Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game


Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Orc Bloodline Arcana / Blood Havoc and 'Damage'

Rules Questions

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a quick question, which seems as if it should be obvious, that I hoped to get answered here.

So, both the Orc Bloodline Arcana and the Blood Havoc Blood line mutation..

Bloodline Arcana:
You gain the orc subtype, including darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity. If you already have darkvision, its range increases to 90 feet. Whenever you cast a spell that deals damage, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.

Blood Havoc:
Whenever you cast a bloodrager or sorcerer spell that deals damage, add 1 point of damage per die rolled. This benefit applies only to damaging spells that belong to schools you have selected with Spell Focus or that are bloodline spells for your bloodline.

say that they add an amount of damage to 'damage' caused by sorcerer spells with some provisos.

My question is would this add to ability damage with spells like...

Wracking Ray:
A creature hit by this spell is wracked by painful spasms as its muscles and sinews wither and twist. The subject takes 1d4 points of Dexterity and Strength damage per 3 caster levels you possess (maximum 5d4 each)

since it is technically damage.

Yes, it should as it is damage.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In all dev posts from 3.5 and from Paizo differentiate between "damage" and "ability damage", so that things saying "add 1 damage" refers to hp damage effects only.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree with James. I don't have the forum links to back it up, but I'm positive I've read that before.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon Specialization: Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?

All four of those are valid choices.

Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.

The bonus damage from Weapon Specialization doesn't apply to ability score damage, only hit point damage. By extension using the same rules, Blood Havoc only adds extra damage to attacks that deal hit point damage.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Orc Bloodline Arcana / Blood Havoc and 'Damage' All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.