out Naebarius as a superior solution: it unambiguously works.

[Drelua]

Fair enough, I haven't been on these forums or any other much in a few years, so my definition of RAW vs RAI may not exactly line up with everyone else's. Taken just as what they stand for, and how they're usually defined in a few words, I figured if you're just looking at what's written without considering anything but the rules then that's RAW, but RAW is more strictly just what it definitely says then my reasoning isn't RAW. So lack of clarity on what those terms mean exactly might be a part of where the disagreement comes from.

Anyway, still definitely worth telling someone about both options for an actual game in case their GM doesn't like resisting the CON damage, but if it's a conversation about theoretical stuff I'd say it's fair to assume the strongheart vest works.

I don't think it's fair to say I'm telling a story about the rules though, sometimes rules have to describe how gods or "forces" act or respond to certain things. Maybe I'm taking a logical step or two that puts me outside of what people mean when they saw RAW, but looking at precedent and creating an equivalency between two rules is not the same as telling a story. It's not how I feel devils might behave, it's how the rules describe similar entities behaving in the most similar rules situation I can think of that's clearly defined. When I start telling stories, I get a lot more creative than that. Although I did start a bit creative since I wasn't really familiar with this topic before this, so I can see how going by my earlier posts could give that impression.

Edit @ Crichton (keep getting ninja'd):

Most of what you say has been addressed well enough, and as you say this conversation sure has gone on, so I'll be brief (insofar as I know how to do that)

I don't really see any way to read that ability except that you have to be able to take CON damage because that's the part of your essence being demanded. The main clause is true because of the subordinate clause, so that link is established, even if we only take that as an explanation for why not having a CON score and being able to take ability damage prevents the ability from working. If it won't work if the demand isn't met, then the 'forces' making the demand are refusing that exchange, because it isn't an exchange. I might be leaning on a couple guesses in my reasoning for why the vest might not work, but that's not a guess, since it seems to me the only possibility. Deductive reasoning, as Herbert_W just described.

Although I guess I'm wrong in saying they can choose to decline, since it doesn't say it's a choice, so it's more likely that they aren't capable of accepting, or just won't for whatever reason. And 'capable of surrendering it' may have been a poor choice of words, I didn't mean capable in that moment, (not having ability damage resistance, pretending that's a game term) but capable of taking CON damage if they really wanted to. (having a CON score and being able to take ability damage in general, even if you will resist this specific ability damage) Avoiding words that can mean more than I mean them to, what I meant was just that if you can't do X if Y is true, then Y must be the thing that prevents you from satisfying the conditions for X. If the ability cannot function unless you both (a) have a CON score and (b) are capable of taking ability damage, and this is true because of the demand for part of your essence, then the only possible conclusion I can see is that conditions (a) and (b) are preventing you from satisfying this demand. It's not explicitly said, but is there any way it can be untrue?

Not trying to argue for my reasoning being RAW, (as I said above, my understanding of the term seems to have been a little off) just explaining what I meant. As you may have noticed, brevity really isn't my strong suit. :smallbiggrin:

[Darg]

Yeah, this is stepping outside of RAW. It's not the rules, it's a story being told about the rules. It's how you feel the devils might behave, but it's not a logical necessity of the text

This is like ruling that Foresight only gives flat-footed immunity and a +2 to AC and reflex. It ignores the fact that the spell can be cast on other creatures with explicit benefits that don't have a mechanical equivalent. It can be called "story" or "fluff" all anyone wants. It still doesn't mean that it doesn't have gameplay implications.


Fair enough, I haven't been on these forums or any other much in a few years, so my definition of RAW vs RAI may not exactly line up with everyone else's. Taken just as what they stand for, and how they're usually defined in a few words, I figured if you're just looking at what's written without considering anything but the rules then that's RAW, but RAW is more strictly just what it definitely says then my reasoning isn't RAW. So lack of clarity on what those terms mean exactly might be a part of where the disagreement comes from.

RAW is rules as written. RAW is that everything in the descriptive text pertains to how it works. RAW, however, does not always make sense and requires DM arbitration. In this case, RAW can go either way. It can be read as explanatory or strictly. There is no right or wrong way to rule it other than "what is your table like?"

[Elves]

This is like ruling that Foresight only gives flat-footed immunity and a +2 to AC and reflex. It ignores the fact that the spell can be cast on other creatures with explicit benefits that don't have a mechanical equivalent. It can be called "story" or "fluff" all anyone wants. It still doesn't mean that it doesn't have gameplay implications.
Let's look...

Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself and gives you a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

The spell is clear that those more open statements are in addition to the crunch benefits.

The equivalent of our situation would be:
Because foresight gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself, you gain a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

[Segev]

Let's look...

Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself and gives you a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

The spell is clear that those more open statements are in addition to the crunch benefits.

The equivalent of our situation would be:
Because foresight gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself, you gain a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

Not really. That's trying to invent a difference where there isn't one.

Besides, even if I accepted your premise, the proper rephrasing would be, "Because foresight lets you recieve instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell, you are never surprised or flat-footed. Because the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself, you get a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves."

And even then, this remains a distinction without a difference.

As somebody else pointed out, would a feat that said, "Because you must have both feet planted firmly on the ground to use this technique, you cannot use it while swimming," mean that you COULD use it while flying, falling, or dangling from a rope?

[Drelua]

RAW is rules as written. RAW is that everything in the descriptive text pertains to how it works. RAW, however, does not always make sense and requires DM arbitration. In this case, RAW can go either way. It can be read as explanatory or strictly. There is no right or wrong way to rule it other than "what is your table like?"

It sure would be nice if rules systems would explain how strictly exactly they were intended to be read and follow their own rules, wouldn't it? But that sure isn't how 3.5 was written. There does seem to be slight variations in how different people define RAW, and this is enough of an edge case that a subtle distinction in that definition can make a huge difference in how this ability is read. At any rate, I think it's fair to say that the reasons for disagreement have been thoroughly explored and a consensus is not about to be reached.

[Remuko]

Does it? The hellfire warlock ability says they can take the action to do it. I don't see any specific rule overriding that, and it's a specific rule that override's the dead condition's rule about not being able to take actions.

it doesnt need to.

HW lets you use the standard actions from general rules to make a hellfire blast. The dead condition stops you from taking that action. You can still use that action for a hellfire blast but nothing about HW ever overrides the need for an action that the dead condition prevents you from using.

I find it very hard to believe you didn't know that already though.


Note: I don't find this line of reasoning particularly convincing, but I find it just as convincing as the attempts to claim that the hellfire warlock's ability to use hellfire is as unrestricted as implied by the declaration that it requires a specific exception, that somehow declaring the diabolical forces won't give it if they don't get their due doesn't qualify.

Again: I don't mind somebody ruling that the strongheart vest works. I am only consistently pointing out that it is, at best, ambiguous.

And this is why I hold out Naebarius as a superior solution: it unambiguously works.

