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).
That interpretation actually makes sense with the text, too. "...as having rolled their maximum value for you." could be read that the gift only applies to the effect that hits you (the healing) and not the effect that hits anything else (the damage). Which would still nix maxing damage on the dhampir bite, but at least doesn't involve redefining what a dice roll is.
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).
Something to keep in mind. Popular version does not necessarily always reflect RaW. It more often reflects RaI.
Hey guys, If I may add a little something to the discussion. Reading the text I would have said that it probably works though it can be interpreted 2 ways. But through this tweet it is clear that (unfortunately) it doesn't work:
Now what is RAW or RAI here everyone can decide for themselves and we can do what we want at our tables. Its a shame that it doesn't officially work since the invocation is barely used in my limited experience. If it was just the 1d4 it would probably be fine but once we start adding dice from class features, spells and multiclassing, we might end up with 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con Per hit. If we could max that (just for healing) every time it would be too op. Even without crits. That's my opinion anyway :) Stay safe!
Hey guys, If I may add a little something to the discussion. Reading the text I would have said that it probably works though it can be interpreted 2 ways. But through this tweet it is clear that (unfortunately) it doesn't work:
Now what is RAW or RAI here everyone can decide for themselves and we can do what we want at our tables. Its a shame that it doesn't officially work since the invocation is barely used in my limited experience. If it was just the 1d4 it would probably be fine but once we start adding dice from class features, spells and multiclassing, we might end up with 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con Per hit. If we could max that (just for healing) every time it would be too op. Even without crits. That's my opinion anyway :) Stay safe!
JC tweets are potentially valid for determining RAI, for sure, but they're not "official", as you claimed. WOTC doesn't back up his tweets like they do the SAC.
What we probably have, which is very common in 5E, is that the RAW has almost no relation to the RAI. We know from the SAC that e.g. this is true of the GWF fighting style fighters have, and it's just a very rampant concern. The RAW here is pretty clear: if you roll 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con for the hit (guessing you're a Gloomstalker with Hunter's Mark up), and you roll min damage (Con+3), Ever-living guarantees you heal max instead (Con+18). That's the whole point of Ever-living: if your amount of healing was based on dice to determine the sum, maximize those dice for determining your healing. I would never have guessed the RAI didn't match the RAW if not for that tweet you found.
Hey guys, If I may add a little something to the discussion. Reading the text I would have said that it probably works though it can be interpreted 2 ways. But through this tweet it is clear that (unfortunately) it doesn't work:
Now what is RAW or RAI here everyone can decide for themselves and we can do what we want at our tables. Its a shame that it doesn't officially work since the invocation is barely used in my limited experience. If it was just the 1d4 it would probably be fine but once we start adding dice from class features, spells and multiclassing, we might end up with 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con Per hit. If we could max that (just for healing) every time it would be too op. Even without crits. That's my opinion anyway :) Stay safe!
JC tweets are potentially valid for determining RAI, for sure, but they're not "official", as you claimed. WOTC doesn't back up his tweets like they do the SAC.
What we probably have, which is very common in 5E, is that the RAW has almost no relation to the RAI. We know from the SAC that e.g. this is true of the GWF fighting style fighters have, and it's just a very rampant concern. The RAW here is pretty clear: if you roll 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con for the hit (guessing you're a Gloomstalker with Hunter's Mark up), and you roll min damage (Con+3), Ever-living guarantees you heal max instead (Con+18). That's the whole point of Ever-living: if your amount of healing was based on dice to determine the sum, maximize those dice for determining your healing. I would never have guessed the RAI didn't match the RAW if not for that tweet you found.
Interesting. I didnt know his posts are not backed by wizards. Does anyone know if there is anything remotely similar in the SAC? I haven't checked that yet.
Yes, I agree, RAW Ever-living ones works with the bite, that's how I would have run it in my games had I not found the tweet. So it seems that (at lest we 2) agree with what is RAW and RAI.
But would RAW be a viable option here? To be honest I would be willing to give it a shot because I love the idea, but I have doubts that it will not "break the game" for 2 reasons 1- RAI but lets ignore this for the sake of discussion. 2- if an enemy is about as strong as the PC, then by every bite I land, I'm negating one of his hits. In fact I'm negating a little more than one hit since I'm maxing healing and they deal average damage. So I always have at least 1 extra attack over the enemy. I think that's quite substantial. Yes, there are always specific ways that the DM can handle things to challenge the player (negate healing -like chill touch spells- for example).. But I'm concerned it will give a clear advantage to the player in most cases to the point that combat might become less interesting. Thoughts?
