Weird question and I'm pretty sure the answer is a reounding no, but to be sure....
If I'm playing a dhampir warlock with the gift of the everliving one and I bite some one do I automatically do max damage as I'm rolling a die to regain hit points, by damaging someone else.
This was just a random thought, and seems wrong, but cool if it does work (9 damage isn't that crazy by the time you have a con of 20)
Gift of the Ever Living ones does say "Any Dice used...", not "Any healing dice" or "Any dice but damage", so RAW I really do think it should. But the community consensus is No, and you'd have a hard time finding any table or DM that would agree to that, because it is a bit game unbalancing.
Gift of the Ever Living ones does say "Any Dice used...", not "Any healing dice" or "Any dice but damage", so RAW I really do think it should. But the community consensus is No, and you'd have a hard time finding any table or DM that would agree to that, because it is a bit game unbalancing.
I'm not entirely familiar with the Dhampir but purely by RaW this should work from the information I know about the invocation and what was posted here. Which is something to keep in mind this applies to things like vampiric touch and such as well since they are dice that deal damage and determine hp you regain based upon half of that roll. Assuming that the Kiss thing works the same. The way Vampiric touch is written actually gives room for other potential modifiers to potentially get in the mix and increase the damage beyond simply the damage die rolled. But they are dice determining healing at the same time they are determining damage.
Though as Rockwall stated most DM's would probably still not allow it.
Yeah that’s what I read too, a rule that draws no distinction as written. I totally understand your reasoning, and even agree from a game-balance perspective; but that’s not in the text.
The Gift doesn’t say that you had to be rolling solely for health, it just specifies what happens to any dice rolled whenever you do regain hp. So yeah, if you don’t regain hp because you were already full up, missed with your attack roll, prevented from healing by something like Chill Hand, or bit a construct, undead, or something immune to piercing, then nothing would happen to the dice; those are all circumstances that would prevent it.
treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.
It clearly states that it only affects dice that are rolled to determine hit points gained. The Dhampirs' bite is an attack. You are rolling for damage, you are not rolling to determine hit points regained.
Under certain circumstances, you may also heal for an amount equal to the damage dealt. You did not roll for healing, you rolled for damage; thus the gift never procs.
Whilst we have arrived at the same conclusion, your logic was flawed. You don't get the gift, because you cannot ever apply it to the bite, not because some additional circumstances prevent you from healing.
The Roll has a direct effect on the amount of HP you gain. plus or minus other possible factors. So it is rolling to determine the hp gained as well as the damage. it's not a flaw of logic. It's two effects coming about because of the same roll of the dice.
treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.
It clearly states that it only affects dice that are rolled to determine hit points gained. The Dhampirs' bite is an attack. You are rolling for damage, you are not rolling to determine hit points regained.
Under certain circumstances, you may also heal for an amount equal to the damage dealt. You did not roll for healing, you rolled for damage; thus the gift never procs.
Whilst we have arrived at the same conclusion, your logic was flawed. You don't get the gift, because you cannot ever apply it to the bite, not because some additional circumstances prevent you from healing.
It does not clearly state that it only affects dice that are rolled to determine hit points gained. It clearly states that Whenever you regain hitpoints, this is what you do with any dice involved. There's no requirement or distinction stated between rolling solely for HP or Attacks that also result in regaining HP.
It does not clearly state that it only affects dice that are rolled to determine hit points gained. It clearly states that Whenever you regain hitpoints, this is what you do with any dice involved. There's no requirement or distinction stated between rolling solely for HP or Attacks that also result in regaining HP.
Show me where the invocation says that. I'll quote the relevant part of the invocation so you can point it out.
treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.
The key elements to this are the object and the effect.
The object is: any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain
The effect is: as having rolled their maximum value for you
For the Dhampir's bite, one of the options you have is:
regain hit points equal to the damage dealt by the bite
This clearly and obviously shows that the healing is based only on the damage dealt. It does not say "Roll 1d4, and regain that many hit points"; it says you regain hit points equal to the damage dealt. Gift of the Ever-living ones does not, and cannot proc on the bite.
