Author Topic: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre  (Read 5333 times)

Offline A2152225

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« on: April 28, 2013, 11:53:48 AM »
I have been trying to look around for an answer to this, something preferably a little more solid for a yes or no as to the legitimacy of it.
Can the bonus damage from hellfire warlock be added (and trigger the con damage/cost) to the damage used for the Eldritch Claws feat? Eldritch Claws and Hellfire Warlock
I personally feel that it should work, as in order to shape the energy of the blast into a claw, it is like summoning the blast to begin with, but the opposition states that it does't work because it isn't casting the blast.  Any clarification of the issue would be appreciated.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2013, 12:20:04 PM »
"Whenever you use your eldritch blast ability, you can change your eldritch blast into a hellfire blast."

Note that it doesn't say "cast."  "Using" your eldritch blast ability can either be thought of as making an attack with it, or in the case of claws or glaive, the initial forming and then using.  So there seem to be four possibilities:

1: Claws and/or glaive don't allow for Hellfire Blast (referred to as HB from now on) because it's not "casting" EB.  Which is kinda silly really.  Or perhaps someone doesn't like the wording of it and thinks it'd be "OP" to have the extra damage apply on each hit.

2: Claws and glaive would only get the bonus for the first hit.  This is possibly the most balanced option if someone thinks the damage only ought to be once per round since that can be seen as Read As Intended.

3: Claws and glaive trigger the Con damage on each hit.  Though possibly in line with the intent of the class features, it's a massive douchebag move because of the number of attacks possible with each.

4: Pay 1 Con point to grant HB to all EB attacks for the round (including any AoOs made).  This is what most people who know that damage isn't everything (or in the cause of power gamers, think damage is everything) would advocate for.


It'll be up to the DM though.  Some games could handle 4, but others would be best with 2 or 1.  3, as mentioned, is just a giant douchebag move given the fact that it's Con damage that would apply for each attempted hit.

Offline kitep

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1947
  • Lookout World!
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 12:20:27 PM »
It looks to me like you should be able to.  It's pretty clear you add your eldritch damage.  The part about not being able to use your normal eldritch blast while your claws exist merely means you can't do ranged touch attacks.  (Though you could do a ranged touch attack, and then use a free action to form the claws so you can do any AOOs that might come up.)


Offline Snowbluff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • I like being a lurker!
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2013, 11:35:46 PM »
Personally, I would say that Claws + Hellfire don't work. Hellfire Blast is a different ability from EB. The wording of the class suggests the abilities changes when you activate it as a part of EB (After adding components).

The claws aren't a form of EB, so they can't benefit, and you don't have the extra die from Hellfire until you use EB anyway.
Clerics are my game!

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2013, 11:51:46 PM »
The claws aren't a form of EB...

I would argue the claws are a form of EB as much as diamonds are a form of carbon.  The feat states:
Quote
As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands.

It's Eldritch Blast formed into a set of claws.

Offline Snowbluff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • I like being a lurker!
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2013, 12:35:32 AM »
It's Eldritch Blast formed into a set of claws.
Are you using the Eldritch Blast (Sp) ability, a distinct and Standard Action? The one required to use Hellfire blast?

Yes: No you aren't.
No: Good for you. Hellfire doesn't apply.
Clerics are my game!

Offline A2152225

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2013, 02:21:33 AM »
I would think it is still uses eblast, it uses the energy of it and does damage based on eblast damage. is it that hard to think a feat would be able to change the way it is manifested.
additionally it says that you cannot use your normal blast while they exist which to me says you are using a modified version of the blast with them.

also, would the extra d6 from the chausible  at least apply to it ?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 02:28:24 AM by A2152225 »

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2013, 02:40:21 AM »
Unfortunately, I don't think Hellfire Blast damage can be applied to the claws by RAW. Glaive, yes, because it's an application of your eldritch blast. Claws, no, because the feat never actually says you're using Eldritch Blast. Just referencing the damage.

It's a cool concept though. It might be worth it to ask your DM if you can take Claws as a blast shape. It would work like Glaive but add unarmed strike damage instead of increasing reach.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 02:43:40 AM by linklord231 »
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Clawlock confusion. Hellifre
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2013, 06:38:54 PM »
The only big problem I have with Eldritch Claws is that, as a feat, it isn't a blast shape invocation.  It's pretty clear that they meant for it to function as one, and had it been stated as such I doubt anyone would have the issues described here.  A reasonable fix, IMO, would be to declare the feat gives you a new blast shape invocation and go from there.
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.