EDIT: I forgot, this is a limited use feature. So perhaps its not that bad. I'd give it some playtest.
The fact that you have a choice in what part of an ability to use and that you can only use said ability a limited number of time, I believe is irrelevant.
Lets say I'm the designer and I start creating the dhampir bite. I create it just with the healing option and you heal every time you bite, no choice, no restriction. Would it work then? Taking your points into consideration it would.
Then I the designer want to: A)give the player more options to make things more interesting and B) decide to limit the number of uses for balance. Nothing has changed. It still works. I just have extra options and less uses.
Lastly if you're going to repeat the same thing that has been mentioned before you are not contributing to the discussion. The truth is that the wording can be interpreted in 2 ways. One way use your way and another is: If any dice were rolled and you are going to use those dice to determine how many hit points you regain then determine the result as if you had rolled their maximum value for you.
The fact that you have a choice in what part of an ability to use and that you can only use said ability a limited number of time, I believe is irrelevant.
Lets say I'm the designer and I start creating the dhampir bite. I create it just with the healing option and you heal every time you bite, no choice, no restriction. Would it work then? Taking your points into consideration it would.
Then I the designer want to: A)give the player more options to make things more interesting and B) decide to limit the number of uses for balance. Nothing has changed. It still works. I just have extra options and less uses.
Lastly if you're going to repeat the same thing that has been mentioned before you are not contributing to the discussion. The truth is that the wording can be interpreted in 2 ways. One way use your way and another is: If any dice were rolled and you are going to use those dice to determine how many hit points you regain then determine the result as if you had rolled their maximum value for you.
To your Bolded question: Yes the healing would still work, but it will not amplify the bite's damage to its maximum potential output every time it is used. You're asking questions which have been answered at length already, as we've done our best to cover unique scenarios even, both RaW and RaI. Requesting an unreasonable amount of specificity thereafter will inevitably turn the conversation into another confrontational mess.
To you Bolded Statement: Not to white knight but he, others, and myself contributed to the discussion clearly and concisely in multiple posts, and having to repeat what we've already said insinuates you're deferring to the same method of thinking others have and are not moving the conversation forward anymore than they. I will ask that you re-read the thread and absorb more than what you think will support your opinion by looking at it more objectively. We also understand that since the wording can be interpreted in two ways, it is up to the player-DM gaming to decide an appropriate avenue to utilize the feature, sans abuse. This has been discussed, at length.
Some of us are going to different in opinion of the ability's damage and whether or not it should be maximized with the Invocation. In the long run, regardless of whether or not it is supported by RaI or RaW, The point is that it is a creative use of the ability which the OP proffered for debate and we should be as resourceful in that possible interpretation across the entire game without trying to clearly abuse a feature.
Good points. Sorry if I made a mess of things, I was tired and got irritated. Anyway, there isn't much point in arguing since I think we all agree on RAI. The more I read this: treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you. The more I more I agree with you. My thoughts are that if we had a coma after: treat any dice rolled, things might have been different. But I'm not a grammar person.
But I can really identify with the other side of the argument too. I hope we get more official insight on this soon. Best of luck everyone :)
"Because that's what happens if you allow GotELO to proc on the bite. The hit points regained are equal to the piericng damage dealt; therefore, it's affected by resistance, immunity, and vulnerability, as well as crits. And since it's equal to the damage dealt, to use the Gift, you need to treat the roll for damage as maximum, deal that damage, then heal."
Yes. That is how it's written. Any dice used. Not "Any healing dice excluding damage dice" because there is no such thing as healing dice or damage dice, it's all the same roll in this instance. You've made it clear why you don't want it to say what it says, but that doesn't change the text, and repeating your interpretation of RAI doesn't make it RAW.
Hey guys, If I may add a little something to the discussion. Reading the text I would have said that it probably works though it can be interpreted 2 ways. But through this tweet it is clear that (unfortunately) it doesn't work:
Now what is RAW or RAI here everyone can decide for themselves and we can do what we want at our tables. Its a shame that it doesn't officially work since the invocation is barely used in my limited experience. If it was just the 1d4 it would probably be fine but once we start adding dice from class features, spells and multiclassing, we might end up with 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con Per hit. If we could max that (just for healing) every time it would be too op. Even without crits. That's my opinion anyway :) Stay safe!