By attempting to use the gift on the damage roll, you are trying to use it to maximise damage dealt, which is not what the invocation does.
equal to the damage dealt very easily and logically can be taken as. The Roll does both of these things. So it is both rolling your healing and the damage.
"Whenever you regain hit points while your familiar is within 100 feet of you, treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you."
"Whenever you regain hitpoints..." The only written constraints are that your familiar has to be within 100 feet, and that you have to regain hitpoints. This idea that it doesn't proc if you dealt damage at the same time just isn't in the text.
"...treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain..." Again, the notion that it would affect any dice except damage dice, that determine the hit points you regain, isnt' in the text. Nothing in there states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected.
Lurky is more correct. Logically so, even if a decent counterpoint or two could be made. While I understand the juxtaposition of why one could interpret damage being modified for maximization, it is a pretty wild interpretation and a means toward abusing something that is not meant to be used that way.
"...any dice rolled to determine hit points..." - Means you're rolling dice, or dice are being rolled , to determine hit points received as a sole ability/action/whatever. As in this is what you're doing/receiving. We've covered this, plus nuances.
Pretty simple, pretty clear.
"...whenever you regain hit points..." as long as your familiar is within 100 feet, you receive the maximum amount of HP. In this case, the bite already provides an amount of HP returned equal to the damage dealt. If you had to roll separate dice to determine how much HP you would get on return, then the invocation would allow for maximization of the HP.
Example: Roll 1d8 to determine damage, if successful, roll 1d4 to determine HP returned. You would receive 4 HP while the familiar is within 100 feet of your. You're rolling dice for HP.
This has been covered, plus nuances. Again it is pretty simple and pretty clear.
The invocation, while wildly interpreted this way in this particular case, does not congruently enhance the damage because the invocation does not warrant an increase in damage, and its inherent features do not suggest this when you consider the context. Even though nothing states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected, it also does not say it can, should, or will. So either way, the invocation's interpretation is limited by one factor, which is that you have to roll for HP gain, specifically, to benefit from it.
Not damage.
You're rolling dice to determine damage with the bite. You're not rolling damage to determine HP gained. You would have to counterpoint why you're rolling for HP instead of damage in the event you perform this bite action against something that resists or entirely negates the effect of damage. That is not so easy.
The damage determines the amount of HP you're getting back, the HP is just a secondary effect. Clear and simple, hope that helps!
EDIT: To be honest, if this situation were presented at a table I'm DMing, I would actually probably allow the Gift to grant max damage for HP returned. I think it's a clever interpretation of the invocation's use versus a limited application of some other feature, and it's not mindblowingly overpowered in the least.
See that's where I think we're adding a rule that doesn't exist, but maybe I'm mistaken. Is there any rule that prohibits a single dice roll from having two simultaneous effects?
So if you roll a 1 for damage do you heal 1 or 4? Does that in turn make your damage 4 since that’s what you heal and heal number = damage? so you end up always doing max damage?
(RAW) Rules as Written, I have never seen that verbatim or paraphrased, but I've only read like eight of these books and all were 5e.
(RAI) Rules as Intended: Most of the writing does the explaining, but the odd, albeit clever, interpretation comes along that begs questions like the one the OP made. Also, that does not mean the interpretation is wrong, it just means that the interpretation may not have been the intention. That's where Rules as Fun comes into effect.
(RAF) Rules as Fun: Hell nah, do what you want and see if your DM likes it! Or if it's a mean DM probably not as good as an idea. Lol.
I think by RAW it might be allowed to maximise the bite Damage (hence my original question)
By RAI Most likely not, imagine a high level monk using D10 for damage, that would add up far too quickly (though it is limited by Proficiency bonus)
as For RAF (I love this idea) it's really up to each group, is it a fun idea, will it speed up combat/make the combat more interesting?
for me it was mostly a thought experiment, what would happen if... and I thought I'd see if I was missing something from the rules as I know I'm not 100% on the details, and some interesting points were raised, it it a damage die or a die that is used for healing? or both?
