Is Ray of Enfeeblement too good?

[reanjr]

What do you suppose WOTC is trying to say in that sentance when it talks about negative energy from spells that inflict "ability damage" ?

It means that if the spell causes ability damage (ray of enfeeblement does not, but if it did) a sneak attack would not cause an additional +1d6 points of Strength damage, but instead would cause an additional +1d6 points of damage from negative energy (as if hit by a cause light wounds or something).

Look at it another way. You have a 0-level spell, "ray of red". Ranged touch attack, turns the target red for 1 round/level of caster. No save. If the rogue sneak attacks with it or if you get a critical, the target does not get any more red. The target doesn't take an additional +5d6 red. It just works just as normal.

With ray of enfeeblement, it's the same thing. The spell never causes damage. Nowhere does it indicate or imply that the spell causes damage of any kind whatsoever. So there's no more reason to apply sneak attack/critical damage to ray of enfeeblement than there is to apply it to ray of red.

[edit] To Mistwell: I'd like to think describing the argument from the other direction (a spell that in fact would never be conceived to cause sneak attack damage) is a worthy addition to the thread. I could be wrong.

...

And I never read the whole thread before posting; I'd never be able to keep track of the posts I was responding to.

 

[Jhulae]

I've been following this thread on-and-off. Could you show where you got this from?

I don't have my books with me at work, but I do believe Complete Arcane has the info.

 

[reanjr]

Guys, this thread is suddenly going in a big circle. We are now hearing the same arguments already pretty clearly settled earlier in the thread with tons of rules quotations and pretty definitive agreement by just about everyone.

Which is why I prefer last-to-first post collation. I assume I'm alone.

 

[Philip]

MY experience with the Ray of Enfeeblement spell is that it is not overpowered per se, but that DMs often hate it when one of their favorite monsters/NPCs is disabled without even so much as a chance to save.

I clearly remember Lord of the Iron Fortress, where a Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement put the full-plate wearing BBEG way over his maximum load. He was effectively disabled and the party practically ignored him (and to add insult to injury even used him for cover) for the rest of the combat.

The DM was not amused.....

Players love the spell because you can rely on it. For example: my fellow party member is attacked by an Elder Earth Elemental, and damaged to a point where he is probably going to die in the Earth Elemental's next turn. As the party Sorcerer I can choose between A. hitting the Earth Elemental with a damaging or save or die type spell, killing or disabling the Earth Elemental outright and saving the fighter's life if Elemental fails it save (70%), or condemning the fighter to death if the Earth Elemental does make its save (30%). Alternately, I can hit the Elemental with a Ray of Enfeeblement which, if it hits (90%) makes sure the Earth Elemental is weakened to a point where it cannot kill the fighter on its next action. 30% of the fighter dying vs. 10%? Ray of Enfeeblement over other spells every time in such situations....

 

[Thanee]

My sorceress is now 12th level and has this spell since 3rd level or so, as well as Empower Spell.

I can't recall having used it a lot during the last levels, so it doesn't seem to be such an overly good choice to cast. It's great in some situations, but there is usually a spell, which is simply better.

Bye
Thanee

 

[edhel]

OFF TOPIC

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

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!

Now who the heck carries a backpack with full plate armor? IMC even if you could carry ridicilous amounts of stuff, you don't. Nobody carries 50 healing potions or 100 javelins.

 

[thebitdnd]

A bit of a hijack but what about this:

From the 3.5 SRD Spell Description for Blasphemy:

Weakened: The creature’s Strength score decreases by 2d6 points for 2d4 rounds.

Does this spell deal ability damage or a penalty to strength? My gut feeling is strength damage, but to me this would be open to interpretation. I remember an encounter when our group of PCs were faced with four evil outsiders that brought us to our knees with this spell-like ability. We stacked them. Which was very, very bad for us. We reasoned that it was a high level spell which would most likely mean ability damage. Would have been a TPK had the DM not shown mercy.

Edited for my poor abilities to spell and use the quote function.

 

[Felonious Monk]

It has a duration of 2d4 rounds rather than permanent, so it would seem to me to be a penalty.

 

[shilsen]

What Felonious Monk said.

Ability damage usually does not have a specific duration, and the lost pts return at the rate of 1 per day (2 with complete bed rest). As the DMG says (pg.290), "Some spells or abilities impose an effective ability score reduction, which is different from ability score loss. Any such reduction disappears at the end of the spell's or ability's duration, and the ability score immediately returns to its original value". That is what is occuring in the case of Blasphemy.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree

It is a munchkin spell made for a munchin game... and if you play a munchkin (monty hall) game, then I agree - it fits right in! ... but if you don´t play a munchkin game, then the spell is too powerfull for a 1st level spell!

I don´t know how many of you play with strict encumbrance rules, but we do!... and then the RoE gets frightingly good (with a save it is more balanced, but still good)...

Oh, you mean munchkin spells like Sleep???

RoE with 14 Dex first level Wizard or Sorcerer against touch AC 10 has a 65% chance of taking about 4 points of Strength on average. But, the opponent can still act.

Sleep with a 16 Int or 16 Cha Wizard or Sorcerer (respectively) against a good will save opponent (i.e. +2 at level one) with a 14 Wisdom has a 45% chance of succeeding. The chance increases to 65% against most Fighter types.

65% chance of -4 Str vs. 45%-65% chance of unconscious.

Seems balanced to me.

How about Color Spray?

Granted, RoE scales with level and metamagic feats, but by then your casters are getting stuff like Web, Hold Person, Disentegrate and opponent casters are getting things like Dispel Magic. At low level, RoE is less potent than some other spells, at higher level, RoE is still less potent than some other spells, even if metamagiced.

It is good that it scales, especially for a Sorcerer. But then, so does combat damage. If a 11th level Fighter gets a full round attack against a 11th level Wizard, the Wizard is often toast in one round. I have no problem with the Wizard winning initiative and the Fighter being basically toast in one round (with a 6th level equivalent Empower Maximized RoE spell which is often the Wizards only 6th level spell unless he specialized).