Reduction isn't immunity and nothing in the text (aka RAW) of the Hellfire Blast gives a mechanical reason for the vest to not work, so it does (whether or not it should). It's not ambiguous.

[Herbert_W]

And this is why I hold out Naebarius as a superior solution: it unambiguously works.

I find myself agreeing with your conclusion even though I disagree with the route you took to get it. Naebarius works by RAI as well as RAW. That makes it unquestionably superior, as it's going to be accepted at a much broader range of tables.

The point that I'm defending here is that the Strongheat vest works by RAW. RAI is a separate context. So is RAF. So are the rules of any given table. Heck, so is rules-as-even-remotely-sane.


The hellfire warlock ability says they can take the action to do it. I don't see any specific rule overriding that, and it's a specific rule that override's the dead condition's rule about not being able to take actions.

I take two objections to the line of argument that you are employing here.

Most fundamentally, you're arguing that an interpretation of RAW must be wrong because the results are absurd - ignoring the fact that RAW can be absurd. There's lots of absolutely silly things that are still RAW. Even if the hellfire warlock was worded in such a way that allows a dead warlock to keep fighting (which it isn't), then the fact that this is absurd wouldn't make it not RAW.

Secondly, that's not what the hellfire warlock ability actually says. The hellfire blast ability description begins with "Whenever you use your eldritch blast ability . . ." It doesn't give a hellfire warlock the ability to EB, but rather is written with the assumption that they already have it. A hellfire warlock who can't use EB still technically has access to hellfire, but can't actually use the ability. (There's other hellfire abilities that they get at higher levels, but the same principle applies so they don't need to be called out specifically.) In this respect, a dead warlock is similar to a warlock who has already exhausted their actions for the current round or who is out-of-turn.


. . . that somehow declaring the diabolical forces won't give it if they don't get their due doesn't qualify.

On the contrary, declaring that the diabolical forces won't give it if they don't get their due would easily qualify. (Well, you'd also need to establish that suffering the CON damage is their due rather than the unclear word "essence," but with that clarification in place, sure it'd qualify.)

My objection is that the rules don't say that. What the rules do say is that two specific "cheats" don't work, and why those cheats don't work. We can use that as a foundation for plausible worldbuilding and construct an explanation for how the infernal system works, but that won't be RAW. By RAW, the strongheart vest doesn't trigger either of the two anti-cheat criteria, so it works.

To clarify: I don't mind at all if someone rules that the strongheart vest doesn't work at their table. Most tables don't follow RAW, and instead follow a balance of RAI and RAF.

[Elves]

Besides, even if I accepted your premise, the proper rephrasing would be, "Because foresight lets you recieve instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell, you are never surprised or flat-footed. Because the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself, you get a +2 insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves."
Ok, sure. You see what I mean. Here, the fluff bits justify the crunch; they can't reasonably be read as separate. In the original, on the other hand, they're separate ("and", "in addition", not "because").


"Because you must have both feet planted firmly on the ground to use this technique, you cannot use it while swimming," mean that you COULD use it while flying, falling, or dangling from a rope?
This only highlights the weakness of your argument, because the clause you want to bring it back to doesn't form a game-mechanical rule. You're trying to make it say "If you don't take this damage, you can't use this ability". But it doesn't, and it's easy to show how the fluffy nature of that clause makes the argument fail. Say I argue that in spite of the damage being mitigated, the devils have still claimed part of my essence. How do you disprove that? You can't; "essence" isn't a game term.

The kicker: even under your interpretation, the vest still works. The second sentence only prevents you from using the ability. That makes sense -- lack of a Con score and immunity to Con damage are ongoing traits. If you have one of those, you can't use the ability at all. But the Con damage only occurs when you use the ability, and only at that point does the vest mitigate it. So it can't prevent you from using the ability.

[MR_Anderson]

Technically, there are no "tax loopholes." Tax law is tax law.
\/

THANK YOU!!!

No one complains about the “Tax Loophole” deduction for being single/married/head of household to reduce your tax payment.
\/

Loophole is a term of judgment, not a legal term. It suggests that something is an unintended way to evade a restriction. Here we have the strongheart vest loophole.

Loophole is a term used by people who disagree with RAW, and seek to project a negative connotation onto whatever the “Loophole“ happens to be in order to rally support in their argument.

Often this is because they are unable to take advantage of RAW, or they disagree with RAW and thus want it changed.


This conversation is straying dangerously close to being political,

There is no intention to make this political. It is the technicality of how Law works that closely resembles Rules As Written for the understanding to work as an analogy.

The analogy was used by others and everyone can relate to it for understanding RAW vs RAI and my intention was to show emotion for the fact that the term “Loophole” isn’t used by people supporting RAW, but instead RAI to get RAW changed.

On these forums, we have multiple people discussing english grammar in detail to others so they can understand RAW. It is actually really impressive, and yet somewhat sad at the same time. Sad in that we are focusing so much time and effort to small things that I’ve seen on the forum multiple times.


so I'll be vague: people can and do complain about pretty much every aspect of taxes - but even people who complain about those features don't call them loopholes, because they know that they are deliberate incentive structures

I’m sticking with the vague thing too, so I’m not just talking tax law anymore...

People have and continue to use the term “Loophole” to describe actual deliberate sections of laws to demonize it and sometimes those that use/support it. Often to achieve support for their cause to remove it..


This is like ruling that Foresight only gives flat-footed immunity and a +2 to AC and reflex. It ignores the fact that the spell can be cast on other creatures with explicit benefits that don't have a mechanical equivalent. It can be called "story" or "fluff" all anyone wants. It still doesn't mean that it doesn't have gameplay implications.

Darg and I agree!


Reduction isn't immunity and nothing in the text (aka RAW) of the Hellfire Blast gives a mechanical reason for the vest to not work, so it does (whether or not it should). It's not ambiguous.

There is always at least one reason stopping something allowed by RAW, that being RAI by the DM.

Reduction (such as Damage Reduction) is not Immunity.

Resistance (such as Spell Resistance) is not Immunity.

Something that Protects you does not make you Immune, even if it Protects you 100% or more.

Immunity is a defining characteristic of a creature or object.

[ciopo]

This is a fun read, I'd like to chime in.

First point of order, immunity is defined within the context of D&D 3.5e , see Immunity to fire of hte fire elemental, or the immunities attached to the undead type.

A reduction of X is not an immunity to X, even if X is reduced to 0.

Examples of that : DR 5/- is not equivalent to "immunity to physical damage less than 6", it may be functionally equivalent, but it is not *defined* as immunity.

Resist energy X , same as DR, high resist energy (type) is not immunity to (type)

Heavy fortification .

To me, there is no ambiguity at all that as written, hellfire warlock is not prevented from functioning by the strongheart vest. There might be the intention that it wouldn't work and I wouldn't be surprised if a GM would rule that way, nor would I contest it. But what is written here is very clear.