Whether by potion or dhampir bite, healing either are dependent of being low in health
if you consider the dhampir bite as a potion then its max dice so 4+con and empowered its (4+con) + 4+con till half healed.
whether by potions, spell that lets you roll for healing, an ability or any regaining hit points by rolling after returning from death, you rolled maximum.
This plus enlarge add 1d4 melee weapon damage to bite dice so for dice thats automatic 8+con modifier
BUT THIS MAXIMUM ONLY COUNTS WHEN YOU ARE ALREADY DAMAGED
SO IT DOESNT WORK WITH SNEAK CRIT UNLESS YOU ARE ALREADY DAMAGED WHEN YOU SNEAKED
so negative you can start battles with less health for greater damage.
to me this is clearly purely multiclass as your familiar is vulnerable as soon as hostiles find out it buffs your damage.
in many cases if any wizard hostile sees your familiar it would be target number 1 and even hostile druids might take out your familiar first as they get familiars too now.
only the immortal raven from raven queen would guarantee this buff, On your shoulder it cant be targeted nor harmed directly, only by aoe.
be warned
it wont be easy to sneak both you and your familiar into battle you will need to use a method to allow you and your familiar to hide and avoid damage near you.
there is no rule that when you summon your familiar that is puffs into reality silently, i would not suggest summoning your familiar near a hostile.
To bolded above I’m not sure what you mean by 4+con or 4+con+4+con until half healed. Wouldn’t it just be 4+con if it was max? And not sure why you have “until half healed” it works no matter your HP unless you are at your max.
Lurky is more correct. Logically so, even if a decent counterpoint or two could be made. While I understand the juxtaposition of why one could interpret damage being modified for maximization, it is a pretty wild interpretation and a means toward abusing something that is not meant to be used that way.
"...any dice rolled to determine hit points..." - Means you're rolling dice, or dice are being rolled , to determine hit points received as a sole ability/action/whatever. As in this is what you're doing/receiving. We've covered this, plus nuances.
Pretty simple, pretty clear.
"...whenever you regain hit points..." as long as your familiar is within 100 feet, you receive the maximum amount of HP. In this case, the bite already provides an amount of HP returned equal to the damage dealt. If you had to roll separate dice to determine how much HP you would get on return, then the invocation would allow for maximization of the HP.
Example: Roll 1d8 to determine damage, if successful, roll 1d4 to determine HP returned. You would receive 4 HP while the familiar is within 100 feet of your. You're rolling dice for HP.
This has been covered, plus nuances. Again it is pretty simple and pretty clear.
The invocation, while wildly interpreted this way in this particular case, does not congruently enhance the damage because the invocation does not warrant an increase in damage, and its inherent features do not suggest this when you consider the context. Even though nothing states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected, it also does not say it can, should, or will. So either way, the invocation's interpretation is limited by one factor, which is that you have to roll for HP gain, specifically, to benefit from it.
Not damage.
You're rolling dice to determine damage with the bite. You're not rolling damage to determine HP gained. You would have to counterpoint why you're rolling for HP instead of damage in the event you perform this bite action against something that resists or entirely negates the effect of damage. That is not so easy.
The damage determines the amount of HP you're getting back, the HP is just a secondary effect. Clear and simple, hope that helps!
EDIT: To be honest, if this situation were presented at a table I'm DMing, I would actually probably allow the Gift to grant max damage for HP returned. I think it's a clever interpretation of the invocation's use versus a limited application of some other feature, and it's not mindblowingly overpowered in the least.
First this post. There is nothing anywhere that even alludes to healing effects only applying only when dice are rolled purely for healing and nothing else. ANYWHERE. that is a limitation your forcing on things. Your insistance that this can only take place as a sole effect to apply is thus in fact wrong by RaW and not as logically applicable as you make it. There is actually nothing anywhere that says a single roll of the dice can't be effectively applied to more than one thing. There are in fact however, examples of a single dice roll being applied in multiple places. Granted most of them aren't so controversial such as a fireball applying equal damage from a single roll to all the targets that it hits that fail their saves or group healing spells that heal multiple people at once.
