Ray of Enfeeblement vs. Halfling Bbn

[Mistwell]

Ridiculous. The spell imposes a PENALTY and says the subject's Str cannot DROP below 1. You can argue that the subject's Str cannot be lowered further by any additional effects/conditions, but you cannot say a penalty increases the Str score (compare with flat-footed vs. low Dex penalty). If the halfling is already at Str 0 then no Str penalty can increase it and the spell will have no effect (and the spell will still not have dropped the subject's Str below 0, that's where you found it).

I agree it is ridiculous, and yet almost everyone in this thread is arguing it that way.

In my opinion Ray of Enfeeblement's "Min 1" caveat applies JUST to the effect of Ray of Enfeeblement, and applies to nothing else. If something else drops your stength lower, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't lock it at 1. However that opinion seems to be in the minority lately.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I agree it is ridiculous, and yet almost everyone in this thread is arguing it that way.

In my opinion Ray of Enfeeblement's "Min 1" caveat applies JUST to the effect of Ray of Enfeeblement, and applies to nothing else. If something else drops your stength lower, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't lock it at 1. However that opinion seems to be in the minority lately.

My opinion is simply that the Ray of Enfeeblement effect always get applied last when adding things up. It doesn't matter in what order the effects actually occured.

If other factors are sufficient to drop your strength to 0 independently of the effects of RoE, then the Ray of Enfeeblement does not raise it. However if Ray of Enfeeblement drops your strength from 10 to 2 and then some other effect subtracts 2, the correct way to figure it is, 10 - 2 = 8. 8 - 8 (RoE) = 0, but RoE can't drop you to 0, so 1.

 

[Deset Gled]

For reference:

Ray of Enfeeblement
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
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.

To me, the line "The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1." is as explicit as you can get. If there was a spell called "Strength Protection" that had this same wording, there would be no arguements about what this line meant.

Now, I don't think that if a character's strength was already 0 that RoO would bring it back up to 1, but that's a different situation than what the original poster was asking about.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree it is ridiculous, and yet almost everyone in this thread is arguing it that way.

I'm possibly the originator of Ray of Enfeeblement as a Protection from Shadows spell, but as others have noted, the spell won't serve to increase a 0 Str to 1. It prevents the score dropping below 1, but if the score is already below 1 when RoE is applied, no dropping is necessary for the score to remain at 0, so the clause has no effect.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

If other factors are sufficient to drop your strength to 0 independently of the effects of RoE, then the Ray of Enfeeblement does not raise it. However if Ray of Enfeeblement drops your strength from 10 to 2 and then some other effect subtracts 2, the correct way to figure it is, 10 - 2 = 8. 8 - 8 (RoE) = 0, but RoE can't drop you to 0, so 1.

....and if some other effect subtracts 3, the subject's Str remains at 1.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even if we take the view that Ray of Enfeeblement is not Protection from Shadows - editing the sentence to read "The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1 as a result of the penalty from Ray of Enfeeblement", I'm still of the opinion that the order is immaterial.

In the halfling example, post-Rage, we have a character with a Str of 10, a -2 penalty from fatigue, and a -11 penalty from Ray of Enfeeblement (that cannot drop the subject's Str score below 1).

Whether the Ray strikes before or after the fatigue, the only way to reasonably determine whether the Ray penalty is what is causing the score to drop below 1 is to compare the score with and without that penalty.

Without the Ray penalty, the score is 8. (10 -2)
With the Ray penalty, the score is -3. (10 -2 -11)

Therefore, in the absence of the Ray penalty, the score would not be below 1; it is only through the inclusion of that penalty that the score could drop below 1, and that is what is prohibited by the spell text (once we edit in the clarification).

The only way the subject's Str score can drop below 1 is if he racks up more than -9 in penalties (or ability damage or decreases) that do not carry that restriction.

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

I agree it is ridiculous, and yet almost everyone in this thread is arguing it that way.

Nobody before Infiniti2000 addressed the question to which you made this remark, so please don't co-opt my argument to support something that I have not said and don't agree with.

 

[frankthedm]

Given how potent RoE is, I would say the penalty is prevented from rendering the victim helpless. A sort of balancing act. If the STR is actually ability damaged, the penalty “backs off” leaving the victim at “1”. Only when other factors reduce the STR score from normal to ‘0’ does the victim go helpless IMHO.

 

[KarinsDad]

The only way the subject's Str score can drop below 1 is if he racks up more than -9 in penalties (or ability damage or decreases) that do not carry that restriction.

This seems like the most reasonable interpretation.

 

[Lorehead]

The correct answer is none of the above as their is no such thing as a halfling barbarian - it's only a hypothetical - can't happen!

Illogical. All propositions are true over the empty set, so therefore the correct answer is, all of the above.