The shell says, "If an attack deals fewer points of damage than the target’s temporary hit points from this shell of succor ability, it still reduces those temporary hit points but otherwise counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss."
The dread wraith has a touch attack that does 3d8 negative energy damage and 1d8 con drain. If I hit a PC and do 10 points of negative energy damage, but the PC has a shell of succor with 11 points of protection remaining, will the shell stop the con drain?
(It's very clear to me that when an enemy has a bite attack with poison that the bite needs to work in order for the poison to be administered. In such a case, obviously shell of succor applies. However, with the dread wraith, the way it's worded I cannot quite tell. Is it "when negative energy damages a target then the 1d8 con drain happens" or is it "this attack has some negative energy damage, and also separately it has some con drain.")
Similarly, if someone has Death Ward up, it would clearly block the negative energy damage, but would that then cause the 1d8 con drain to also fail? Death Ward has nothing that would normally stop con drain, but if "you never got the energy damage through" stops the con drain, then it should apply here too. Yes?
I'm unsure about RAW but the way I rule in this case is the hit point damage and the Con drain are two seperate effects of touch, basically two touch attacks in one, and what may affect one effect doesn't necessarily affect the other. Dealing hit point damage is not a requisite for dealing ability damage/drain in general, so there is no reason to assume that preventing one effect would prevent the other.
To use the poison example, if the poison of a bite were a contact poison, as long as the attack hit it would not matter if hit point damage was inflicted because the only necessary condition for it to affect the target is touching the venom. An Injury poison is dependent on damage being inflicted by the envenomed attack first.
the Dread Wraith is incorporeal so its touch attack can't do physical damage like a natural attack. (In a general way) that means all the effects are riders (added to the "no damage" touch attack). You could interpret it differently in your home game but on occassion it's an important distinction for these types of rare interactions.
The way the attack is written (1d6 negative energy plus 1d6 Con drain) for the OGL monster entry the damage is the negative energy and the "plus" denotes a rider from the ability in the details of the description later. It is a little inconsistent but helps with the interactions. It could be written "(1d6 negative energy) plus Con drain" which makes it clearer.
Succor Mystery - Shell of Succor(Su) is an oracle mystery. It's not written with this special attack in mind so you'll have to make a decision based on what it says and the descriptive text.
IMO I'd just subtract the negative energy from the temp HP pool. It's a simple resolution that lets both powers work and follows the literal (damage) description. The "plus" Con drain makes it a rider by RAW so that should suffer on a "miss".
It's a tough conundrum, because the shell of succor doesn't work the same way as most other avoid effects. It requires the hit to count as a hit and damage to be totaled to then determine if it counts as a hit.
As mentioned by Bjørn Røyrvik, some things are explicit to requiring a hit (as touched on by how DR works), like level or energy drain or poison (I also wouldn't apply bleed to an attack that didn't inflict damage). Add it to the fact that it isn't just reducing damage (the ability doesn't), it adds temporary hit points, which get lost to even non-attacks (so the effects of a bleed, would deduct those hit points and the defense). If you had 15 points of shell of succor temp hp and fell off a roof and took 14 damage, you lost 14 points, and still fell off the building and still are probably prone. You don't get to not be prone because you didn't take 'real damage'.
But for succor, we have to determine the damage for a hit, even if it isn't a 'hit'. In the case of a flaming longsword (1d8 slashing +1d6 fire), is the fire only added on a hit? Or do we deduct 1d8+1d6 damage from the hit? I think we should.
If your attacker rolls a critical threat and confirms, now you roll the crit damage and deduct it from the the temporary hit points... but if that wouldn't be enough to overcome the temp hit points... it doesn't count as a hit, so should it count as a critical hit? Would it still trigger a bursting weapon? We know bursts are still triggered on critical hits that don't count as criticals, such as against creatures immune to them. It's all really confusing.
I think in this case, I have to consider the Con drain as part of the attack and damage, rather than an effect that 'triggers on a hit or miss' (like energy drain or poison or stun or knockback). Only if your GM does not consider the ability drain or damage to be 'damage' would it not deduct.
outshyn wrote:
Similarly, if someone has Death Ward up, ...
While it's not supported by the wording, I would consider the full effects of a dread wraith's attack to be blocked by death ward. While not spelled out like a shadow's Strength drain, I think it's heavily implied that it is (but that's my call on it).
My short answer is: Yes, the Shell of Succor prevents the triggering of the Con drain. The attack is treated as a miss, though the damage is still subtracted from the Shell.
counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss
As written, the Shell of succor blocks hp of damage, but it doesn't negate rider effects.
It only count as a miss when the attack can trigger an ability activate on a hit or a miss.
So, as an example, if the attacker is using a Spell storing weapon he can't activate it.
RAW, it doesn't nothing more than that.
The Con drain of the Dead wraith isn't something that triggers as an effect of having hit the target, it is part of the attack.