Without either of these being something that exists in the rules of the games all of the rest of your argument here means nothing. Even though it's something that on some levels basically all of us have agreed with. Your Examples are also very poor and don't actually address any of the issues on hand either.
it wont be easy to sneak both you and your familiar into battle you will need to use a method to allow you and your familiar to hide and avoid damage near you.
there is no rule that when you summon your familiar that is puffs into reality silently, i would not suggest summoning your familiar near a hostile.
I deleted most of this post because it really doesn't matter.
I'll just touch on the most relevant points and that primarily revolves around this right here. This is an un-necessary warning that doesn't actually apply in any general sense because the ability in question can only be used by Pact of the Chain Warlocks (as it's being discussed here) which have advanced familiars. Most if not all of which have invisibility and all of them have flight. This means that moving the familiar around or keeping it from being targeted if your not actively using them for combat bonuses which makes all of this stuff about targeting familiars pointless because they have nothing to actually target. Making it very easy to move familiars and depending on how you do it around very easily unless the ones that want to target them take great pains to try and actually do so.
Lurky is more correct. Logically so, even if a decent counterpoint or two could be made. While I understand the juxtaposition of why one could interpret damage being modified for maximization, it is a pretty wild interpretation and a means toward abusing something that is not meant to be used that way.
"...any dice rolled to determine hit points..." - Means you're rolling dice, or dice are being rolled , to determine hit points received as a sole ability/action/whatever. As in this is what you're doing/receiving. We've covered this, plus nuances.
Pretty simple, pretty clear.
"...whenever you regain hit points..." as long as your familiar is within 100 feet, you receive the maximum amount of HP. In this case, the bite already provides an amount of HP returned equal to the damage dealt. If you had to roll separate dice to determine how much HP you would get on return, then the invocation would allow for maximization of the HP.
Example: Roll 1d8 to determine damage, if successful, roll 1d4 to determine HP returned. You would receive 4 HP while the familiar is within 100 feet of your. You're rolling dice for HP.
This has been covered, plus nuances. Again it is pretty simple and pretty clear.
The invocation, while wildly interpreted this way in this particular case, does not congruently enhance the damage because the invocation does not warrant an increase in damage, and its inherent features do not suggest this when you consider the context. Even though nothing states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected, it also does not say it can, should, or will. So either way, the invocation's interpretation is limited by one factor, which is that you have to roll for HP gain, specifically, to benefit from it.
Not damage.
You're rolling dice to determine damage with the bite. You're not rolling damage to determine HP gained. You would have to counterpoint why you're rolling for HP instead of damage in the event you perform this bite action against something that resists or entirely negates the effect of damage. That is not so easy.
The damage determines the amount of HP you're getting back, the HP is just a secondary effect. Clear and simple, hope that helps!
EDIT: To be honest, if this situation were presented at a table I'm DMing, I would actually probably allow the Gift to grant max damage for HP returned. I think it's a clever interpretation of the invocation's use versus a limited application of some other feature, and it's not mindblowingly overpowered in the least.
First this post. 1.) There is nothing anywhere that even alludes to healing effects only applying only when dice are rolled purely for healing and nothing else. ANYWHERE. 2.) that is a limitation your forcing on things. 3.) Your insistance that this can only take place as a sole effect to apply is thus in fact wrong by RaW 4.) and not as logically applicable as you make it. 5.) There is actually nothing anywhere that says a single roll of the dice can't be effectively applied to more than one thing. 6.) There are in fact however, examples of a single dice roll being applied in multiple places. 7.) Granted most of them aren't so controversial such as a fireball applying equal damage from a single roll to all the targets that it hits that fail their saves or group healing spells that heal multiple people at once.
8.) Without either of these being something that exists in the rules of the games all of the rest of your argument here means nothing.9.) Even though it's something that on some levels basically all of us have agreed with. 10.) Your Examples are also very poor and don't actually address any of the issues on hand either.
Not entirely sure why you're being so very hostile, or why everything has to be completely cut and dry. If you don't like the genuine logical approach behind the intent or a feature, then that's fine. Attacking me isn't going to change the feature, nor will it ever, ever refute a logically sound and resolute explanation. Alas, I will not be forced to defend a point you want me to make by insinuating I'm saying something I clearly did not, so I will break it down for you simply.