Perhabs that's just my time as a MtG player influencing my thought process, this debate reminds me strongly of the common debates about the "Protection from X" ability.

It is "common" to see newer players being surprised that "Wrath of god" destroys creatures that have protection from white. Being a target is well defined in MtG and Wrath of god does not target them, so the protection part of "can't be targeted" does not apply.

It is "common" to see those same players, after they got a bit more experience, get surprised that "Pyroclasm" do not kill the creatures with protection from red. They argue "but like wrath of god, pyroclasm does not target creatures", and the prompt counter argument is "that is true, but one of the other bullet point of protection is *prevent damage from X sources*, so you are correct that pyroclasm affects the creature with protection from red, but that damage is prevented"

Perhabs I am wrong in going with an "MtG interpretation" of hellfire warlock, but it clearly states the two cases in which you cannot add hellfire, and strongheart vest is not one of them. There is no anbiguity on the RAW.

I accept some degree of disfunction is there, such that a GM may rule differently, but it is not *notfunctional* such as silly things like drown healing. It's not shady at all, or cheesy. It is merely technical.
for a different example of technical I can think of, "alternate form" usually does not change the type of the creature using it, even if the alternate form resembles a creature of a different type. A lycanthrope can assume the form of an animal, but it's type remains humanoid, and as such are valid target for Enlarge person and invalid target for magic fang. That is the RAW on alternate form, even if it is no stretch of imagination using magic fang on a lycan in animal form.

If you tell me reducting ability damage by 1 is immunity for the purpose of hellfire warlock, by the same token/ruling, with dr1/- will I be immune to physical damage? By this I mean if you make a rule based on equivalency of wording-effect, that should be the same across the board. If you derive extra meaning by inference, then it is reasonable to me to use the same process of inference to other cases that are similar. (I know I'm being absurd with this last paragraph, it's half facetious)

[Darg]

So, I was looking through the MM3 the other day and found where the definition of immunity comes from. Just in case anyone was wondering.

The MM explains the Spell Immunity (Ex) ability and it makes sense if you use it for golem immunity for spells and SLAs while giving immunity to supernatural effects.


DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included “see text,” this is where the explanation is found. If the spell you’re reading about is based on another spell (see Spell Chains, page 181), you might have to refer to a different spell for the “see text” information.

Just incase anybody was wondering if fluff text doesn't actually contribute mechanically. RAW stands that fluff has consequence. Descriptive text is separate from the descriptive passages as found in the spell compendium.


Perhabs I am wrong in going with an "MtG interpretation" of hellfire warlock, but it clearly states the two cases in which you cannot add hellfire, and strongheart vest is not one of them. There is no anbiguity on the RAW.

It is wrong. D&D was designed with a more open to interpretation mindset in order to promote fun. MtG on the other hand creates a number of phrases with distinct ways of being enforced. Hence all the rulings vs D&D where you have a FAQ that is less than official errata.

Still, 3.5 uses the word "any" as a standalone way too much given the word's ambiguity.

[ciopo]

I do disagree, because of this chain of thought :
You (generic you) says that strongheart vest gives immunity to constitution damage for the purpose of hellfire blast.

Well, thank you? I'm sure happy to be theoretically immune to all ability damage without investing any essentia on the strongheart vest.

Because that's what such a ruling introduces, reduction=immunity, that's the argument that is being used against the use of strongheart for hellfire blast.

If you treat is as an exception, well, sure. Fair, but also not *what is written*.


I agree without problems that hellfire blast can have this extention "or effects that reduces the con damage" etc. Feels reasonable to me. It still is a houserule and not RAW. I strongly disagree with the notion/houserule that reduction=immunity, because that's absurd as seen above

[Remuko]

There is always at least one reason stopping something allowed by RAW, that being RAI by the DM.

Yup, but we're not talking about RAI were talking strictly about RAW.

[MR_Anderson]

First point of order, immunity is defined within the context of D&D 3.5e , see Immunity to fire of hte fire elemental, or the immunities attached to the undead type.

I’ve continued to make the statement that immunities are characteristics of a creature or object and are related to the creature’s type.

It is interesting to also notice that immunity effects are correlated to types or sub-types of damages/effects.

Examples: Immunity to Fire, Mind, Sonic, Slashing, Piercing, All Spells Less than Level #, Ability (Constitution), ad astra...


HELLFIRE BLAST vs. STRONGHEART VEST

I wasn’t going to enter into this discussion, because it never impacts me as a player or a DM, and I had not read the two things being discussed.

However, I’ve read both of these for interaction, and it works Rules As Written, but I can see why some would try and claim otherwise. These two things are yet more items written by individuals without an english doctorate.

I’ll bold the reason this interaction works, underline for emphasis.


Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, p.90

Hellfire Blast (Sp) [...]
Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage. 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.


Magic of Incarnum, p.89

Strongheart Vest
A heavy web belt of cyan energy wraps around your torso. When you wear it, you feel energized and revitalized. When you are struck by an attack that would damage your ability scores, a wave of incarnum energy passes through you, blunting the effectiveness of the attack.

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.

RAW it clearly works.

RAI, Here’s how I’d interpret and rule to my players...

...it would still work. The Constitution Damage was probably meant to be a payment for activating the ability, but wasn’t written as a payment, but rather a transactional debt that the diabolical forces would take.


...the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power,“

This means, a bad deal for those evil forces, because they can’t collect the debt they are owed during the transaction.

So while someone could abuse the system and blast away day and night with Hellfire, I as the DM would play it as a worse version of a non-Gith having a Githyanki Silver Sword. These Diabolical Forces would plot revenge for such trickery, and the more that wasn’t paid the more the threat would increase.

All of this goes back to the fact that something that provides protection does not give the characteristic of immunity.

If someone said that RAI did not allow for Hellfire to keep working, I’d agree with that too. I might even rule that way if I ran lower power campaigns.

Fact stands, RAW this combo works, but as always, discuss it with you Friendly Neighborhood DM.

[Elves]

The kicker: even under your interpretation, the vest still works. The second sentence only prevents you from using the ability. That makes sense -- lack of a Con score and immunity to Con damage are ongoing traits. If you have one of those, you can't use the ability at all. But the Con damage only occurs when you use the ability, and only at that point does the vest mitigate it. So it can't prevent you from using the ability.

Let me bring this up again lest it get lost. The debate around the grammar is irrelevant b/c even under Segev's reading strongheart vest can't stop you from using hellfire blast. That puts an end to this.


Here are the quotes:

Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage.
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.
The immunity clause prevents you from using the ability. But taking the Con damage already predicates that you are using the ability. And strongheart vest only takes effect once you actually "would take ability damage". Thus, it cannot prevent you from using the ability.

[Darg]

RAW it clearly works.

We aren't actually arguing RAW that it doesn't work. RAW of course says that it works. We are arguing that RAW also presents other factors that say it doesn't work and as such can't be used as an end all argument.