JC tweets are potentially valid for determining RAI, for sure, but they're not "official", as you claimed. WOTC doesn't back up his tweets like they do the SAC.
What we probably have, which is very common in 5E, is that the RAW has almost no relation to the RAI. We know from the SAC that e.g. this is true of the GWF fighting style fighters have, and it's just a very rampant concern. The RAW here is pretty clear: if you roll 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con for the hit (guessing you're a Gloomstalker with Hunter's Mark up), and you roll min damage (Con+3), Ever-living guarantees you heal max instead (Con+18). That's the whole point of Ever-living: if your amount of healing was based on dice to determine the sum, maximize those dice for determining your healing. I would never have guessed the RAI didn't match the RAW if not for that tweet you found.
Interesting. I didnt know his posts are not backed by wizards. Does anyone know if there is anything remotely similar in the SAC? I haven't checked that yet.
His words are not backed because Not only are they sometimes Contradictory. But there have been times that he has laid out one opinion. People have taken it as Gospel and then a completely different opinion and ruling has been reached by staff and put into official print. And there have been instances where he's admitted something doesn't work a particular way but he'd allow it to anyway in his games. which has caused people to argue it should be that way or how it does actually work.
It reached a point that both Wizards and Jeremy both stated that his words are not official. It's a bit of insight and his position gives a bit of weight due to that insight but It is only a bit of insight at best and it is not anything that can be considered complete insight into what the design team might think.
Official Sage Advice on the other hand is more group supported and is kept track of with their semi-official rulings and clarifications which may make it into publication later and is supported by Wizards. But it is also somewhat more selective. And there are places that mimic them to look legitimate so be careful.
The RAW here is pretty clear: if you roll 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con for the hit (guessing you're a Gloomstalker with Hunter's Mark up), and you roll min damage (Con+3), Ever-living guarantees you heal max instead (Con+18). That's the whole point of Ever-living: if your amount of healing was based on dice to determine the sum, maximize those dice for determining your healing. I would never have guessed the RAI didn't match the RAW if not for that tweet you found.
The RaW is that you heal HP equal to the damage dealt, when you choose to use the bite to empower yourself. You roll damage separately from that decision; therefore, you are not rolling damage to determine how many HP are healed. Thus, Gift of the Everloving ones does not proc of the Dhampirs bite, by RAW, and by RAI.
We know this is the case, since you might not be using the bit to heal yourself. You may, in fact, use it to gain a bonus to your next ability check or attack roll. You aren't required to declare if you are empowering yourself, nor which empowerment you are using, until after you have hit.
You are also limited in the number of times you can empower yourself from the bite.
Finally, you do not roll for healing. You roll for damage, and then choose to heal yourself, or not, an amount equal to the piercing damage dealt.
The Other Options other than to heal yourself does not in any way have any effect on how the healing is calculated.
Also. Your Wrong on Declaring how you empower yourself. It Is Declared on Hit. Not on Damage. Or not when you decide to finally use the empowerment.
By the Way the Power is Written. On hit with a Bite that is not against a Construct or Undead. you declare your empowering yourself and what empowerment your taking. This happens before Damage is rolled because it's an on hit effect.
So your arguments that this is all after damage is dealt and done is incorrect and invalid by RaW standards. By Damage Dealt includes a Damage Roll. the Everliving Ones Ability says any roll that you gain healing from It does not care wether that roll also includes a damage component. It does not Care if REsistances or Immunities get Applied or not. It does not even care if abilities that might reduce or negate healing even apply. It only Cares about Dice being rolled as part of the Order of Operations that Results in Healing. Therefore By RaW it applies.
And that's one of the things that people need to understand about the Everliving Ones healing effect. It can apply even if other factors result in the Warlock getting little or no healing at all in the end. For an easy to understand example that is less complicated than any wording with the bite. You could do a level 8 cure wounds on the Warlock. Max out the healing dice to do max healing but have all that healing mean nothing if the effects of chill touch are on the Warlock. Now most Players would wisely choose not to do this because of Chill Touch because it wastes a powerful spell slot. But this chain of events is technically possible.
The reason for this is because Ever Living Ones does not care about all the rest of the variables. it only cares about Healing that is in any way effected by Rolling Dice. The Bite is in fact if you choose it at the time you successfully hit and before damage dice is applied also applying a healing affect on your character. Even if it potentially is effected by other factors after it applies (such as said resistances).
you may not want it to apply. You may not like the order of operations. But that's the order in which things work and why they work.
