Is Ray of Enfeeblement too good?

[Sir ThornCrest]

give penalty to movement, attack, penalty his endurance as everything is a lot more taxing. He would have to shed weight in order to continue.....note if your fighter is entering into combat with a backpack on he would receive penalties to his melee, huge penalties to any grapple check, his goods would be damaged, destroyed...all in all not a good idea...so I wouldnt add on the weight of a back pack to his (victim of RoE) total load in combat..unless you cought him off guard? in our group melee starts with the fighters dropping their excess baggage and moving into combat.


Thorncrest

Btw... would you guys rule the same as me in that situation? That a char carrying more than his modified str allows can´t move?

Would you still let him fight, but just not move, or would he fall down prone, or just standing there being able to do nothing?

Thanx

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

doesnt empower = x 1.5 the total rolled? and if same spell is maximised that amount would be 6 for a d6 then +3 for the empower...I have only played low level wizards and have never run across this question before.

THorncrest

Btw... would you guys rule the same as me in that situation? That a char carrying more than his modified str allows can´t move?

Would you still let him fight, but just not move, or would he fall down prone, or just standing there being able to do nothing?

Thanx

 

[Trainz]

It might appear too good, or overpowered, but since 3.5, all my/my players arcanists had it on their spell lists, but it doesn't come up that often. Sure, it's helpful, but a broken spell sees use all the time, and that isn't the case with this spell in our campaigns.

So... YMMVAAT.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

You know I always wondered why RoE was so damn good for a 1st level spell... guess we've been playing the broken way hehehe oops.

 

[Hypersmurf]

doesnt empower = x 1.5 the total rolled? and if same spell is maximised that amount would be 6 for a d6 then +3 for the empower...I have only played low level wizards and have never run across this question before.

Read the feats again.

-Hyp.

 

[Victim]

Making RoE a no save spell in 3.5 was way over the line in my book!

A char in heavy armor is effectively taken out of the fight with this one (1st level!) spell... unless his strength is very high or he carries nothing but his armor...

What I mean is... many chars (even fighters) have a str between 14 and 16 making them able to carry 175-230 lbs as their absolute max.

A 4th level caster casting RoE will with a roll of 3 give a penalty of 5 to str... that brings the str down to between 9 and 11, reducing absolute max to 90-115! (Make it a good roll and things really start to happen!)

Now take a fighter with full plate (50 lb), heavy steel shield (20 lb), weapon, blanket, sacks, torches etc. and you will surprisingly fast get beyond that max!... making that char unable to move... thus no longer able to fight...

For a low-level group in a low-magic world (such as ours ) RoE is WAY too good!

Actually, the problems are just as apparent in a high level game with lots of magic. First of all, a high level fighter with 30 STR won't be crippled but a single Ray, but he will probably take around 4 points from his attack and damage rolls (maybe more from damage if he uses a 2 hander). That's a pretty substancial hit in effectiveness. However, look at the case where the spell hits a wizard. Many wizards will only have 8-10 STR and probably won't be bumping it up. It's very possible that they get zapped to directly 1 STR. Now they're over a heavy load because of their clothes. Ouch.

Also, you can combine Ray of Enfeeblement with other spells for devastating effect. The Waves of Fatigue and Exhaustion spells also provide a penalty to STR with no save. Unlike RoE, the conditions don't specify a minimum STR. So if you Enfeeble some people down to 6 or so STR, then follow up with Waves of Exhaustion, a bunch of people are completely taken out with no saves.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now they're over a heavy load because of their clothes. Ouch.

I'm away from my PHB, but doesn't it say somewhere that the clothes you're wearing don't count towards encumbrance?

Also, you can combine Ray of Enfeeblement with other spells for devastating effect. The Waves of Fatigue and Exhaustion spells also provide a penalty to STR with no save. Unlike RoE, the conditions don't specify a minimum STR. So if you Enfeeble some people down to 6 or so STR, then follow up with Waves of Exhaustion, a bunch of people are completely taken out with no saves.

Not really. If they have say 14 Str, and you inflict a -8 penalty-that-can't-take-them-below-1 with Ray of Enfeeblement, and then hit them with Waves of Exhaustion for a -6 penalty, the -8 will only actually provide 7 points of penalty... otherwise, RoE would be taking them below 1. (It's a simple check - without the RoE penalty, are they below 1? With the RoE penalty, are they below 1? If the answers are no and yes respectively, then they are below 1 because of RoE, which isn't allowed.)

Of course, as Ray of Enfeeblement is written, the subject's Str score cannot drop below 1. As written, for the duration of the spell, they are actually immune to any effect that would take them to 0 Str. Most people seem to assume that's not actually the intent of the spell, but as written, it makes a pretty good defence against an army of Shadows...

-Hyp.

 

[shilsen]

I'm away from my PHB, but doesn't it say somewhere that the clothes you're wearing don't count towards encumbrance?

Yup. Pg. 131, the first paragraph under ... surprise, surprise ... Clothing

 

[IndyPendant]

Hmm...what about a house rule that states that the Str penalty only applies to attack and damage rolls for that person? That would strike me as pretty balanced then...(Not to mention one *hell* of a lot easier to manage, since you don't need to refigure encumbrance with it...: ) Do that, and it strikes me that RoE would be perfectly fine...

 

[Corsair]

Hmm...what about a house rule that states that the Str penalty only applies to attack and damage rolls for that person? That would strike me as pretty balanced then...(Not to mention one *hell* of a lot easier to manage, since you don't need to refigure encumbrance with it...: ) Do that, and it strikes me that RoE would be perfectly fine...

It's perfectly fine as is.