Rulings on Ray of enfeeblement

[Infiniti2000]

Your comment was that no one ever misses in your game. If that is true then it may be that your players are cheating, have loaded dice, or have simply been incredibly lucky which does not play in to how powerful a spell is or is not.

Agreed, that is possible. It was just an observation, though. Perhaps there was a miss here or there, but it's extremely rare. Admittedly, though, I don't do "builds" so I don't have a stock touch AC bad guy "build" with which to keep ray of enfeeblement in check.

An enemy wizard with a 1 STR will be hampered, but not nearly so much as an enemy fighter with a 1 STR.

Perhaps, but now you're changing the comparison. Will the fighter really wind up with a 1 STR? How many fighters IYC have strength 12 or less?

No. That's like responding to "1+1+1+1=4" with "Let's look at the middle 1+1; you're saying that 1+1 equals 4. Is that accurate?" This is just one component of what makes bull's strength a more generally useful spell. (Though I would argue that ray of enfeeblement is particularly strong for a 1st level spell once you hit the mid-levels)

It's nothing like responding like that. I'm merely using the numbers. BS gives +4. RoE gives (at best) -(1d6+5). At maximum value it's almost three times BS. Is the variability that much of a drawback such that -(1d6+5) is less powerful than +4? If not, then my paraphrasing has to be accurate. Note that I think variability is not a drawback because even the average is much higher than BS (and even at minimum level, the average is about equal), and more importantly, it's subject to empower spell.

If you've got a PC with built-in SR in the group...

That's not the point. The point is that you must compare apples to apples. If you consider SR in one case, you must consider it in the other. Keep in mind that I said previously (I hope I wrote it in a post and didn't just think it ) that doing comparisons is extraordinarily difficult and not all points are valid. In this case, I don't think you can use SR for either side because the two spells have fundamentally different functions: attack, buff. It so happens, last time I played my cleric, I ran into this problem after casting mass spell resistance. Let me tell you that mass SR creates as much of a problem as it solves.

My wizard missed a lot with touch attacks. And ray spells either hit or miss, while a fighter enhanced by bull's strength will generally make enough attacks during the spell duration that some of them will hit (often only because of the to-hit bonus provided by the spell).

And if your fighter buddy was hit with a RoE by an equal-level wizard to yourself, would his net strength be lower or higher, counting in the bull's strength? The answer to this question, IMO, is QED.

 

[Ciaran]

Perhaps, but now you're changing the comparison. Will the fighter really wind up with a 1 STR? How many fighters IYC have strength 12 or less?

I'm not the one who brought the specific example of "1 STR" into the discussion. But if you prefer, I'd say that a fighter who's dropped from 18 STR to 9 STR is more hampered than a wizard who's dropped from 10 STR to 1 STR.

It's nothing like responding like that. I'm merely using the numbers. BS gives +4. RoE gives (at best) -(1d6+5). At maximum value it's almost three times BS. Is the variability that much of a drawback such that -(1d6+5) is less powerful than +4? If not, then my paraphrasing has to be accurate. Note that I think variability is not a drawback because even the average is much higher than BS (and even at minimum level, the average is about equal), and more importantly, it's subject to empower spell.

The variability is irrelevant. Yes, the RoE penalty is higher than the BS bonus. So what? Just waving two numbers around in isolation proves nothing. Why not say that Shocking Grasp and Ice Storm should be the same level because they both deal 5d6 damage? Why not make a healing reserve feat, because inflicting damage and healing damage both deal with hit points?

That's not the point. The point is that you must compare apples to apples.

Not everything is an apple.

If you consider SR in one case, you must consider it in the other.

Not all cases involving the same factor are equivalent. Specifically, factors involving your allies are far more controllable than factors involving your enemies. That's why attack spells that only affect humanoids are much lower level than attack spells that affect any creature, while there's no equivalent for buffing spells -- you know that your adventuring party will consist of humanoids.

Keep in mind that I said previously (I hope I wrote it in a post and didn't just think it ) that doing comparisons is extraordinarily difficult and not all points are valid. In this case, I don't think you can use SR for either side because the two spells have fundamentally different functions: attack, buff. It so happens, last time I played my cleric, I ran into this problem after casting mass spell resistance. Let me tell you that mass SR creates as much of a problem as it solves.

And if you cast iron body, you shouldn't be upset that you can't swim. Though I'll note that spell resistance has the same duration as bull's strength anyway, so you really should be casting your other buffing spells before you add SR.

And if your fighter buddy was hit with a RoE by an equal-level wizard to yourself, would his net strength be lower or higher, counting in the bull's strength? The answer to this question, IMO, is QED.

