Ray of Enfeeblement stack?

[RigaMortus2]

Actually, this kind of makes my point. Should a 1st-level spell--even an empowered one--be capable of taking out a CR 10 monster? I don't think so.

I would say a level 10 character using a 1st level spell should be able to hinder a CR10 creature w/o too much of a problem. Keeping in mind, lots of spells prevent 1st level spells from even working.

 

[hong]

On the weekend my 10th mage used a rod of lesser empower metamagic with ray of enfeeblement to bring 2 fire giants to a Str of 16. I rolled a 10, x1.5 to get a 15.

This made it quite interesting for the DM to decide how heavy the half-plate armor and greatsword weighed, and whether the giants could stand under the weight when brought down to Str 16. In the end he decided that they collapsed under the weight of all the metal.

So I would say that Ray of Enfeeblement is definitely a good 1st level spell to bring down fighters.

The solution to this quandary is to ban rods of metamagic.

 

[Starman]

The solution to this quandary is to ban rods of metamagic.

No. No. No. The proper solution is to ban magic. Then you don't have to worry about any of this silliness.

 

[hong]

No. No. No. The proper solution is to ban magic. Then you don't have to worry about any of this silliness.

Well, I'm trying to be reasonable here.

 

[boolean]

Maybe we should just ban DM's who can't do math?

A Large Greatsword weighs twice the weight of a Medium Greatsword.

8lb x2 = 16lb.

Large Half-plate weighs twice the weight of Medium Half-plate.

50lb x2 = 100lb.

Total is 116lb.

A Large creature has twice the carrying capacity of a Medium one.

A medium creature has a light load of 76lbs.

76lb x2 = 152lb.

Even with their strength reduced to 16, the Fire Giants are still at light encumbrance. (So the only penalties they have are those from Half-plate.)

 

[Dross Swordra]

Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?

-dross

 

[glass]

Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?

No, energy drain is considered damage.



glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's true. But in 3.5, 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' is a variant rule.

And a bad variant at that.

No, energy drain is considered damage.

It is?

Would an energy drain be adjudicated the same way (as in: no stacking of negative levels and no crits) ?

Note the following rule on energy drain: "If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount."

As for stacking of negative levels, that's a little more debatable. For the most part, if you do not allow it, then there will be serious issues for monsters that drain levels and have 'create spawn' abilities. They will only be able to create spawn in the lowest HD creatures. There would never be any classed vampires, for example. So, I think everyone will agree that energy drain negative levels 'stack'. IMO, however, enervation negative levels do not stack (with themselves).

 

[RigaMortus2]

And a bad variant at that.

I kinda like it. Makes sense to me...

 

[amethal]

That's true. But in 3.5, 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' is a variant rule.

Hence "or if you're using a variant rule".

The default rule in 3.5 is that if you miss due to cover, you didn't hit. Not that you hit the cover.

-Hyp.

Oops ....

Our party's "bard" accidentally hit the paladin with a ray of enfeeblement last week due to the paladin giving the monster cover.

This dratted 3.5 update is still giving me trouble years after the event