# Ray of Enfeeblement stack?



## 0-hr (Jul 1, 2006)

If you hit an 18 Strength critter with a Ray of Enfeeblement for 6 points and then next round hit with anothe for 10 points, is the critter down 10 or 16 points total?

It's an unnamed penalty to Strength, so it seems it should stack, but then there is that bit about a the same spell always overlapping with itself (isn't there?).

Also, if a 6th level mage casts an empowered ray of enfeeblement and confirms a critical hit, how much strength is lost?



> *Ray of Enfeeblement*
> Necromancy
> Level: Sor/Wiz 1
> Components: V, S
> ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 1, 2006)

Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> It's an unnamed penalty to Strength, so it seems it should stack, but then there is that bit about a the same spell always overlapping with itself (isn't there?).




Indeed there is. Two (or more) _rays of enfeeblement_ overlap, not stack.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 1, 2006)

What Mouseferatu said. The PHB (pg. 172) uses RoE as the specific example for overlapping spell effects.


----------



## 0-hr (Jul 1, 2006)

Heh, thanks. I thought that sounded familiar 

So about the critical empowered spell. Normally, the spell would inflict a d6+3 strength penalty.

Empowered that would be (d6+3) x 1.5

Critical'ed, that would be 2d6+6

My guess is that both operate on the base 'damage', so you'd get (d6+3)x1.5 + d6+3

Is that correct?


----------



## Elephant (Jul 1, 2006)

I would lean towards (2d6+6)x1.5, per the text of Empower Spell.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 1, 2006)

Actually, that's not really relevant, since you cannot critical with an attack that does no damage. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## 0-hr (Jul 2, 2006)

Hmm, that's an interesting take on it Thanee. Could I get some references to back that up (not saying it ain't true, just want to read it for myself)? I can see that Enfeeblement inflicts a penatly to STR rather than STR 'damage', but how is this different than energy drain's negative levels doubling on a crit?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 2, 2006)

Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> I can see that Enfeeblement inflicts a penatly to STR rather than STR 'damage'




That is exactly the reason.

"Damage" is defined as damage to hit points, damage to an ability score, or damage to character levels (energy drain).


----------



## Sejs (Jul 2, 2006)

As Patryn said - RoE's an ability penalty, not ability damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 2, 2006)

Indeed, Complete Arcane, in the course of explaining Weaponlike spells and critical hits, states on p86 "Spells that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits", and then uses Ray of Enfeeblement _as the example_ of such a spell.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elephant (Jul 3, 2006)

Oops.  I was thinking in terms of damage rather than a penalty :/


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 3, 2006)

So the question then is, is _ray of enfeeblement_ still too good for a 1st-level spell, even if it doesn't stack and can't crit?


----------



## Solarious (Jul 3, 2006)

Because _Ray of Enfeeblement_ requires an attack roll, and therefore can miss, can possibly hit your allies, needs to penetrate SR, and is less useful against opponents that do not emphasize physical beatdown as opposed to magical arsenals designed to roast you alive and psychic powers to render most into drooling idiots.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> ... can possibly hit your allies...




Only if they're grappling, though.

Or if you're using a variant rule.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 3, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Only if they're grappling, though.
> 
> Or if you're using a variant rule.
> 
> -Hyp.




Maybe you've heard of a little thing called cover? Your foolish friends can grant your enemies it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Maybe you've heard of a little thing called cover? Your foolish friends can grant your enemies it.




That's true.  But in 3.5, 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' is a variant rule.

Hence "or if you're using a variant rule".

The default rule in 3.5 is that if you miss due to cover, you didn't hit.  Not that you hit the cover.

-Hyp.


----------



## maransreth (Jul 3, 2006)

On the weekend my 10th mage used a rod of lesser empower metamagic with ray of enfeeblement to bring 2 fire giants to a Str of 16. I rolled a 10, x1.5 to get a 15.

This made it quite interesting for the DM to decide how heavy the half-plate armor and greatsword weighed, and whether the giants could stand under the weight when brought down to Str 16. In the end he decided that they collapsed under the weight of all the metal.

So I would say that Ray of Enfeeblement is definitely a good 1st level spell to bring down fighters.


----------



## kjenks (Jul 4, 2006)

The Str penalty from RoE stacks with Str penalties from other spells. My current favorite: Langour.


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 4, 2006)

maransreth said:
			
		

> On the weekend my 10th mage used a rod of lesser empower metamagic with ray of enfeeblement to bring 2 fire giants to a Str of 16. I rolled a 10, x1.5 to get a 15.
> 
> This made it quite interesting for the DM to decide how heavy the half-plate armor and greatsword weighed, and whether the giants could stand under the weight when brought down to Str 16. In the end he decided that they collapsed under the weight of all the metal.
> 
> So I would say that Ray of Enfeeblement is definitely a good 1st level spell to bring down fighters.



Actually, this kind of makes my point. Should a 1st-level spell--even an empowered one--be capable of taking out a CR 10 monster? I don't think so.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 5, 2006)

...without a save...

That's the big point there. But even with a high Str penalty, a CR 10 monster should still be dangerous. It's just something like a -5 penalty to attack and damage. That surely lessens the power of a creature, but doesn't take it out.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 5, 2006)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Actually, this kind of makes my point. Should a 1st-level spell--even an empowered one--be capable of taking out a CR 10 monster? I don't think so.




