Abililty damage and enhancement penalties stacking?

[Hypersmurf]

Disabled (0 Hit Points)
When a character's current hit points drop to exactly 0, the character is disabled. The character is not unconscious, but is close to it. The character can only take a partial action each round, and if the character performs any strenuous activity, the character takes 1 point of damage after the completing the act. Strenuous activities include running, attacking, or using any ability that requires physical exertion or mental concentration. If the character takes a strenuous action, the character's hit points drop to -1, and the character is dying.

Dying (-1 to -9 Hit Points)
When a character's current hit points drop to between -1 and -9 inclusive, the character is dying. The character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

Death
If the character's hit points drop to -10 (or lower), the character is dead.

------

So, your contention is that if I have 6 hit points, and the orc hits me for 6 points of damage, I am not disabled, because my hit points did not "drop" to exactly zero, but they were reduced by an attack that caused normal damage?

If I (somehow) end up disabled and take a strenuous action, then my hit points "drop to -1". This satisfies the conditions for Dying. But if I ended up at -1 because of a fireball, I didn't "drop" to -1 - again, I sustained damage - I'm not unconscious?

Okay.

-Hyp.

 

[mmu1]

So, your contention is that if I have 6 hit points, and the orc hits me for 6 points of damage, I am not disabled, because my hit points did not "drop" to exactly zero, but they were reduced by an attack that caused normal damage?

If I (somehow) end up disabled and take a strenuous action, then my hit points "drop to -1". This satisfies the conditions for Dying. But if I ended up at -1 because of a fireball, I didn't "drop" to -1 - again, I sustained damage - I'm not unconscious?

Nope... That sounds more like an argument you'd try to make, I'm the one trying to point out the error involved in using semantics and the letter rather than spirit of rules to trump common sense.

My argument is a logical extension of your rule lawyering... If you don't like where it gets you, don't do it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My argument is a logical extension of your rule lawyering... If you don't like where it gets you, don't do it.

Hmm? Your "logical extension" grants me immunity to the disabled, dying, and dead conditions. I'm not sure why this is bad for me...?

-Hyp.

 

[mmu1]

Hmm? Your "logical extension" grants me immunity to the disabled, dying, and dead conditions. I'm not sure why this is bad for me...?

-Hyp.

Umm... Because the argument isn't about semantics, but about common sense, and you're still missing the point?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This entire thread sounds suspiciously like a Divine Power argument.

My take: you apply the effects in the order they occur. If you're poisoned first, then your Str is reduced by 1, and the Ray of Enfeeblement can reduce it down to, at most, 1.

If you're hit by a Ray of Enfeeblement and then poisoned, you're paralyzed until the Ray of Enfeeblement's duration ends.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This entire thread sounds suspiciously like a Divine Power argument.

It's actually the opposite of the Divine Power argument

-Hyp.

 

[greycastle]

i have to agree with hyper on this one

 

[Bauglir]

From SRD:
The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

add in a quick house rule aaand

The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1 as a result of this spell.

'owzat?

 

[DreamChaser]

I've always liked to keep spells as simple as possible. Some of the threads on this board make my head spin because things that seemed so simple to me--such as the idea that the creator of an attack spell (say RoE) would never create it to grant an immunity to the target, especially a potentially rather powerful immunity--are apparently quite complex when they are argued in circles.

It is like the summon monster debate:

"Summoned creatures act normally on the last round of the spell and disappear at the end of their turn." p 258

Does this mean that the caster no longer has control over the creature? If it is a normally non-violent creature does it suddenly run away?

OF COURSE NOT!!! But if you wanted to do a violent jig on the rules of the game you could interpret it that way.


So for my .02: It is not a protection spell therefore it does not protect. If it were a protection spell it would say so.

DC

"Target player loses next turn" indeed!

 

[AuraSeer]

Umm... Because the argument isn't about semantics, but about common sense, and you're still missing the point?

You're right, it's not about semantics. Why are you trying to make it that way?

The obvious intent of that line is to prevent ray of enfeeblement from disabling opponents. The spell inflicts a Strength penalty, but cannot make an opponent helpless. That's all it does.

Turning RoE into a protection spell requires a torturous semantic reading of the description's wording. Claiming that to be "common sense" is disingenuous, if not blatant trolling.