1.) Yes there is.
2.) No it isn't.
3.) Factually, no it isn't wrong.
4.) Logically it is more applicable than the misconstrued intention of maximizing damage to abuse an effect it wasn't intended for.
5.) That remains to be identified, as myself or anyone else likely haven't discovered this yet. We're awaiting evidence as evidence will prove one way or another, not blindly asserting a finality for its own sake. I mentioned that I wasn't sure in a previous post identifying RAW, RAI, and RAF regardless.
6.) Honestly not even sure how that applies because you're rolling to hit then for damage. That's two rolls; one for hit one for damage, the damage isn't typically isn't split or halved on something requiring an attack roll, and typically secondary effects are directly linked to the success of the attack's damage.
7.) Not sure what's controversial. Fireball is a save DC not an attack roll that deals damage regardless of whether or not you make the save (sans various features that prevent damage on halved save damages). Those that make saves take half damage, those that don't take full damage. You roll for the damage for everything in its area because it is still one attack. If group healing spells require dice to roll for everyone to get back, again as a group wholly, then that would be an instance which the Warlock with the Gift would ignore the rolled amount of HP being given and they would simply receive the maximum amount from the dice roll.
8.) Lol....kk.
9.) Already actually said I would allow it at my table, but you're proving ignorance by either not reading all of my post, choosing to read things that aren't there, or aren't capable of forward-thinking.
10.) No they're not, and they exactly, directly, address the OPs complete main issue. Like...that could not be more clear whatsoever, so I'm going to have to assume you just didn't understand, or can't, what is easily identifiable to everyone else that read the post. You want things to be your opinion and nothing else, that much is clear. This to me proves you're no longer going to be worth responding to because you're going to continue to harass and/or try to flame on me for being deliberately open to the concept and application of this application for the gift, while also bringing to light a logically sound reason why the gift isn't intended to do it.
Please refrain from being so rude in your posts. You've had a hostile tone since you responded to someone who didn't align primarily with your currently limited scope of a small but discovering discussion. You're getting agitated, and it happens, but try not to be so stiff in your convictions, especially here on a place where we like to openly discuss possibilities. Thank you.
I think by RAW it might be allowed to maximise the bite Damage (hence my original question)
By RAI Most likely not, imagine a high level monk using D10 for damage, that would add up far too quickly (though it is limited by Proficiency bonus)
as For RAF (I love this idea) it's really up to each group, is it a fun idea, will it speed up combat/make the combat more interesting?
for me it was mostly a thought experiment, what would happen if... and I thought I'd see if I was missing something from the rules as I know I'm not 100% on the details, and some interesting points were raised, it it a damage die or a die that is used for healing? or both?
If by RAW it would be allowed, then all the better. I think it's a really neat way to interpret the Gift's use! Of course not all tables would allow it but that's where things get a little sticky I suppose, hence why you asked, lol.
I did a very brief stint of digging into it last night (as well as dual-application from single dice rolls) after I posted but didn't really find anything truly conclusive one way or the other, other than primarily RAI stuff. RAI, I agree its intention likely isn't to maximize damage just for the sake of making sure you gain max HP. There would have to be a limit at some point with RAW however, akin to how out of hand it could get with your example with the Monk. That is why I feel the intention was never meant to maximize damage from attacks that also return HP on success.
I'm actually going to run this by my DM when we play this weekend. My wife's character has a weapon which grants her a similar effect on a successful hit, returning HP for an amount equal to the damage done. Even though her character isn't a Warlock, I would like to see what our DM says when I pose this to him.
Also, thanks for the brain food, things like these aren't brought up often enough imho!
EDIT: I did a search for, "Does the warlock's Gift of the Ever-Living Ones eldritch invocation change how Dhampir bites heal?" and the first link took me to a page with a title "Does the warlock's Gift of the Ever-Living Ones eldritch invocation change how the vampiric touch spell behaves?" For some reason the link won't stick to my post, so if I can shorten it and put it here I will. It's an interesting read.