• strongheart vest protects from attacks, not willing sacrifice.
• diabolical forces demand payment and the conditional is not necessarily exclusive.

These are both RAW as well, despite the in house English doctorate. As such strongheart vest can't simply be assumed to work. The proof is in how contentious it is.

In 3.5 the only source of ability damage reduction, at least that I know of, is strongheart vest. Fiendish Codex II is a separate splat book from MoI. They don't assume each of them exist. Because the soulmeld from MoI is such a unique ability, ability damage reduction being left out was most likely because it wasn't something that the writer of hellfire warlock thought was an issue at all. Immunity and lack of a constitution score are core qualities after all. It would be like HB required that you lose a level and that immunity to level loss would prevent you from using the ability, but some obscure source gave level loss reduction.

We can't know RAI for certain, but it is much more likely to not work in strongheart vest's favor than for it.

[Raishoiken]

So, I was looking through the MM3 the other day and found where the definition of immunity comes from. Just in case anyone was wondering.


Meeee i was wondering. Nice job finding the sauce, i think someone posted a link to a glossary archive at wizards but it didn't say what book the definition was found in.

With it saying:

A creature that has immunity to an effect is never helped (or harmed) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect


does that mean the reverse necessarily is also true? If a creature can never be helped or harmed by an effect, that by definition that gives it the status of an immunity?

[Segev]

Let me bring this up again lest it get lost. The debate around the grammar is irrelevant b/c even under Segev's reading strongheart vest can't stop you from using hellfire blast. That puts an end to this.


Here are the quotes:

The immunity clause prevents you from using the ability. But taking the Con damage already predicates that you are using the ability. And strongheart vest only takes effect once you actually "would take ability damage". Thus, it cannot prevent you from using the ability.

This reasoning could lead to the conclusion that it winds up being circular: it cannot prevent you from using the ability, but the ability cannot be used because it prevents you from paying for it.

I do get why people are claiming I'm arguing that it doesn't work: they firmly believe that it does, and I'm saying it's arguable either way. But I will insist on clarity: I can see perfectly well the arguments for why it should work. They've been presented well. The only thing I disagree with is that those are the cut-and-dried, obvious, clear, and unarguable ways to interpret the RAW. The RAW are interpretable either direction.

[ciopo]

We aren't actually arguing RAW that it doesn't work. RAW of course says that it works. We are arguing that RAW also presents other factors that say it doesn't work and as such can't be used as an end all argument.

• strongheart vest protects from attacks, not willing sacrifice.
• diabolical forces demand payment and the conditional is not necessarily exclusive.

These are both RAW as well, despite the in house English doctorate. As such strongheart vest can't simply be assumed to work. The proof is in how contentious it is.

In 3.5 the only source of ability damage reduction, at least that I know of, is strongheart vest. Fiendish Codex II is a separate splat book from MoI. They don't assume each of them exist. Because the soulmeld from MoI is such a unique ability, ability damage reduction being left out was most likely because it wasn't something that the writer of hellfire warlock thought was an issue at all. Immunity and lack of a constitution score are core qualities after all. It would be like HB required that you lose a level and that immunity to level loss would prevent you from using the ability, but some obscure source gave level loss reduction.

We can't know RAI for certain, but it is much more likely to not work in strongheart vest's favor than for it.

Well, clearly when the warlock player decides to take the hellfire warlock level, he'll have to RP out what the contract details are with the GM, but here we run into the "problem ( not problem) of contextualizing the contract.

Because it could well be that the constitution damage is a conseguence of using hellfire, and not the enabler.

Like, maybe hellfire demons/devils get off from the suffering of people, so they don't want to grant hellfire to constructs/undeads because they get nothing in the exchange. But other sentient races are fair games. So they do a contract with warlock #77654, and bind one demon in service of said warlock to provide hellfire, because they want to experience the suffering the warlock gets!
But clever warlock does not advertise he has a way to negate the excruciating pain that hellfire causes before signing the contract ;)


By all means, do role the hell out of the warlock doing the contract! With either result! What is written is written and what isn't is a world of imagination we live in!

[Segev]

Well, clearly when the warlock player decides to take the hellfire warlock level, he'll have to RP out what the contract details are with the GM, but here we run into the "problem ( not problem) of contextualizing the contract.

Because it could well be that the constitution damage is a conseguence of using hellfire, and not the enabler.

Like, maybe hellfire demons/devils get off from the suffering of people, so they don't want to grant hellfire to constructs/undeads because they get nothing in the exchange. But other sentient races are fair games. So they do a contract with warlock #77654, and bind one demon in service of said warlock to provide hellfire, because they want to experience the suffering the warlock gets!
But clever warlock does not advertise he has a way to negate the excruciating pain that hellfire causes before signing the contract ;)


By all means, do role the hell out of the warlock doing the contract! With either result! What is written is written and what isn't is a world of imagination we live in!

I mean, if that's the case, "clever lich warlock" could fool the poor demons into thinking he's totally a mortal who has a constitution score, too.

[Darg]

Well, clearly when the warlock player decides to take the hellfire warlock level, he'll have to RP out what the contract details are with the GM, but here we run into the "problem ( not problem) of contextualizing the contract.

Because it could well be that the constitution damage is a conseguence of using hellfire, and not the enabler.

Like, maybe hellfire demons/devils get off from the suffering of people, so they don't want to grant hellfire to constructs/undeads because they get nothing in the exchange. But other sentient races are fair games. So they do a contract with warlock #77654, and bind one demon in service of said warlock to provide hellfire, because they want to experience the suffering the warlock gets!
But clever warlock does not advertise he has a way to negate the excruciating pain that hellfire causes before signing the contract ;)


By all means, do role the hell out of the warlock doing the contract! With either result! What is written is written and what isn't is a world of imagination we live in!

The way I see it and the way the ability is worded is that it works like a toll. Pay the toll and go on your merry way. Don't pay the toll and you can't use the ability. It's why immunity and lack of the ability score were mentioned. You can't pay the cost and therefore can't use the ability. I don't think a contract is necessary.

[Elves]

This reasoning could lead to the conclusion that it winds up being circular: it cannot prevent you from using the ability, but the ability cannot be used because it prevents you from paying for it.
There's nothing circular about it -- it can't prevent you from using the ability, so you can use the ability.

The only gating mechanism provided, regardless of what you extend it to cover, is to bar someone from using the ability at all. There's no mechanism for someone to use the ability but be denied its benefit.


The only thing I disagree with is that those are the cut-and-dried, obvious, clear, and unarguable ways to interpret the RAW. The RAW are interpretable either direction.
That's where I differ. 3 different arguments have been suggested for it not working and none seem viable.

[Segev]

That's where I differ. 3 different arguments have been suggested for it not working and none seem viable.

None convinced you. That doesn't mean they're not viable; they convince other people, and those other people use sound logic in expressing why they're convinced.

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I am simply, consistently, stating that it's arguable.