So carefully reading both abilities, you treat the dice that heals you as having rolled the max amount, you should heal yourself for the maximum amount possible but it does not treat the damage dice as doing max dmg, just the healing….
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That interpretation actually makes sense with the text, too. "...as having rolled their maximum value for you." could be read that the gift only applies to the effect that hits you (the healing) and not the effect that hits anything else (the damage). Which would still nix maxing damage on the dhampir bite, but at least doesn't involve redefining what a dice roll is.
Something to keep in mind. Popular version does not necessarily always reflect RaW. It more often reflects RaI.
Hey guys,
If I may add a little something to the discussion. Reading the text I would have said that it probably works though it can be interpreted 2 ways.
But through this tweet it is clear that (unfortunately) it doesn't work:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/960226658685829120
Now what is RAW or RAI here everyone can decide for themselves and we can do what we want at our tables. Its a shame that it doesn't officially work since the invocation is barely used in my limited experience.
If it was just the 1d4 it would probably be fine but once we start adding dice from class features, spells and multiclassing, we might end up with 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con Per hit. If we could max that (just for healing) every time it would be too op. Even without crits.
That's my opinion anyway :)
Stay safe!
JC tweets are potentially valid for determining RAI, for sure, but they're not "official", as you claimed. WOTC doesn't back up his tweets like they do the SAC.
What we probably have, which is very common in 5E, is that the RAW has almost no relation to the RAI. We know from the SAC that e.g. this is true of the GWF fighting style fighters have, and it's just a very rampant concern. The RAW here is pretty clear: if you roll 1d4+1d6+1d8+Con for the hit (guessing you're a Gloomstalker with Hunter's Mark up), and you roll min damage (Con+3), Ever-living guarantees you heal max instead (Con+18). That's the whole point of Ever-living: if your amount of healing was based on dice to determine the sum, maximize those dice for determining your healing. I would never have guessed the RAI didn't match the RAW if not for that tweet you found.
Interesting. I didnt know his posts are not backed by wizards. Does anyone know if there is anything remotely similar in the SAC? I haven't checked that yet.
Yes, I agree, RAW Ever-living ones works with the bite, that's how I would have run it in my games had I not found the tweet.
So it seems that (at lest we 2) agree with what is RAW and RAI.
But would RAW be a viable option here? To be honest I would be willing to give it a shot because I love the idea, but I have doubts that it will not "break the game" for 2 reasons
1- RAI but lets ignore this for the sake of discussion.
2- if an enemy is about as strong as the PC, then by every bite I land, I'm negating one of his hits. In fact I'm negating a little more than one hit since I'm maxing healing and they deal average damage. So I always have at least 1 extra attack over the enemy.
I think that's quite substantial.
Yes, there are always specific ways that the DM can handle things to challenge the player (negate healing -like chill touch spells- for example).. But I'm concerned it will give a clear advantage to the player in most cases to the point that combat might become less interesting.
Thoughts?
EDIT: I forgot, this is a limited use feature. So perhaps its not that bad. I'd give it some playtest.
The fact that you have a choice in what part of an ability to use and that you can only use said ability a limited number of time, I believe is irrelevant.
Lets say I'm the designer and I start creating the dhampir bite. I create it just with the healing option and you heal every time you bite, no choice, no restriction. Would it work then?
Taking your points into consideration it would.
Then I the designer want to: A)give the player more options to make things more interesting and B) decide to limit the number of uses for balance.
Nothing has changed. It still works. I just have extra options and less uses.
Lastly if you're going to repeat the same thing that has been mentioned before you are not contributing to the discussion. The truth is that the wording can be interpreted in 2 ways.
One way use your way and another is: If any dice were rolled and you are going to use those dice to determine how many hit points you regain then determine the result as if you had rolled their maximum value for you.
To your Bolded question: Yes the healing would still work, but it will not amplify the bite's damage to its maximum potential output every time it is used. You're asking questions which have been answered at length already, as we've done our best to cover unique scenarios even, both RaW and RaI. Requesting an unreasonable amount of specificity thereafter will inevitably turn the conversation into another confrontational mess.