There are other discussions that go back and forth as we have. As I understand it the popular version, without Crawford's input, compromises that you roll for damage but maximize the healing. Make an attack and if successful then deal 1d4 damage, but even if it is a 1 for damage you still get 4 HP (plus modifiers if applicable).
Weird question and I'm pretty sure the answer is a reounding no, but to be sure....
If I'm playing a dhampir warlock with the gift of the everliving one and I bite some one do I automatically do max damage as I'm rolling a die to regain hit points, by damaging someone else.
This was just a random thought, and seems wrong, but cool if it does work (9 damage isn't that crazy by the time you have a con of 20)
Thanks for the confirmation 👍
Gift of the Ever Living ones does say "Any Dice used...", not "Any healing dice" or "Any dice but damage", so RAW I really do think it should. But the community consensus is No, and you'd have a hard time finding any table or DM that would agree to that, because it is a bit game unbalancing.
I'm not entirely familiar with the Dhampir but purely by RaW this should work from the information I know about the invocation and what was posted here. Which is something to keep in mind this applies to things like vampiric touch and such as well since they are dice that deal damage and determine hp you regain based upon half of that roll. Assuming that the Kiss thing works the same. The way Vampiric touch is written actually gives room for other potential modifiers to potentially get in the mix and increase the damage beyond simply the damage die rolled. But they are dice determining healing at the same time they are determining damage.
Though as Rockwall stated most DM's would probably still not allow it.
Yeah that’s what I read too, a rule that draws no distinction as written. I totally understand your reasoning, and even agree from a game-balance perspective; but that’s not in the text.
The Gift doesn’t say that you had to be rolling solely for health, it just specifies what happens to any dice rolled whenever you do regain hp. So yeah, if you don’t regain hp because you were already full up, missed with your attack roll, prevented from healing by something like Chill Hand, or bit a construct, undead, or something immune to piercing, then nothing would happen to the dice; those are all circumstances that would prevent it.
The Roll has a direct effect on the amount of HP you gain. plus or minus other possible factors. So it is rolling to determine the hp gained as well as the damage. it's not a flaw of logic. It's two effects coming about because of the same roll of the dice.
It does not clearly state that it only affects dice that are rolled to determine hit points gained. It clearly states that Whenever you regain hitpoints, this is what you do with any dice involved. There's no requirement or distinction stated between rolling solely for HP or Attacks that also result in regaining HP.
equal to the damage dealt very easily and logically can be taken as. The Roll does both of these things. So it is both rolling your healing and the damage.
"Whenever you regain hit points while your familiar is within 100 feet of you, treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you."
"Whenever you regain hitpoints..." The only written constraints are that your familiar has to be within 100 feet, and that you have to regain hitpoints. This idea that it doesn't proc if you dealt damage at the same time just isn't in the text.
"...treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain..." Again, the notion that it would affect any dice except damage dice, that determine the hit points you regain, isnt' in the text. Nothing in there states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected.
Lurky is more correct. Logically so, even if a decent counterpoint or two could be made. While I understand the juxtaposition of why one could interpret damage being modified for maximization, it is a pretty wild interpretation and a means toward abusing something that is not meant to be used that way.
"...any dice rolled to determine hit points..." - Means you're rolling dice, or dice are being rolled , to determine hit points received as a sole ability/action/whatever. As in this is what you're doing/receiving. We've covered this, plus nuances.
Pretty simple, pretty clear.
"...whenever you regain hit points..." as long as your familiar is within 100 feet, you receive the maximum amount of HP. In this case, the bite already provides an amount of HP returned equal to the damage dealt. If you had to roll separate dice to determine how much HP you would get on return, then the invocation would allow for maximization of the HP.
Example: Roll 1d8 to determine damage, if successful, roll 1d4 to determine HP returned. You would receive 4 HP while the familiar is within 100 feet of your. You're rolling dice for HP.
This has been covered, plus nuances. Again it is pretty simple and pretty clear.
The invocation, while wildly interpreted this way in this particular case, does not congruently enhance the damage because the invocation does not warrant an increase in damage, and its inherent features do not suggest this when you consider the context. Even though nothing states that the dice roll can only have a single function to be effected, it also does not say it can, should, or will. So either way, the invocation's interpretation is limited by one factor, which is that you have to roll for HP gain, specifically, to benefit from it.
