I hear there is a way to negate the con damage from being a hellfire warlock by being a binder. Which vestige does this?
Printable View
I hear there is a way to negate the con damage from being a hellfire warlock by being a binder. Which vestige does this?
Naberius. It's not exactly negation, hee just lets you restore 1 con damage per round
Naberius. It doesn't negate, it heals it.
That said, the Vest from Magic of Incarnum is a feat, rather than a dip, so you don't lose as much for a similar benefit.
but that one is open to discussion, Naberius isn't... it all depends on your DM since not even BG and GitP have formed a conclusive answer on the whole stronheart vest thingie...Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Brother
We haven't formed a conclusive answer in the same way we haven't formed a conclusive answer about monks v. wizards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratov
Yeah, but Strongheart Vest is kinda controversial. OP, ask your DM about it, because spending a feat is nicer than dipping into another class, but keep in mind that s/he might say no. Binding Naberius, since it takes a dip and doesn't actually prevent the Con damage, will probably be easier to swing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Brother
Thanks for the quick responses.
Actually I'm the DM but I don't know incarnum.Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorelurker
Can't you get Naberius through feats as well?
Only the diplomacy bits, not the ability damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flickerdart
Why hasn't BG or Giantitp come up with a conclusive answer? The Vest blocks a point of ability score damage, Hellfire deals a point of ability damage. Why wouldn't it work?
This^Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Brother
Monks and people against HF locks need DnD lessons.
Basically, the Strongheart Vest reduces any Str or Con damage by 1, which means that a Hellfire Warlock would take 0 Con damage. Some people interpret this as violating the "can't be immune to Con damage" thing HWs have, which is why it's controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord pringle
If you're disallowing incarnum, of course, that's a moot point. :smalltongue:
If the Strongheart Vest isn't allowed since it prevents CON damage, how come Naberius is okay?
You still take the damage, you just heal it later. If healing it later wasn't ok then nothing could be a Hellfire Warlock unless it was both vulnerable to Con damage and had no natural ability healing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Okizruin
Nabeuris heals it, but you still take the damage, so it works.
It is debateble whether with strongheart vest you still take the damage.
I'm not disallowing it I just don't quite get how it works yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by onemorelurker
The vest reduces con damage that you take. Default is 1 point. Hellfire costs you one point so the combo means you take no con damage. The question is whether reducing damage to 0 effectively makes you immune to the damag1e and thus makes hellfire not work. Essentially there are two camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord pringle
1. You are not immune to con damage so it works. being able to reduce to 0 on hellfire does not make you immune similar to DR reducing damage to 0 does not make you immune to damage. Fluff wise the vest is made up of souls so stealing from it makes fluffy sense as they say the devil will apreciate you getting around the agreement by offering other soul energy.
2. Since it always reduces hellfire to 0 it makes you immune to hellfire damage which violates the idea of hellfire. Fluff wise they will say that the devils want your soul , not just any soul, and will not accept the vests soul energy.
In the end there is only DM ruling and this is one of the conversations I put on my "will generally kill a thread" list. It often gets that ugly.
Pringle talking about incarnum in general not just the soulmeld(I would be very embrassed if I wrong but that what it sounds like to me).
You want to learn a bit more about Incarnum? There's a couple of tutorial threads on the matter, I think there's even one here on the boards that Shneekythelost was involved in starting up.
Incarnum Handbook on BG, WOTC.
Incarnum and You: A Reference Guide here on GITP. And some further discussion that tried to make one here.
Great subsystem that seems pretty interesting, takes a bit of reading of the book itself to get all of the information necessary due to some unfortunate editing decisions meaning that information was not quite as centralized as one would like for a skim or first read-through.
As for Naberius, the bit where one takes a point of damage and then heals it at the end of one's turn seems to have been explained. Then again, I might have misunderstood it, but I thought it was at the end of one's turn, might just be at any time during one's turn though.
I mean I don't understand the incarnum system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeeposFire
Incarnum is easy, someone had a guide somewhere even.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord pringle
Basically, you have soulmelds. You know all the soulmelds for your class, like a cleric would, and every day you can shape (prepare) the amount you're entitled to, also like a cleric. Then, because you're awesome, you can do two more things:
Invest essentia: Every incarnum class gets some essentia points. Essentia can be rearranged among your shaped melds as a swift action to make those melds better, depending on the meld.
Bind soulmeld: As you get more levels, you get chakras, which are kind of like item slots. Binding a shaped soulmeld into a chakra makes it do more stuff, depending on the soulmeld and the chakra.
If you're not a meldshaper, you can still take feats to gain access to a single soulmeld, some essentia and a chakra.
Read Coidzor's post above yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord pringle
Ok look; I would personally allow Strongheart Vest+Hellfire but this is just wildly disrespectful. Whatever you seem to think, D&D has no RAW definition for "immune," so it's falls to each individual DM to rule on what counts or what doesn't. You can disagree with a DM for ruling in a way you wouldn't, but no amount of "DnD lessons" can conclusively answer a situation that the rules simply don't cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowbluffThis^Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Brother
Monks and people against HF locks need DnD lessons.
So rather than waste the Giant's bandwidth endlessly wrangling over something that none of us can conclusively settle, let's just move on, live and let live.
mind, it's probably best not to overthink the fluff involved. I find it ... amusing.