To you Bolded Statement: Not to white knight but he, others, and myself contributed to the discussion clearly and concisely in multiple posts, and having to repeat what we've already said insinuates you're deferring to the same method of thinking others have and are not moving the conversation forward anymore than they. I will ask that you re-read the thread and absorb more than what you think will support your opinion by looking at it more objectively. We also understand that since the wording can be interpreted in two ways, it is up to the player-DM gaming to decide an appropriate avenue to utilize the feature, sans abuse. This has been discussed, at length.
Some of us are going to different in opinion of the ability's damage and whether or not it should be maximized with the Invocation. In the long run, regardless of whether or not it is supported by RaI or RaW, The point is that it is a creative use of the ability which the OP proffered for debate and we should be as resourceful in that possible interpretation across the entire game without trying to clearly abuse a feature.
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!
Good points.
Sorry if I made a mess of things, I was tired and got irritated.
Anyway, there isn't much point in arguing since I think we all agree on RAI.
The more I read this: treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.
The more I more I agree with you. My thoughts are that if we had a coma after: treat any dice rolled, things might have been different. But I'm not a grammar person.
But I can really identify with the other side of the argument too.
I hope we get more official insight on this soon.
Best of luck everyone :)
"Because that's what happens if you allow GotELO to proc on the bite. The hit points regained are equal to the piericng damage dealt; therefore, it's affected by resistance, immunity, and vulnerability, as well as crits. And since it's equal to the damage dealt, to use the Gift, you need to treat the roll for damage as maximum, deal that damage, then heal."
Yes. That is how it's written. Any dice used. Not "Any healing dice excluding damage dice" because there is no such thing as healing dice or damage dice, it's all the same roll in this instance. You've made it clear why you don't want it to say what it says, but that doesn't change the text, and repeating your interpretation of RAI doesn't make it RAW.
It would just max the healing not the damage you do.
His words are not backed because Not only are they sometimes Contradictory. But there have been times that he has laid out one opinion. People have taken it as Gospel and then a completely different opinion and ruling has been reached by staff and put into official print. And there have been instances where he's admitted something doesn't work a particular way but he'd allow it to anyway in his games. which has caused people to argue it should be that way or how it does actually work.
It reached a point that both Wizards and Jeremy both stated that his words are not official. It's a bit of insight and his position gives a bit of weight due to that insight but It is only a bit of insight at best and it is not anything that can be considered complete insight into what the design team might think.
Official Sage Advice on the other hand is more group supported and is kept track of with their semi-official rulings and clarifications which may make it into publication later and is supported by Wizards. But it is also somewhat more selective. And there are places that mimic them to look legitimate so be careful.
The Other Options other than to heal yourself does not in any way have any effect on how the healing is calculated.
Also. Your Wrong on Declaring how you empower yourself. It Is Declared on Hit. Not on Damage. Or not when you decide to finally use the empowerment.
By the Way the Power is Written. On hit with a Bite that is not against a Construct or Undead. you declare your empowering yourself and what empowerment your taking. This happens before Damage is rolled because it's an on hit effect.
So your arguments that this is all after damage is dealt and done is incorrect and invalid by RaW standards. By Damage Dealt includes a Damage Roll. the Everliving Ones Ability says any roll that you gain healing from It does not care wether that roll also includes a damage component. It does not Care if REsistances or Immunities get Applied or not. It does not even care if abilities that might reduce or negate healing even apply. It only Cares about Dice being rolled as part of the Order of Operations that Results in Healing. Therefore By RaW it applies.
And that's one of the things that people need to understand about the Everliving Ones healing effect. It can apply even if other factors result in the Warlock getting little or no healing at all in the end. For an easy to understand example that is less complicated than any wording with the bite. You could do a level 8 cure wounds on the Warlock. Max out the healing dice to do max healing but have all that healing mean nothing if the effects of chill touch are on the Warlock. Now most Players would wisely choose not to do this because of Chill Touch because it wastes a powerful spell slot. But this chain of events is technically possible.
The reason for this is because Ever Living Ones does not care about all the rest of the variables. it only cares about Healing that is in any way effected by Rolling Dice. The Bite is in fact if you choose it at the time you successfully hit and before damage dice is applied also applying a healing affect on your character. Even if it potentially is effected by other factors after it applies (such as said resistances).
you may not want it to apply. You may not like the order of operations. But that's the order in which things work and why they work.
So carefully reading both abilities, you treat the dice that heals you as having rolled the max amount, you should heal yourself for the maximum amount possible but it does not treat the damage dice as doing max dmg, just the healing….