And that Naebarius is inarguable, or at least nobody seems to argue it wouldn't work, because there isn't any way to interpret it as failing to meet all conditions.

[MR_Anderson]

...We are arguing that RAW also presents other factors that say it doesn't work and as such can't be used as an end all argument.

• strongheart vest protects from attacks, not willing sacrifice.
• diabolical forces demand payment and the conditional is not necessarily exclusive.

That isn’t what they say.

The vest says nothing about sacrifice, and hellfire says nothing about payment, it isn’t worded as a payment for a purchase.

Diabolical forces are DEMANDING your essence for GRANTING the power. You know who else demands things, a violent thief.

There is a very nuanced understanding between a Purchase, a Trade, and a Loan.

A Purchase - Payment is understood to be given first, then whatever was purchased is delivered.

A Trade - Two or more things are understood to be given to the other party(s) at the same time.

A Loan - Fulfillment of debt by the debtor is understood to be delivered upon demand of the debtee.

Demanding & Granting are Loan terms, meaning the Hellfire Power is provided before essence is taken.

Exchange while not exclusive to being a Trade term, might classify this transaction as a Trade instead of a Loan. However, either way, it is not a payment for a Purchase of the ability.


Because it could well be that the constitution damage is a conseguence of using hellfire, and not the enabler.

I would agree with this.

As described above it is highly likely to be a Loaned ability that must be paid for afterwards or at the same time as in a trade, thus it makes sense..

It is not payment for purchase, so not the enabler.


The way I see it and the way the ability is worded is that it works like a toll. Pay the toll and go on your merry way. Don't pay the toll and you can't use the ability. It's why immunity and lack of the ability score were mentioned. You can't pay the cost and therefore can't use the ability. I don't think a contract is necessary.

What you are describing in this analogy is a Purchase, but Hellfire is not worded as a Purchase, refer to above.

BTW, A Toll can be either payment for a Purchase or fulfillment of a Loan. Some Toll Roads you pay to get on (Purchase), and others you pay for what you used afterwards (Loan).

[Elves]

and those other people use sound logic in expressing why they're convinced.
Let's see the sound logic then. Start with an argument against the point above that holds.


I'm not telling you you're wrong. I am simply, consistently, stating that it's arguable.
Something isn't arguable because it has been argued against. It's only arguable if those arguments haven't been disproved. Otherwise it's arguable the Earth is flat.

[ciopo]

I will reread the thread, because this is fun, but my gut reaction on the arguments against strongheart so far has been "but that is not what is written", with a question mark above my head and generally being confused.

I really don't see where the ambiguity comes from, not on what is written.

I find it perfectly believable and acceptable to infer that strongheart wouldn't work, but *that is not what is written*

"Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage. 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."

I don't see ambiguity in this statement.

I would like to compare this to heavy fortification and rogue ACF that let's the rogue do sneak attack to targets that are normally immune to critical hits.

There is no ambiguity that no sneak damage will be taken by someone with heavy fortifification, even if the rogue has features that let him sneak attack targets that habe immunity to sneak attack.

Heavy fortification is not immunity to sneak attack, and if someone rules differentl, that's fine, but it's an houserule.


Maybe this is an apt summary? : you can make a ruling, but it is not the rule


Heavy fortification vs penetrating strike has no ambiguity, people will still want/rule that penetrating strike bypasses heavy fortification.

Is it reasonable? Yes.
Is it RAW? No, and unambigously so

Please forgive the poor typing, I'm on the phone

[Elves]

Sorry to be blunt, but after over five pages of people eloquently arguing both sides, I'm not sure what further arguments can be put to you to change your mind. It seems a pointless endeavor - you are completely convinced there is zero wiggle room against your reading of the text.

I'm talking to Segev about the new point I brought up here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25032502&postcount=144) and at the top of this page.

Eloquence is alright, but this is not an issue of persuasion; there's objective logic involved. The two suggestions brought up earlier about "damage reduction is actually immunity" and "attacks only" have been disproved -- Segev's suggested argument is the last one that seems to be inspiring debate, and I think the point above is conclusive against it.

[Segev]

I'm talking to Segev about the new point I brought up here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25032502&postcount=144) and at the top of this page.

Eloquence is alright, but this is not an issue of persuasion; there's objective logic involved. The two suggestions brought up earlier about "damage reduction is actually immunity" and "attacks only" have been disproved -- Segev's suggested argument is the last one that seems to be inspiring debate, and I think the point above is conclusive against it.

They've spelled it out. I've spelled it out. You don't like it, but taht doesn't make it not logical.

"I want to ignore the 'because' statement, for these semantic reasons," is a logical argument. But so is, "The 'because' statement provides context for understanding the rest of it," a logical argument.

That you feel it doesn't persuade you doesn't make it non-logical, nor bad logic, nor otherwise "doesn't hold." It means you're not persuaded by it, and don't agree with the premises. The trouble is, you're trying to assert that your premises are ironclad and the contrary ones are not. And that's where you're wrong.

Both readings can be drawn from the RAW. You just don't like one of them and find it less satisfying or unpersuasive. That doesn't make your reading "more logical." It means you like the premises that you read into it more.

In short: you have no more proven your case than have those whose arguments you say "don't hold." You have also no LESS proven your case than they have.

[Herbert_W]

Both readings can be drawn from the RAW. You just don't like one of them and find it less satisfying or unpersuasive. That doesn't make your reading "more logical." It means you like the premises that you read into it more.

I think we have a different understanding of what RAW means.

RAW means rules as written - nothing less and nothing more. RAW means only following what the text actually says, not what you think it implies or was intended to mean. You've heard the phrase "RAW, nobody poops," right? That's what RAW means - if the rules don't actually say that something happens then it doesn't, no matter how little sense that makes. There's many rulings that can be, as you put it, drawn from what's written - but if the process of the drawing-from involves any element of your own judgement or worldbuilding, then the result isn't RAW.

I see many good and viable readings by RAI and RAF (rules and intended and rules as fun) in this thread that would have the SHV cheat not work. I see others for why it should work. There's room for DM discretion here. There's room for different tables to go with whichever ruling they enjoy the most.

The crux of the matter is that all of the arguments against SHV working are valid in the context of RAI and RAF, which are the contexts that actually matter for most tables - but you're turning around and presenting them as RAW, which they aren't.

Then there's this line, which I'd like to focus down on:


You just don't like one of them and find it less satisfying . . .

If Elves was defending the SHV cheat as an actual use-it-at-your-table rule outcome, then this accusation would make sense. So, I want to make this absolutely clear: when I say that something works by RAW, that's all I mean. I'm not calling it a good reading, or a balanced one, or a fun one. I'm just saying that it's what's written.

I'd assume that Elves is taking the same stance.

Though, I should ask: Elves, are you defending the SHV always working just as RAW, or also as an actual play ruling?

[Segev]

I think we have a different understanding of what RAW means.

RAW means rules as written - nothing less and nothing more.