I strongly suspect that it was intended to work differently, creating a kind of shell around the character capable of blocking all attacks before they strike the target, but it is not what the ability says.
counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss
As written, the Shell of succor blocks hp of damage, but it doesn't negate rider effects.
It only count as a miss when the attack can trigger an ability activate on a hit or a miss.
...
The Con drain of the Dead wraith isn't something that triggers as an effect of having hit the target, it is part of the attack.
I strongly suspect that it was intended to work differently, creating a kind of shell around the character capable of blocking all attacks before they strike the target, but it is not what the ability says.
Granted, I don't believe the term "rider effects" is ever properly defined, usually a brief example is used when the concept comes up. So this may be the point of disagreement here. Are you saying "riders" are not negated, and that it is limited to only weapon special abilities that can be triggered on a hit? As clarification, what about grab or trip abilities, would they still work regardless of HP loss, or would they be negated if the Shell of Succor temp HP met or exceeded the damage?
However, I am thinking that any ability (Ex, SU, or SP) that has an entry in stat block or universal monster rules, usually requiring a separate roll (like a save or combat maneuver attack roll), is a good candidate for inclusion under the phrase "abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss."
Wraith wrote:
Constitution Drain (Su) Creatures hit by a wraith’s touch attack must succeed on a DC 17 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Constitution drain. On each successful attack, the wraith gains 5 temporary hit points. The save DC is Charisma-based.
The dread wraith just increases the above damage and DC.
So IMO, the CON drain is literally an ability that triggers on a hit. If the temp hit points are enough to cover the negative energy damage, then the attack should count as a miss for the Constitution Drain (SU) which requires a hit.
As noted above, the "plus" language is as close to standard phrasing as we get on "ability riders" in stat blocks: "plus trip," "plus grab," etc, as opposed to "+" for "additional damage type riders:" "2d6 + 1d6 fire," "1d4 + 3d6 sneak attack," etc.
Not only weapons, there are class abilities and feats that trigger on a hit or a miss. A Spell storing weapon was simply a very clear cut example.
Constitution Drain instead is muddled.
Let's look a similar example:
AeN wrote:
Energy Drain (Su)
Source Bestiary 6 pg. 293, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary pg. 299, Bestiary 2 pg. 296, Bestiary 3 pg. 294, Bestiary 4 pg. 293, Bestiary 5 pg. 292
This attack happens automatically when a melee or ranged attack hits. Each successful energy drain bestows one or more negative levels (the creature’s description specifies how many).
...[/qote]
Plenty of creatures have only the Energy drain, without any damage.
Should it be considered a 0 damage attack + Energy drain triggered by the hit, or an Energy drain attack?
If I use a torch as a weapon, the fire damage is an effect triggered by hitting os is part of the torch damage?
For me, some damage is part of the attack, and the Shield of Succor only stops abilities that are separated from the attack but can be triggered by a hit or miss.
Sadly, 2nd edition, that could have resolved this kind of issues instead is a very different version of the game.
there are a couple of things;
> wraith is OGL and not re-edited.
> Pedantically it is a matter of the "plus" and parenthesis, aka how the damage is phrased in technical writing. I think PF1 was more consistent later in the publishing cycle. I'm sure you can find RAW with both types of formats. Sadly most of RAW ability/qualitiy descriptive text is in math word problem format rather than the shorter monster description format.
> the spell could be clearer for this interaction. Again, it is written and only expecting regular attacks and not incorporeal touches (which is naiive for this type of effect in a spell).
Clearly Shell of Succor does not "turn off" the Con damage. That is far too generalized a statement and just wrong if you read the oracle revelation effect and spell.
The effect is only going to last 2-3 hits until the temp HP pool runs out.
my interpretation comes out in the middle with considereing the save for Con damage along with the "plus" making it possible to "miss". That is just my home game opinion.
I believe the more pedantic will just apply the negative and con damage to the temporary HP pool and it is a simple direct interpretation.
Great, we seem to be in agreement as to if damage plus ability, then Shell of Succor works, but if damage plus damage it doesn't. It's really just where the division between damage and ability lies that is the controversy. As you say, some of those abilities and damages are messy. I can see it reasonably read either way. Which means that we may just have to fob it onto GM discretion and call it a day.
Suggested options:
I guess a couple suggestive options for GMs would be to either a) say that Shell of Succor can negate abilities that use or allow an action (usually free or swift) upon a hit or b) an ability that typically allows additional effects upon another roll such as a save or bonus attack.
Examples of a) spell storing weapon, trip, grab, cornugon smash (maybe?), whereas b) would expand options to also include our above Con Drain, Energy Drain if it is a secondary effect, poison, or possibly even Rend if its second (usually) attack fails to exceed the temp hit points.
I am obviously looking at it case by case at this point, but examples of things I would probably exclude either way: precision damage (like sneak attack), most energy damage (as from flaming weapons), abilities that are specifically declared prior to an attack (like stunning fist or channel smite), and other feats/abilities that strictly boost damage without further rolls (such as mighty charge or improved natural attack)