Not damage.
You're rolling dice to determine damage with the bite. You're not rolling damage to determine HP gained. You would have to counterpoint why you're rolling for HP instead of damage in the event you perform this bite action against something that resists or entirely negates the effect of damage. That is not so easy.
The damage determines the amount of HP you're getting back, the HP is just a secondary effect. Clear and simple, hope that helps!
EDIT: To be honest, if this situation were presented at a table I'm DMing, I would actually probably allow the Gift to grant max damage for HP returned. I think it's a clever interpretation of the invocation's use versus a limited application of some other feature, and it's not mindblowingly overpowered in the least.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
See that's where I think we're adding a rule that doesn't exist, but maybe I'm mistaken. Is there any rule that prohibits a single dice roll from having two simultaneous effects?
So if you roll a 1 for damage do you heal 1 or 4? Does that in turn make your damage 4 since that’s what you heal and heal number = damage? so you end up always doing max damage?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
(RAW) Rules as Written, I have never seen that verbatim or paraphrased, but I've only read like eight of these books and all were 5e.
(RAI) Rules as Intended: Most of the writing does the explaining, but the odd, albeit clever, interpretation comes along that begs questions like the one the OP made. Also, that does not mean the interpretation is wrong, it just means that the interpretation may not have been the intention. That's where Rules as Fun comes into effect.
(RAF) Rules as Fun: Hell nah, do what you want and see if your DM likes it! Or if it's a mean DM probably not as good as an idea. Lol.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
StylesStiker,
I think by RAW it might be allowed to maximise the bite Damage (hence my original question)
By RAI Most likely not, imagine a high level monk using D10 for damage, that would add up far too quickly (though it is limited by Proficiency bonus)
as For RAF (I love this idea) it's really up to each group, is it a fun idea, will it speed up combat/make the combat more interesting?
for me it was mostly a thought experiment, what would happen if... and I thought I'd see if I was missing something from the rules as I know I'm not 100% on the details, and some interesting points were raised, it it a damage die or a die that is used for healing? or both?
To bolded above I’m not sure what you mean by 4+con or 4+con+4+con until half healed. Wouldn’t it just be 4+con if it was max? And not sure why you have “until half healed” it works no matter your HP unless you are at your max.
or am I missing something?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
First this post. There is nothing anywhere that even alludes to healing effects only applying only when dice are rolled purely for healing and nothing else. ANYWHERE. that is a limitation your forcing on things. Your insistance that this can only take place as a sole effect to apply is thus in fact wrong by RaW and not as logically applicable as you make it. There is actually nothing anywhere that says a single roll of the dice can't be effectively applied to more than one thing. There are in fact however, examples of a single dice roll being applied in multiple places. Granted most of them aren't so controversial such as a fireball applying equal damage from a single roll to all the targets that it hits that fail their saves or group healing spells that heal multiple people at once.
Without either of these being something that exists in the rules of the games all of the rest of your argument here means nothing. Even though it's something that on some levels basically all of us have agreed with. Your Examples are also very poor and don't actually address any of the issues on hand either.
I deleted most of this post because it really doesn't matter.
I'll just touch on the most relevant points and that primarily revolves around this right here. This is an un-necessary warning that doesn't actually apply in any general sense because the ability in question can only be used by Pact of the Chain Warlocks (as it's being discussed here) which have advanced familiars. Most if not all of which have invisibility and all of them have flight. This means that moving the familiar around or keeping it from being targeted if your not actively using them for combat bonuses which makes all of this stuff about targeting familiars pointless because they have nothing to actually target. Making it very easy to move familiars and depending on how you do it around very easily unless the ones that want to target them take great pains to try and actually do so.
Not entirely sure why you're being so very hostile, or why everything has to be completely cut and dry. If you don't like the genuine logical approach behind the intent or a feature, then that's fine. Attacking me isn't going to change the feature, nor will it ever, ever refute a logically sound and resolute explanation. Alas, I will not be forced to defend a point you want me to make by insinuating I'm saying something I clearly did not, so I will break it down for you simply.
