Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement

[Nail]

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?

A 7, of course.

What I'm pointing out is that in the case of the spell RoE, the spell must determine how much of its penalty to apply. That determination comes when the spell is cast, rather than continuously.

Just as the half-orc's penalty is changed at the time it is applied...and not later.

Spoiler

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!!!

 

[Mistwell]

I say the answer is seven. Seven angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

See, you can't ignore the "seeming intelligence" angle and then introduce the shilelga...shielag...shillgaghe...shill-lay-lee () argument. The only thing you should consider is the caveat of "canot drop below 1." There's no 'continuous checking' or target, range, SR, or anything like that. Otherwise, you'd have to continously check the range of, say, a charm person. Whenever your victim moved beyond Close range, the charm would end. The easier rebuttal to this train of thought is that the target and range is only use when the spell is cast or when the description specifically calls for it (such as with spiritual weapon). But, nothing requires that a person who is charmed remain within Close range of the caster.

Additionally, I put forward the idea that shillelagh actually proves my point. Doesn't the spell 'continuously check' who's wielding the weapon?

 

[IcyCool]

Additionally, I put forward the idea that shillelagh actually proves my point. Doesn't the spell 'continuously check' who's wielding the weapon?

Yep, and it is an exception specifically called out in the text.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yep, and it is an exception specifically called out in the text.

Exactly. Just like RoE.

 

[Nail]

See, you can't ignore the "seeming intelligence" angle and then introduce the shilelga...shielag...shillgaghe...shill-lay-lee () argument.

Spoiler

Yep, I can't both spell and pronounce that word at the same time too....

Spells don't "check" after they've been cast. Your example of spell ranges is perfect; the only check is when the target is first selected. After that, the spell effects are set.

So, if the penalty is set (to keep the victim's Str at >=1), why does the spell get to (potentially) change the penalty when the victim gets his Str increased?

Additionally, I put forward the idea that shillelagh actually proves my point. Doesn't the spell 'continuously check' who's wielding the weapon?

The effect is set: it only works for the druid who cast it.

Actually, I was thinking about how the main effect of the spell (+1 enhancement) makes the club an invalid target of the spell (must be a non-magical club).

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think the "At least 1" thing is really more of a limiter.

Like you have a Feeb for 16 points cast on a guy with 14 STR. He has a -16 Str penalty, with a limiter of at least 1. But still a -16 Str penalty. If he puts on Gauntlets of Ogre Power, his Str is still 1, because he has a -16 Str penalty. It's just a stop, it wouldn't cause the spell to only give a -13 STR penalty. It isn't damage, it's a penalty.

--fje