And the argument is over whether the "because" clause being ignored is "less" than what is written, or interpreting it as having force is "more" than what is written.

[ciopo]

Well, the reason I do not like thinking the "more" is RAW instead of RAI is because that gives me carte blanche to basically do anything I want with it.

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, Impure prince will take WIS damage instead of CON damage"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you would take 0 CON damage you take Xd6 nonlethal damage instead"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, but essence does not exist in DnD, you cannot use hellfire blast, ever"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you would take 0 CON damage, the celestial host rewards you with a permanent +1 to WIS for swindling those diabolical forces"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you reduce CON damage to 0, whatever allowed you to do that is making you immune to CON damage, and so you don't add the blast damage"

I'm not opposed at a DM interpreting/ruling that you cannot use hellfire blast with a SHV, what I dislike is treating something that wasn't written as if it was written.

I know it's only semantic, but don't tell me that something that isn't written is the rule as written. You're telling me that any and all homebrew is actually WotC material, that's the conclusion (ad absurdium) that this leads me to if I'm told I should treat what I imagine as if that is a rule as written.

If I come off as rude/snarking, I apologize, it is not my intention, I am not snarking, I am confused (and having fun "nuancing")

I was talking about RPing the contract between the warlock and the diabolical forces in an earlier post because I was trying to frame this puzzle in context of why/how SHV would fail. Keeping it contained to notabsurd extrapolations

[Segev]

Well, the reason I do not like thinking the "more" is RAW instead of RAI is because that gives me carte blanche to basically do anything I want with it.

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, Impure prince will take WIS damage instead of CON damage"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you would take 0 CON damage you take Xd6 nonlethal damage instead"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, but essence does not exist in DnD, you cannot use hellfire blast, ever"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you would take 0 CON damage, the celestial host rewards you with a permanent +1 to WIS for swindling those diabolical forces"

"Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you reduce CON damage to 0, whatever allowed you to do that is making you immune to CON damage, and so you don't add the blast damage"

I'm not opposed at a DM interpreting/ruling that you cannot use hellfire blast with a SHV, what I dislike is treating something that wasn't written as if it was written.

I know it's only semantic, but don't tell me that something that isn't written is the rule as written. You're telling me that any and all homebrew is actually WotC material, that's the conclusion (ad absurdium) that this leads me to if I'm told I should treat what I imagine as if that is a rule as written.

If I come off as rude/snarking, I apologize, it is not my intention, I am not snarking, I am confused (and having fun "nuancing")

I was talking about RPing the contract between the warlock and the diabolical forces in an earlier post because I was trying to frame this puzzle in context of why/how SHV would fail. Keeping it contained to notabsurd extrapolations
I do not see how your examples are "carte blanche" to "do whatever you want with it" when they simply state what is demanded to get the reward.

The rules don't say any of what you're suggesting, except for the "because" clause. But they do give the "because" clause, which tells us that the power doesn't work under certain conditions, some of which are spelled out. If you try to read into that conditions which cannot be extrapolated from the text, then you're not working within the RAW.

But extrapolation is always required, though sometimes trivially. Otherwise, we can't even assume that "take damage" means "reduce hp" rather than, say, "put the word 'damage' on a tray and carry it somewhere."

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of this interpretation. I am simply refusing to allow "one true reading"ism to take hold when the RAW can be parsed either way, legitimately.

[ciopo]

Mmm, I see your point.

I'd counterpoint that "power cannot be used" isn't the same as "power doesn't work", but that's sideways to the matter at hand.

I'd make a joke about the lawyerese "included, but not limited to" :D

I'm tempted to make a coherent/not too absurd inference/extrapolation starting from the "because" for the fun of it, but it feels adversarial and I don't want that

[Elves]

And the argument is over whether the "because" clause being ignored is "less" than what is written, or interpreting it as having force is "more" than what is written.
But even if your "because" reading were granted, it would make no difference. The prevention mechanism is to say you can't use the ability, but strongheart vest doesn't have any effect until you do use the ability, at which point...you're already using it.

Your counterargument was that this would result in a loop, but that's not true. There is no provision in the text for allowing someone to use the ability but then denying them its benefit -- only for disallowing them from using the ability in the first place.

Your reading doesn't stop it from working, so it's not a viable case for it not working.


In light of this, the discussion of the "because" statement over the last few pages is beside the point. But I do want to respond to a couple things you said...


"I want to ignore the 'because' statement, for these semantic reasons," is a logical argument.

And the argument is over whether the "because" clause being ignored is "less" than what is written, or interpreting it as having force is "more" than what is written.
No one has argued for ignoring or dismissing the because statement -- they've argued that its consequence is stated, and that imposing any further consequence goes beyond RAW.


That you feel it doesn't persuade you doesn't make it non-logical, nor bad logic, nor otherwise "doesn't hold."
My lack of persuasion is because it doesn't hold. I have no desire for it to be one way or the other.


The trouble is, you're trying to assert that your premises are ironclad and the contrary ones are not. And that's where you're wrong.
My premise is that a rule that's not in the written text, nor necessarily consequent of it, can't be called a "rule as written".

The fact that there are at least several other conclusions you could draw from the clause you cite means it doesn't meet this bar.

For example, look at the wording: the devils "demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power". It never says the demand has to be satisfied. The restrictions on no-Con and Con-immune creatures might be because this demand can't be placed at all, given their immunity, not because it cannot be fulfilled. The demand could still be placed on the strongheart creature, because they're still capable of taking Con damage, regardless of whether or not it's then suffered.

I know your response: both readings are equally valid! What you miss is that in order to assert that a rule which is not explicit is nonetheless Rules as Written, it has to be the logical conclusion of what's written, not just a possible extrapolation of what is written.

For a rule to be consistent with the rules as written isn't enough to make it official. And if that isn't an "ironclad" premise, the entire idea of RAW as a basis for rules discussion breaks down, because there are many house rules you can make that don't actually contradict RAW but aren't its necessary consequence.


I'd assume that Elves is taking the same stance.
Of course, I've said from the start, a DM should rule what they think is best. As DM I make house rulings all the time and if someone comes with an infinite loop damn well I'm gonna ban it.

In this particular case I don't see any reason to rule against it, since the combo isn't game-breaking, there's still another way to pull the combo off, that other method isn't any harder than this one, and this method, as we've mentioned, doesn't break flavor or verisimilitude. The reason left to ban it seems to be that the DM feels it's unfair, but as DM, it's about making things fun for the players, not about turning it into your personal morality ground. In my view, banning things that aren't problematic just because it rubs you the wrong way breeds resentment and isn't a great use of your powers as referee, but that's for every DM to decide.

[Herbert_W]

And the argument is over whether the "because" clause being ignored is "less" than what is written, or interpreting it as having force is "more" than what is written.

All right, let's focus on that line of argument. In order to establish that the SHV cheat isn't raw, at least these three things must be established:


The "because" clause is rules, not fluff.
The "essence" referenced in the aforementioned is either the CON damage itself or so tied to it that the demand is not met unless such damage is actually taken.
The fiends have the ability to enforce their demands on SHV users.

