Vampiric Touch and Duskblades

[kitep]

Vampiric Touch

You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. However, you can’t gain more than the subject’s current hit points +10, which is enough to kill the subject. The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later.

If a duskblade channels this through his weapon, does he gain temp hit points equal to all the damage (weapon + spell) or just for the spell?  I lean toward just spell damage, but Captnq's spell book says different.

And when I combine this with the duskblade's 13th level ability to hit multiple targets with the same spell, does the temp hp stack since they're with just 1 spell, or do I just get the best one?

[Kethrian]

I would agree that it's just the spell damage.  Remember that the spell triggers off the hit, but does not get the benefits of a crit or the like, and affects the target independently of the weapon's effects after the attack roll has succeeded.

As for hitting multiple targets, I would say that it's the total you deal to everyone combined with the spell, because it's still one casting.  Besides, if you took 13 levels of Duskblade, having a big stack of temp HP will be very useful at that point.  Unless you're doing massive attack shenanigans, it's not OP.

[NunoM]

I think the spell damage doesn't stack with the weapon damage, while channeling. According to the description for the spell channeling ability of the Duskblade:

...the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.

IMO, this clearly separates both sources of damage.

IIRC, the basic rule for Temporary HPs is similar to the one for Circumstance Bonuses, in that they stack if they come from different sources. Following this reasoning, "Vampiric Touch" would still be the same source, regardless of being the same casting. At most, you would get the highest damage dealt by "Vampiric Touch" to the targets you hit, during the full attack, as THPs.

...but i wish i'm wrong! Please, prove me wrong!
I'm playing a Duskblade as well and this combo would be great!

EDIT: I thought about it for a while, and i can see a way of the Vampiric Touch working, by answering a single question: what is the source for the THPs? Is it the spell, or the creature touched?
If it's the first, it doesn't stack. If it's the latter (sort of implied by the spell's name), it may stack, if the damage is dealt to multiple targets.

[kitep]

Thanks for the replies!

[phaedrusxy]

I remember one of the sourcebooks (Tome and Blood, Song and Silence?) said that a rogue using Vampiric Touch to sneak attack would get the total damage, including that from sneak attack dice, as temporary hit points. This seems like a somewhat similar case.

[Demelain]

I remember one of the sourcebooks (Tome and Blood, Song and Silence?) said that a rogue using Vampiric Touch to sneak attack would get the total damage, including that from sneak attack dice, as temporary hit points. This seems like a somewhat similar case.

It wasn't in either of those sourcebooks (at least by my check - I have them as pdfs and the phrase "vampiric touch" only turns up in the former, and with no reference to sneak attacking). However, a google search turns up something similar in this thread. The last post references a FAQ ruling about SA+Vampiric Touch which would agree with you - for what FAQ is worth to some people around here. I agree with FAQ in this case as well.

EDIT: Page 25 of the D&D 3.5 FAQ for the specific page reference.

[NunoM]

I remember one of the sourcebooks (Tome and Blood, Song and Silence?) said that a rogue using Vampiric Touch to sneak attack would get the total damage, including that from sneak attack dice, as temporary hit points. This seems like a somewhat similar case.

It is similar, but not quite the same, IMO. In this case (and thanks for the FAQ reference Demelain), the sneak attack is dealt by the Vampiric touch itself, not by channeling a spell through the weapon used for the sneak attack. In other words, the spell is the weapon, so it makes sense to add the sneak attack damage to the spell's.

This also raises a nice question...
If a Duskblade multiclassed as rogue and got into a flanking position, could he add the sneak attack damage to both his weapon and the channeled spell?

I would say "yes", because both damages are evaluated separately (as already quoted above). What say you?

[Jackinthegreen]

Duskblade/rogue + Crescent Knife = ???

[Kethrian]

A duskblade/rogue channeling and sneak attacking would get to choose where the sneak attack dice apply, but would only apply once per attack roll.  Still, I'd go so far as to say you could choose how many dice apply to the weapon, and how many to the spell.

[Wolfe]

A duskblade/rogue channeling and sneak attacking would get to choose where the sneak attack dice apply, but would only apply once per attack roll.  Still, I'd go so far as to say you could choose how many dice apply to the weapon, and how many to the spell.

I completely agree that the character would be able to choose where to apply the precision damage, but can you tell me where it's RAW? I've been pondering this sort of build for a while.

[NunoM]

+1 to see a reference on this by RAW.

I'm not saying i disagree with the point of view, but they are different effects, each one dealing it's own damage.

The only thing i can think of, that could possibly deny this move, is that the Duskblade isn't actually performing an attack with the spell (the spell is a carry-on effect of the regular melee attack), and i'm not sure if a sneak-attack needs an actual attack roll to be delivered.

EDIT: Just remembered an example that could support the "single sneak-attack damage" notion: When attacking with a +1 flaming weapon, the extra damage from the sneak attack is applied to the weapon's damage only, because the flaming ability is a "carry-on" effect. Maybe this applies here too...

[linklord231]

I completely agree that the character would be able to choose where to apply the precision damage, but can you tell me where it's RAW? I've been pondering this sort of build for a while.

I think it's because in general, you can only apply Sneak Attack damage once per "attack" - ie, once per instance you make an attack roll.  Since you only make one attack roll with Arcane Channeling, you can only apply sneak attack once, even though both the weapon attack and the spell attack qualify for SA damage. 

[Wolfe]

I think it's because in general, you can only apply Sneak Attack damage once per "attack" - ie, once per instance you make an attack roll.  Since you only make one attack roll with Arcane Channeling, you can only apply sneak attack once, even though both the weapon attack and the spell attack qualify for SA damage. 

To clarify, I think that the player could choose to apply precision damage either to the melee or VT, but not necessarily that they could distribute the dice - that tends to require a feat (or feats), if memory serves.

EDIT: Just remembered an example that could support the "single sneak-attack damage" notion: When attacking with a +1 flaming weapon, the extra damage from the sneak attack is applied to the weapon's damage only, because the flaming ability is a "carry-on" effect. Maybe this applies here too...

I'm not sure about this, but I see your point. I guess I see an Arcane Channelling strike with VT as a single attack roll applying two attacks - the melee and the VT - meaning that in theory the precision damage can be applied once (single attack roll) but that the player can choose which attack the precision dice apply to. The flaming damage I would see as a rider on the melee attack.

[NunoM]

Ok, maybe Flaming isn't the best example, but perhaps a Bloodstone weapon with VT in it.
As far the FAQ goes, the sage seems to consider channeled/stored spells as rider effects, so their damage isn't applied to criticals or sneak attacks... so that's that

[dna1]

This ones tough..  well what about if a monk used this spell? Instead of touching he used a fist attack.
I would think that the only reason you don't gain hitpoints from your hand touching the person/monster whatever, is because your hand doesn't actually do any damage right?
So then what if you had a unarmed attack, or natural claw or something that you used.

Say like with some sort of.. crappy monk/duskblade combo. Could you channel the spell into your unarmed attack? Would that make a difference with Vampiric Touch?

[NunoM]

I think it could follow the same rules delivering touch spells while holding the charge... You can already deliver a natural weapon/unarmed strike while holding the charge of a spell.

Holding the charge:
[...]
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

(emphasis mine)

...along with the reasoning from the FAQ, i'd say the sneak attack damage applies to the weapon attacks only (i.e. either natural weapons, or the [un]armed strike), and then the spell discharges.