Magical Sneak Attack Q
Uller
Adventurer
kreynolds said:
What? You didn't start gaming when you were 8?!? Shame on you...
To answer IceBear: I'm in agreement. No HP loss for negative levels. _If_ someone insists on house ruling it, I would strongly suggest the loss of an AVERAGE Hit Die's worth of HP(round down). So a wizard with a 13 Con would lose 3. A fighter with a 16 Con would lose 8. These hitpoints would be lost from the character's max hp and would be restored if he passes the Fort save, the level is restored or the negative level "wears off"(in the case of the spell). But I recommend against even this...just makes Energy Draining even more powerful than it already is.
BTW, we've house ruled it that Energy Draining is NEVER permanent. If you fail your fort save, you lose the level as normal(and record the changes you make). Then each week you get to make another save. You may only make _one_ save attempt per week no matter how many levels you've lost. Example: You've gained 3 negative levels and somehow fail your save on all three. So you lose three levels. Once one week passes, you get to make _one_ save against the same DC. If you pass, one level returns. Rinse and repeat until all levels return. Yes, it waters down Energy Draining creatures, but it allows me to through fun undead at my party before they hit 7th level. I hate having to have Restoration scrolls laying about for contrived reasons or give the PCs access to higher level NPCs all the time....but that's another thread entirely...
Uller
Adventurer
Jens said:
By the letter of the rules? I guess so. From the SRD for VT:
"The character gains temporary hit points equal to the damage the character inflicts."
The sneak attack damage is part of the damage character inflicts, right? So a Rogue3/Sorc6 on a sneak attack woud inflict 3d6+2d6 damage(on a crit, it would be 3d6+3d6+2d6) and would gain all those as temporary hitpoints.
However, I don't think that is what is intended so I would not allow it. You have to remember that when they wrote each rule, they did not consider every possibility and if it seems wrong, overpowered, non-sensical or munchkinny, then it probably is. DM's discretion is a beautiful thing...
kreynolds
First Post
Uller said:
Don't forget that VT is a touch spell after all, thus very dangerous for a spellcaster to use. Most spellcasters can't go toe to toe with other classes, so using the spell is kind of a last ditch effort to get some healing. Besides, even if you do heal 3d6+3d6+2d6, there's a good chance you might lose 'em anyway, especially since you're now standing right in the enemy's face.
Uller
Adventurer
kreynolds said:
Don't forget that VT is a touch spell after all, thus very dangerous for a spellcaster to use. Most spellcasters can't go toe to toe with other classes, so using the spell is kind of a last ditch effort to get some healing. Besides, even if you do heal 3d6+3d6+2d6, there's a good chance you might lose 'em anyway, especially since you're now standing right in the enemy's face.
Like I said, it is just my gut instinct to not allow it. I played a Rogue sorcerer and I'm very aware of the sacrifices in each class they must make(a Rogue3/Sorcerer6 has given up 4th level spells to get that +2d6 sneak attack). I do tend to give multiclass characters the benefit of the doubt when it comes to overlapping abilities for that very reason. It still just doesn't _feel_ right to me, but if it ever came up in my game, I could probably be swayed...
Of course, you could just use spectral hand and stay away from those nasty foes...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