I would say a level 10 character using a 1st level spell should be able to hinder a CR10 creature w/o too much of a problem.  Keeping in mind, lots of spells prevent 1st level spells from even working.


----------



## hong (Jul 5, 2006)

maransreth said:
			
		

> On the weekend my 10th mage used a rod of lesser empower metamagic with ray of enfeeblement to bring 2 fire giants to a Str of 16. I rolled a 10, x1.5 to get a 15.
> 
> This made it quite interesting for the DM to decide how heavy the half-plate armor and greatsword weighed, and whether the giants could stand under the weight when brought down to Str 16. In the end he decided that they collapsed under the weight of all the metal.
> 
> So I would say that Ray of Enfeeblement is definitely a good 1st level spell to bring down fighters.



 The solution to this quandary is to ban rods of metamagic.


----------



## Starman (Jul 5, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> The solution to this quandary is to ban rods of metamagic.




No. No. No. The proper solution is to ban _magic_. Then you don't have to worry about any of this silliness.


----------



## hong (Jul 5, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> No. No. No. The proper solution is to ban _magic_. Then you don't have to worry about any of this silliness.



 Well, I'm trying to be reasonable here.


----------



## boolean (Jul 5, 2006)

Maybe we should just ban DM's who can't do math?

A Large Greatsword weighs twice the weight of a Medium Greatsword.

8lb x2 = 16lb.

Large Half-plate weighs twice the weight of Medium Half-plate.

50lb x2 = 100lb.

Total is 116lb.

A Large creature has twice the carrying capacity of a Medium one.

A medium creature has a light load of 76lbs.

76lb x2 = 152lb.

Even with their strength reduced to 16, the Fire Giants are still at light encumbrance. (So the only penalties they have are those from Half-plate.)


----------



## Dross Swordra (Jul 5, 2006)

Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?

-dross


----------



## glass (Jul 5, 2006)

Dross Swordra said:
			
		

> Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?



No, energy drain is considered damage. 



glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's true.  But in 3.5, 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' is a variant rule.



 And a bad variant at that.


			
				glass said:
			
		

> No, energy drain is considered damage.



 It is?


			
				Dross Swordra said:
			
		

> Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?



 Note the following rule on energy drain: "If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount."

As for stacking of negative levels, that's a little more debatable.  For the most part, if you do not allow it, then there will be serious issues for monsters that drain levels and have 'create spawn' abilities.  They will only be able to create spawn in the lowest HD creatures.  There would never be any classed vampires, for example.  So, I think everyone will agree that energy drain negative levels 'stack'.  IMO, however, enervation negative levels do not stack (with themselves).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 5, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> And a bad variant at that.




I kinda like it.  Makes sense to me...


----------



## amethal (Jul 5, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's true.  But in 3.5, 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' is a variant rule.
> 
> Hence "or if you're using a variant rule".
> 
> ...



Oops ....

Our party's "bard" accidentally hit the paladin with a ray of enfeeblement last week due to the paladin giving the monster cover.

This dratted 3.5 update is still giving me trouble years after the event


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 5, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I kinda like it.  Makes sense to me...




I like it also.  If I miss my target because someone was standing in my view of the target, there SHOULD be a chance of hitting that someone standing in the way!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I like it also.  If I miss my target because someone was standing in my view of the target, there SHOULD be a chance of hitting that someone standing in the way!



 The concept is fine.  The implementation is bad because it doesn't work in the simple D&D combat system of generic AC.  AC is not 'stacked' from bottom to top with natural armor, armor, shield, dex, etc.

And, as it is, the rule has some odd situations (that admittedly would be very rare).  Here's an example, with names to make it easier to explain.  An archer (with precise shot and no other relevant feats) shoots an arrow at an orc, standing behind a fighter (ally to the archer).  The archer has a +5 attack bonus.  The orc has AC 24 (+10 full plate +2, +4 heavy shield +2).  The fighter has AC 25 (+10 full plate +2, +4 heavy shield +2, +1 dex).

Ignoring a natural 20 (because that is a hit, and only a hit), the archer normally needs a 19 to hit.  If he rolls a 19, he misses, however due to the +4 cover bonus.  So, now, does a 24 hit the fighter?  No, it misses due to Dex and thus the fighter doesn't provide cover after all*.  So, the 19 hits.  Now, change the fighter's Dex bonus to +0 and give him a ring of protection +1 (or insight ioun stone +1).  Same AC, but now the 19 no longer hits.  It still doesn't hit the fighter.

There might be other situations which make things weird, but this was enough for me to discard the variant.  The fighter in this example will never provide cover for the orc, but the fighter would never be hit (as cover) and would always provide cover for the orc with 5 more points in AC.  That's inexplicable.

* Wait a minute, no cover?  What happens when a burst (non-spread), Reflex-offering effect occurs on the other side of the fighter from the orc?  Does the orc get a bonus to his save or not?


----------



## Raspen (Jul 5, 2006)

Just what to draw some atention to the ray of stupidity found on 167 of the SC

I dont see the spell in the erata so im asuming its not wrong so welcom to split ray maximized


----------



## 0-hr (Jul 6, 2006)

That rule for striking cover has always bothered me, which is why I've house ruled it:

_"If you miss due to cover then reroll the attack vs the cover."_

There are still some logical problems with this, but it works well enough and can be remembered without having to look it up every time


----------

