Rulings on Ray of enfeeblement

[Vuron]

I think a fixed penalty to strength (-6) is a decent fix to prevent a maximized ray of enfeeblement (-11 strength) from being one of the better opening salvos in the mid to high level wizard's arsenal.

Considering that for the average two-handed weapon fighter each of his attacks would be facing a -3 to hit and a -4 to damage this seems to be a pretty significant penalty which continues to remain a viable tactic later on into the game versus the average 1st level spell's increasing uselessness.

The other option would be to add a fort (negate) save onto the spell which would prevent high level fighters from being utterly gimped by the spell.

 

[Stalker0]

Why should we assume optimum scenarios for the fighter's touch attack. I'm the wizard, its not like I have to use ROE when he's got cover in melee. As others have said, I do have others spells. But hey, if I catch the fighter out in the open why not burn a 1st level spell that's nearly as effective or maybe moreso than some higher level spells.

 

[Vuron]

I don't know that I consider it broken, but it is pretty strong.

The one thing that seems to be a big assumption that I don't think people are making, though, is that it is near-automatic for a touch attack with a ray to hit.

A target with a touch AC of 10 who has cover and is in melee is effectively sitting at an 18 AC. An 18 AC is not anything like automatic for your average mid level wizard to hit. Say he's level 10, and we'll give him a nice dex of 16. He's shooting his ranged touch attacks at +8, which means he needs a 10 to hit. That's 55%, which isn't anywhere near automatic. Compare that to his chances of taking out his 10th level fighter opponent *entirely* with a tasha's hideous laughter, which probably has somthing like a 16 or 17 DC at that level vs. a will save of around 4 or 5, and it doesn't look that bad to me.

Yes, this is just one random comparison at just one level, but I think it matches the reality of the games I've played in pretty well.

While the ray spells become less potent against people with cover (go tower shield ) and against targets in melee that hardly negates the tendency of a maximized ray of enfeeblement cast during the initial phases to devastate melee combat monsters.

 

[Darklone]

I don't know about you.... but the wizards I know would have killed or incapacitated that greatswordfighter with a Will save spell instead of weakening him and thus busying the groups tank.

 

[Stalker0]

There's another factor with ROE, that of SR. Now ROE requires an SR check, but in some ways its a superior spell to use against SR than some others. If you have a choice between a 4th level spell and a 1st level spell, that both have SR, then throw the 1st level one at him. If you fail, you lost a 1st level spell no big deal. Of course, conjurations are still the way to go against SR but in those cases you don't have it, this is a good alternative.

ROE is also a good spell to use for wizards who don't have the highest ints. Their save DCs suffer, their touch attacks do not.

 

[SlagMortar]

ROE is also a good spell to use for wizards who don't have the highest ints. Their save DCs suffer, their touch attacks do not.

In my mind, that's a good argument for leaving it as is. Isn't it a good thing to have more options for a caster than raising their primary stat as high as possible? People already claim that having a level adjustment 0 race that boosts a mental stat is automatically overpowered because a primary caster is only dependent on their casting stat.

 

[Vuron]

I don't know about you.... but the wizards I know would have killed or incapacitated that greatswordfighter with a Will save spell instead of weakening him and thus busying the groups tank.

Against some foes a will save kill or die spell is a better choice but for the exception of tasha's laughter most of the good will save or die/incapacitate are relatively high level whereas the maximized enfeeblement is only a 4th level spell slot.

Further the maximized ray of enfeeblement has significant effects even when cast against melee combat monsters with relatively high will saves (outsiders, undead, monstrous humanoids).

 

[Grog]

I don't know about you.... but the wizards I know would have killed or incapacitated that greatswordfighter with a Will save spell instead of weakening him and thus busying the groups tank.

The key words there are "Will save." At least, with a spell like that, the fighter gets a saving throw to avoid the effect. All Ray of Enfeeblement needs is a ranged touch attack, which as I've said, is ridiculously easy at high levels. I think you'll find that probably 90% of the monsters in the MM have really crappy touch ACs. So do most character classes, except for monks and rogues.

 

[Grog]

I don't know that I consider it broken, but it is pretty strong.

The one thing that seems to be a big assumption that I don't think people should be making, though, is that it is near-automatic for a touch attack with a ray to hit.

A target with a touch AC of 10 who has cover and is in melee is effectively sitting at an 18 AC.

It's pretty easy to avoid cover in combat. Especially so if you're fighting Large sized or bigger enemies, which most meele-oriented monsters are at higher levels. A 15th level wizard with an 18 Dex (easily possible at that level) will only miss most Large or bigger creatures on a natural 1, even with the -4 penalty for firing into meele. That's a 95% chance for the wizard to win the fight with one first level spell - that's not even remotely acceptable.

Sure, the DM can metagame and give everybody rings of protection, etc., but that gets silly in a hurry (not to mention stacking up loot for the PCs). A better solution is to simply fix the spell so it's not so ridiculously overpowered.

 

[Legildur]

...A 15th level fighter with a 26 Str has a grapple check of +23. If he took the Improved Grapple feat (pretty much a no-brainer for a fighter of that level) he'd have a +27. He only has to make one grapple check (with the odds in his favor) and he can move out of the area of effect.

And there are other ways to deal with Evard's, too. Have a Ring of Freedom of Movement. Be flying. You have options for dealing with the fourth level spell; you have no options for dealing with the first level spell. That's broken.

I don't know if Improved Grapple is a "no brainer" for fighters (except possibly when using PHB feats only). Sure, they get lots of feats, but there are many good feats out there. Besides which, IG requires the Improved Unarmed Strike feat as a prerequisite.

Typically a fighter would be better served with that feat from Complete Warrior (can't remember the name right now) that allows an AOO for an attempted grapple (almost regardless of opponent's abilities) and not only deals damage, but that damage is added to the grapple check. On reflection, not sure if this would work with Evard's... But your other point stands about other options for Evard's.