#1 I'll grant. Others have disputed it, but I think that the placement of the text makes it rules. It sounds like fluff, but there's nothing indicating that it is beyond manner of writing, so it's rules.

#2 is a matter of interpretation. "Essence" is undefined. Saying that the CON damage is the essence is a reasonable interpretation, but there are multiple interpretations that are possible. This isn't the final stage though. In order to establish that the SHV might not work by RAW, we'd need to do one more thing:

#3 requires extrapolation. The fiends are implied to have some ability to block people from accessing hellfire; that's why characters with no CON score or immunity to CON damage can't use it. It's plausible to extrapolate that the fiends might be able to block the use of hellfire under other circumstances too, including actively blocking the benefit of the ability if conditions aren't met that come into play after the ability is activated. Note, however, that this is an extrapolation. This brings us to:


But extrapolation is always required, though sometimes trivially. Otherwise, we can't even assume that "take damage" means "reduce hp" rather than, say, "put the word 'damage' on a tray and carry it somewhere."

I agree that interpretation is necessary when reading rules, but not that this gives is a free pass to extrapolate. Extrapolation and interpretation are different things. The example that you gave is one of interpretation - it's deciding the appropriate meaning of the phrase "take damage." Interpretation is always necessary when reading rules, because there's always going to be some worlds or phrases that aren't defined. Those which are defined are defined using other words, and so and so forth, and the chain has to end somewhere. At some point there'll always be words whose meaning we're assumed to know, because they're words in a language that we speak.

Extrapolation, on the other hand, is recognizing a pattern and deciding that it should continue and how far. To put emphasis where emphasis is due, it's deciding that the pattern should continue. A DM might see the two anti-cheat clauses and decide that the fiends can also cut off SHV users. They might just as well decide that the fiends can cut off people who they're currently fighting, so this ability can't be used against fiends. The fiends might even be able to cut someone off for being too consistently Good, despite the fact that there are no written alignment restrictions on this class. All of these (and more!) are equally conclusions which could be reached by extrapolation.

The moment that you extrapolate, you're going beyond RAW. The result might be more fun, interesting, versimilitous, and balanced than RAW - but it's not RAW.

[Segev]

Look, I'm really not interested in trying to argue to persuade. You're not convinced by that position. That's fine.

I'm not convinced that either position is more valid than the other, and I don't particularly care. From a game balance perspective, the vest is probably just as good as anything else that would bypass the cost. I prefer the Naebarius solution for elegance reasons, but would probably determine a ruling as a DM based on whether hellfire was something I felt needed strong limits or not for a particular game and group.

So I don't have a horse in this race. I am not going to try to argue to persuade you that one side (or the other) is right.

[Darg]

The Sacred Vitality feat should work if strongheart vest works. It gives immunity to ability damage. By RAW only immunity to con damage prevents HB from working. So by RAW immunity to ability damage which is a completely different form of skipping out on damage will work. This game is fun. Until someone comes along saying it doesn't work because it provides immunity to con damage. Then I come back with a "but that is not what it says" argument. After that, some one comes along saying that even though it is not what it says, it conditionally fulfills that which would prevent the ability to work. Then I retort with a "you aren't reading it as it is written. It doesnt say immunity to ability damage. It has to say specifically 'immunity to constitution damage.'" Argument ends because if RAW allows it, speculation on any alternative RAW interpretations that prevent it can't be RAW for some reason or other.

[Elves]

I don't know what you're getting at Darg. Is someone immune to ability damage immune to Constitution damage? Yes. Is someone with strongheart vest immune to Constitution damage? No.

[Darg]

I don't know what you're getting at Darg. Is someone immune to ability damage immune to Constitution damage? Yes. Is someone with strongheart vest immune to Constitution damage? No.

Immunity to ability damage is not immunity to constitution damage. They are different effects. You can't argue that they aren't. HB never says that the immunity isn't the specific effect.

Is someone immune to ability damage immune to constitution damage? Yes, on the condition that they remain immune to ability damage.
Is someone with strongheart vest immune to constitution damage? Yes, on the condition that it doesn't go above the amount of essentia invested +1.

Think about it this way, spell immunity provides immunity to spells on the condition that the spells are effected by spell resistance. Is that actually immunity when there are sources of unconditional immunity? It breaks the the definition of immunity that says the creature is never harmed or helped by the effect. If immunity is simply saying something is immune, then sure, why not. We can just ditch the definition because it holds no meaning mechanically.

[Elves]

Immunity to ability damage is not immunity to constitution damage. They are different effects. You can't argue that they aren't. HB never says that the immunity isn't the specific effect.
It says "if you are immune to Constitution damage". Are you immune to Con damage if you're immune to ability damage? Yes.


Is someone with strongheart vest immune to constitution damage? Yes, on the condition that it doesn't go above the amount of essentia invested +1.
So if a feat requires "immunity to fire", I can take it, because I'm immune to fire on the condition that I never take any fire damage?

Flip this around. What if an ability required that you were immune to Con damage, or fire damage, or mind-affecting spells, in order to use it? Could someone with strongheart use that ability? Could someone with resist fire 5 use it because they're immune to fire damage on the condition that it's less than 5 points? Could someone with SR 17 use it because they're immune to those spells on the condition that the spell in question is stopped by spell resistance and the caster fails their SR check? Is someone immune to energy drain because they're immune to it on the condition that they succeed on their saving throw?

This is an example of being willing to make arguments you would never accept if the shoe were on the other foot, which isn't good practice.


If immunity is simply saying something is immune, then sure, why not. We can just ditch the definition because it holds no meaning mechanically.
Spell immunity isn't a traditional immunity effect. It's clear about how it works: "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells." Why this makes you think you can throw out the glossary definition of immunity, I fail to grasp.

If nothing else, there's the specific over general rule, which means precisely that isolated cases of weirdness can't invalidate a general rule. They're exceptions to it. That's one of the reasons why it's an important rule in a game with content as diverse as 3e's.

[ciopo]

The Sacred Vitality feat should work if strongheart vest works. It gives immunity to ability damage. By RAW only immunity to con damage prevents HB from working.

I don't have a problem with that, if a player came to me with this argument, I'd grin and go for it, a reward for being clever if you will, if we're engaged in lawyeres at least, as expected of a warlock player! Then I'd do a fair turnaround and have him take the con damage, because it's CON damage, and so Sacred vitality doesn't apply to it :) (or more likely : "are you sure you want to argud that? This will be the conseguence")




I do disagree about the link you are trying to establish between strongheart and sacred vitality, reduction is not immunity, 100% miss chance is not immunity. Sky high AC/SR/saves are not immunities. Sacred vitality is immunity. Staying true to the keywords. Taking 0 of something is not immunity.