1.) Yes there is.
2.) No it isn't.
3.) Factually, no it isn't wrong.
4.) Logically it is more applicable than the misconstrued intention of maximizing damage to abuse an effect it wasn't intended for.
5.) That remains to be identified, as myself or anyone else likely haven't discovered this yet. We're awaiting evidence as evidence will prove one way or another, not blindly asserting a finality for its own sake. I mentioned that I wasn't sure in a previous post identifying RAW, RAI, and RAF regardless.
6.) Honestly not even sure how that applies because you're rolling to hit then for damage. That's two rolls; one for hit one for damage, the damage isn't typically isn't split or halved on something requiring an attack roll, and typically secondary effects are directly linked to the success of the attack's damage.
7.) Not sure what's controversial. Fireball is a save DC not an attack roll that deals damage regardless of whether or not you make the save (sans various features that prevent damage on halved save damages). Those that make saves take half damage, those that don't take full damage. You roll for the damage for everything in its area because it is still one attack. If group healing spells require dice to roll for everyone to get back, again as a group wholly, then that would be an instance which the Warlock with the Gift would ignore the rolled amount of HP being given and they would simply receive the maximum amount from the dice roll.
8.) Lol....kk.
9.) Already actually said I would allow it at my table, but you're proving ignorance by either not reading all of my post, choosing to read things that aren't there, or aren't capable of forward-thinking.
10.) No they're not, and they exactly, directly, address the OPs complete main issue. Like...that could not be more clear whatsoever, so I'm going to have to assume you just didn't understand, or can't, what is easily identifiable to everyone else that read the post. You want things to be your opinion and nothing else, that much is clear. This to me proves you're no longer going to be worth responding to because you're going to continue to harass and/or try to flame on me for being deliberately open to the concept and application of this application for the gift, while also bringing to light a logically sound reason why the gift isn't intended to do it.
Please refrain from being so rude in your posts. You've had a hostile tone since you responded to someone who didn't align primarily with your currently limited scope of a small but discovering discussion. You're getting agitated, and it happens, but try not to be so stiff in your convictions, especially here on a place where we like to openly discuss possibilities. Thank you.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
If by RAW it would be allowed, then all the better. I think it's a really neat way to interpret the Gift's use! Of course not all tables would allow it but that's where things get a little sticky I suppose, hence why you asked, lol.
I did a very brief stint of digging into it last night (as well as dual-application from single dice rolls) after I posted but didn't really find anything truly conclusive one way or the other, other than primarily RAI stuff. RAI, I agree its intention likely isn't to maximize damage just for the sake of making sure you gain max HP. There would have to be a limit at some point with RAW however, akin to how out of hand it could get with your example with the Monk. That is why I feel the intention was never meant to maximize damage from attacks that also return HP on success.
I'm actually going to run this by my DM when we play this weekend. My wife's character has a weapon which grants her a similar effect on a successful hit, returning HP for an amount equal to the damage done. Even though her character isn't a Warlock, I would like to see what our DM says when I pose this to him.
Also, thanks for the brain food, things like these aren't brought up often enough imho!
EDIT: I did a search for, "Does the warlock's Gift of the Ever-Living Ones eldritch invocation change how Dhampir bites heal?" and the first link took me to a page with a title "Does the warlock's Gift of the Ever-Living Ones eldritch invocation change how the vampiric touch spell behaves?" For some reason the link won't stick to my post, so if I can shorten it and put it here I will. It's an interesting read.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Found some more interesting stuff, sorry for spam-posting.
Regarding Grave Domain cleric abilities: https://tinyurl.com/5fc7x8wm
Reddit: post similarly addressing the vampiric touch question: https://tinyurl.com/twf7x7wv
StackExchange RPG forum post I was referring to in my previous post: https://tinyurl.com/tdz9vnwc
There are other discussions that go back and forth as we have. As I understand it the popular version, without Crawford's input, compromises that you roll for damage but maximize the healing. Make an attack and if successful then deal 1d4 damage, but even if it is a 1 for damage you still get 4 HP (plus modifiers if applicable).
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!