Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement

[ARandomGod]

At str 0 they can't move but Ray of E says it cannot drop it below a 1.

This gets sick at high levels when a big nasty melee monster gets hit with this and say a bestow curse for 6 more points. It can drop those 31 str baddies to 4-5 str quite fast.

Later

ACTUALLY... the ray of enfeeblement spell says that anyone aflicted with this cannot have their strength reduced below one. Unexpected side effect, immunity from further strength drain for the duration of the spell. This can be useful in an emergency against some undead!

 

[Gnome]

ACTUALLY... the ray of enfeeblement spell says that anyone aflicted with this cannot have their strength reduced below one. Unexpected side effect, immunity from further strength drain for the duration of the spell. This can be useful in an emergency against some undead!

I don't think that's the intent:

A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

I think if the intent was to prevent any further strength drain not as a result of the spell, then they would have added "for the duration of the spell" to the end of the last sentence.

 

[FEADIN]

Does anybody have an opinion on how Ray of Enfeeblement interacts with enhancement or inherent bonuses to strength? The question is what order they apply in.

Say you've got a character with a 11 Str natural and a +6 belt of giant strength. Hit with an empowered ray of enfeeblement for 16 points of strength. Is the character's strength then calculated as:

A) 11-16 = -5, increase to minimum 1, add 6, for a total of 7
or
B) 11+6 = 17-16 for a total of 1?

In other words, can RoE negate an enhancement bonus?

Yes, the belt gives you 6 points, you have 17 strength for all purpose, you can loose them all and go to 0 (not with this spell), if someone takes the belt you will still be at 0 str.

 

[Nail]

Does anybody have an opinion on how Ray of Enfeeblement interacts with enhancement or inherent bonuses to strength? The question is what order they apply in.

Order is only relevant should you take a stat-boosting magic item or spell off after the penalty from RoE is applied, and then they put it back on again.

Normally, you just add up the (stackable) bonuses and penalties.

Str 14 + 4(Bulls Strength spell) - 16 (a Wiz 10 rolled well with an Empowered RoE) = Str 2

Now, if the target wants to mess with the RAW, he'll get the Bull's Strength spell taken off before the RoE duration expires, then have someone cast a new Bull's Strength.

Str 14 (see above) - 16 (same as above) = -2, but can't be less than 1, so.... = Str 1. Then Bull's Strength is cast, and = Str 5.

....maybe.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Str 14 (see above) - 16 (same as above) = -2, but can't be less than 1, so.... = Str 1. Then Bull's Strength is cast, and = Str 5.

....maybe.

At the point the bull's strength is cast, the victim still has a -16 penalty to strength. Just because the score is a minimum of 1 does not reduce the penalty. So, when the bull's strength is cast, the victim ends up with a 2.

 

[Deset Gled]

I don't think that's the intent:

I think if the intent was to prevent any further strength drain not as a result of the spell, then they would have added "for the duration of the spell" to the end of the last sentence.

The intent may not have been to protect the victim from having their stength drained to 0 by other sources, but that's what the actual text says. As ARandomGod said, this can sometimes be a defensive spell (and really, if you're in a situation where using this spell is your best defensive option, you need all the help you can get).

 

[Nail]

At the point the bull's strength is cast, the victim still has a -16 penalty to strength. Just because the score is a minimum of 1 does not reduce the penalty. So, when the bull's strength is cast, the victim ends up with a 2.

....so the spell continuously checks to see how much of itself to apply?

Keep in mind it is the spell itself that says "the subject's strength score cannot drop below 1." There's no game mechanic, other than the spell itself, which limits the penalty to that value.

 

[Infiniti2000]

....so the spell continuously checks to see how much of itself to apply?

Sure, why not? It has a duration, it's not instantaneous. Of course, I wouldn't attribute a seeming intelligence to the spell, so saying "it checks" is not quite accurate.

Keep in mind it is the spell itself that says "the subject's strength score cannot drop below 1." There's no game mechanic, other than the spell itself, which limits the penalty to that value.

Right. The penalty cannot drop the strength score below 1. So, no matter what the strength score (considered without the penalty), the effect of the spell itself will not cause it to go below 1. So, if you have STR 10, get hit with a ray of enfeeblement for -8 STR, and then take 2 points of STR damage/drain, you'll still have a STR score of 1. In fact, you could get up to 9 STR damage/drain without going below 1. I don't see anything wrong or inconsistent with that approach.

 

[Nail]

Only that the spell "continuously checks". (Let's neglect the "seeming intelligence" angle.)

If spells continuously check to modify their effects, then we have "Shillelagh" -type problems.

 

[Stalker0]

....so the spell continuously checks to see how much of itself to apply?

Keep in mind it is the spell itself that says "the subject's strength score cannot drop below 1." There's no game mechanic, other than the spell itself, which limits the penalty to that value.

If that's true, keep in mind it applies to other effects.

For example, a Half-Orc has a -2 to int. But a sentient creature cannot have an int below 3. So on the off chance you give the half-orc a 3 int, it won't drop lower. But let's say he picks up a int+4. Is his int now a 7, or a 5?