[Raishoiken]

The Sacred Vitality feat should work if strongheart vest works. It gives immunity to ability damage. By RAW only immunity to con damage prevents HB from working. So by RAW immunity to ability damage which is a completely different form of skipping out on damage will work. This game is fun. Until someone comes along saying it doesn't work because it provides immunity to con damage. Then I come back with a "but that is not what it says" argument. After that, some one comes along saying that even though it is not what it says, it conditionally fulfills that which would prevent the ability to work. Then I retort with a "you aren't reading it as it is written. It doesnt say immunity to ability damage. It has to say specifically 'immunity to constitution damage.'" Argument ends because if RAW allows it, speculation on any alternative RAW interpretations that prevent it can't be RAW for some reason or other.


Immunity to ability damage is not immunity to constitution damage. They are different effects. You can't argue that they aren't. HB never says that the immunity isn't the specific effect.

Is someone immune to ability damage immune to constitution damage? Yes, on the condition that they remain immune to ability damage.
Is someone with strongheart vest immune to constitution damage? Yes, on the condition that it doesn't go above the amount of essentia invested +1.

Think about it this way, spell immunity provides immunity to spells on the condition that the spells are effected by spell resistance. Is that actually immunity when there are sources of unconditional immunity? It breaks the the definition of immunity that says the creature is never harmed or helped by the effect. If immunity is simply saying something is immune, then sure, why not. We can just ditch the definition because it holds no meaning mechanically.


Immunity to ability damage means that no attack that would otherwise reduce any of your abilities fails to do so, no matter what. That automatically means you're immune to con damage. It both logically follows and it fits in the definition of immunity Wizards provided to us.
Trying to say it isn't because it isn't explicitly called out as such is kind of weird. It not only fufills the conditions but it's ALSO spelled out to do it that way by Wizards themselves

[Darg]

So if a feat requires "immunity to fire", I can take it, because I'm immune to fire on the condition that I never take any fire damage?

This argument holds no water on the basis that that it is irrelevant. There is no such feat or requirement. Immunity to fire is an ability and immunity to fire damage is a quality of that. I can just as easily argue what if a creature has the ability "Immunity to Constitution Damage." What then. Would such a requirement work in any case a creature has immunity to con damage or would it only work with the ability?

You like to ignore what RAW means. RAW means any legal interpretation. It means anything goes as long as the language can support it. Does RAW support strongheart vest? Extremely so. Does RAW support not allowing it? Extremely so. Just because you disagree or you can't comprehend something doesn't mean that RAW isn't saying it. It's why using naberius is isn't so hotly contested. There is no RAW, no logical way to interpret the interaction in a way that it does not work.

When you start arguing semantics, the argument already entered RAI territory. This is what Segev and I have been arguing against. Language can be understood in different ways. It doesn’t mean that such an interpretation is wrong, it's simply different. We have been presenting viewpoints that have RAW legal alternate interpretations of the interactions. This is why RAW is ignored pretty much anywhere.

RAW says I can hold the charge on a fly spell and then next turn take a full-round action to touch up to 6 friends to let them benefit as well. I don't think very many people play this way, but RAW is RAW. Honestly, it's been entirely beneficial for my groups. It gets rid of the tug and pull between the non-full casters and full casters. It also makes cure type spells competitive.

[Segev]

RAW says I can hold the charge on a fly spell and then next turn take a full-round action to touch up to 6 friends to let them benefit as well. I don't think very many people play this way, but RAW is RAW. Honestly, it's been entirely beneficial for my groups. It gets rid of the tug and pull between the non-full casters and full casters. It also makes cure type spells competitive.

I don't think the rules permitting you to touch up to n willing targets overrides the maximum number of targets of a spell. It lets you touch up to that many people, sure, but the spell still targets only one, unless it says it targets more. That said, clever observation, and if it works well for your tables and your DM likes it, don't let my argument over the technicalities of the RAW stop you.

[Darg]

I don't think the rules permitting you to touch up to n willing targets overrides the maximum number of targets of a spell. It lets you touch up to that many people, sure, but the spell still targets only one, unless it says it targets more. That said, clever observation, and if it works well for your tables and your DM likes it, don't let my argument over the technicalities of the RAW stop you.

Well, the spells say the target is the creature touched. It's not specifically limited to one creature touched. And there are rules in place for touch spells which do have a specific number of touched targets: touch all willing creatures in the same round as you cast the spell which makes it impossible to hold the charge. Spells that have the "or" in the target line are all attack spells. I don't think "friends" implies you would be attacking the targets. It definitely holds up that it works.

We do like it. It empowers weaker spells and buffing a whole party with one spell makes it a lot easier to convince the casters to spend resources on the noncasters as the benefit is a whole lot larger. An example is Bear's Endurance. A wizard or sorcerer may be reluctant to pick up the spell, but if it confers +4 con to 6 party members that's +24 con in total or +12 hp per level split between party members. This also makes taking cure wounds an attractive option for a bard or preparing it as a paladin/ranger. It also provides tactical options for touch spells such as having a front line blocking a passage and you heal them together. Another quality I like, is that noncaster classes get easier access to protection against incorporeal attacks thanks to mage armor

I highly recommend it as a houserule if nothing else.

[Elves]

Immunity to fire is an ability and immunity to fire damage is a quality of that.
So the energy immunity spell doesn't provide you with immunity to fire because it provides you with "immunity to fire damage"? In practice, "immunity to fire" and "immunity to fire damage" are used interchangeably, so I don't think trying to draw a technical line between them is functional.


When you start arguing semantics, the argument already entered RAI territory.
Whether language has any objective meaning is something you can debate with philosophers, but what it can do is establish objective relationships between its elements. In English, which has strict word order rules, when I say "the dog ran and I followed", it's inarguably the dog doing the running and me following behind. When I say "the vest protects you from x. It applies against [category including x]," there's no way the subset statement restricts the following statement. Sometimes language really is ambiguous, but that hasn't been the case in the arguments you've made.


Language can be understood in different ways. It doesn’t mean that such an interpretation is wrong, it's simply different.
Language can produce different impressions and assumptions. A close reading may dispel some of them.

I can't help but notice that ever since I pointed out how Segev's reading doesn't stop strongheart from working, we've gone from specific arguments to vague statements about "all interpretations are equal".

[Raishoiken]

So the energy immunity spell doesn't provide you with immunity to fire because it provides you with "immunity to fire damage"? In practice, "immunity to fire" and "immunity to fire damage" are used interchangeably, so I don't think trying to draw a technical line between them is functional.

Technically immunity to fire damage wouldn't necessarily be immunity to all of the effects a fire (likely magical) could have on you (like daze or blindess idk) whereas immunity to fire in general would

[Elves]

Technically immunity to fire damage wouldn't necessarily be immunity to all of the effects a fire (likely magical) could have on you (like daze or blindess idk) whereas immunity to fire in general would
Doesn't work like that RAW (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fireImmunity), but would make sense as a houserule. I might run it that way in the future.