And if your fighter buddy was knocked off a 200-foot cliff, then feather fall would be even more useful, so feather fall is THE MOST POWERFULLEST SPELL EVER!!!! QED.

The more often a spell is applicable to your current situation, the more powerful it is. The less often the spell comes into play, the less powerful it is. And bull's strength is more broadly useful than ray of enfeeblement.

For what it's worth, though, our campaign retains the original 10 min/level duration for bull's strength. We think that the 1 min/level duration makes it pretty weak. But it's still better than a 1st level spell.

 

[Thanee]

come in 12 flavors!

That's a very pretty post, frank.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Thanee, can you compare RoE to bull's strength?

Sure, one could do so, but I don't think, that these need to come out even (in an absolute kind of way).

They are very different spells and their applications are very different, too.

Both are good and useful spells for their levels (though I think the duration on Bull's Strength is too low, and have changed it to 10x that much in my games).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

For what it's worth, though, our campaign retains the original 10 min/level duration for bull's strength. We think that the 1 min/level duration makes it pretty weak. But it's still better than a 1st level spell.

So do I but not because it's weak. I do that (together with a number of other 'buff' spells) to restrict the players' desire to 'rush' through a dungeon. It also facilitates DMing a BBEG's buff sequence.

 

[Felix]

Re: Ray of Enfeeblement vs Bull's Strength

One observation I would like to add is that comparisons of these spells have been taking place at or around level 10 when Ray of Enfeeblement is at its most effective. If you are going to compare the spells, then look at how they scale as levels are increased.

At 3rd level, when you first get Bull's Strength, it provides a +4 to STR and Ray of Enfeeblement inflicts a 1d6+1 penalty [for a range of -2 to -7, which translates into a -1 to -3 STR mod reduction]. The benefit and the penalty are fairly equal, but Ray of Enfeeblement still must hit a touch AC, and the penalty only applied to one enemy; Bull's Strength is also only applied to one target, but he is able to spread the +2 attack/damage around to multiple enemies if they present themselves.

At this level, Bull's Strength is a superior spell. Guaranteed results, equivalent benefit vs the penalty, benefit is more easily spread around to affect multiple opponents than the penalty is able to affect multiple opponents.

Now, as is often the case when comparing spells that scale with level against those that do not, this changes. At 10th level I can't imagine using Bull's Strength much at all, if ever; by that point, many melee-oriented characters will have an STR enhancement bonus item and the spell won't help much. So near and certainly past 10th level, I would argue that Bull's Strength has fairly well outlived its usefulness.

Ray of Enfeeblement scales wonderfully and increases in utility as you approach level 10, but this does not mean that it is overpowered for its spell level. Much the reverse of how Sleep is a fantastic spell at 1st level but quickly loses its efficasy, Ray of Enfeeblement is a moderately good 1st level spell at low levels, but matures into a wonderful de-buff spell. Granted, it's a de-buff spell that you will generally only want to use on those big no-SR, low-touch AC, non-concealed, non-covered, non-engaged in melee enemies you suspect will be fighting you for more than a round or two, but that kind of enemy is common enough to rate preparing or knowing Ray of Enfeeblement.

 

[Infiniti2000]

...Bull's Strength is also only applied to one target, but he is able to spread the +2 attack/damage around to multiple enemies if they present themselves.

That's misleading. RoE also causes the one target to spread the -2 attack/damage around to multiple enemies (your allies). If you refuse to allow this comparison then you must also disallow using bull's strength on the melee fighting ally instead of yourself (which I personally find suspect).

...Ray of Enfeeblement is a moderately good 1st level spell at low levels, but matures into a wonderful de-buff spell.

Too wonderful. I think 2nd-level would be more appropriate as is. The words "wonderful" and 1st-level should not be in the same sentence when you're talking about high-level characters!

 

[Felix]

That's misleading. RoE also causes the one target to spread the -2 attack/damage around to multiple enemies (your allies). If you refuse to allow this comparison then you must also disallow using bull's strength on the melee fighting ally instead of yourself (which I personally find suspect).

Quite right. I should have specified that when two combatants are fighting and one of them dies, if that one had Ray of Enfeeblement cast upon him, the spell is over. If the survivor has Bull's Strength cast upon him, the spell continues to be effective.

This is only an advantage in Bull's Strength's favor when you consider that generally speaking PCs survive fights and NPC opponents don't.

If it were applied to an equal match and either combatant surviving would continue to attack, then this advantage would disappear. As it is, I think it is worthy to mention the distinction between PCs and NPCs.

Ironically, this point reverses itself considering whose point of view you're taking. For PCs, who generally survive, Bull's Strength is the better spell. For NPCs, who have to deal with the PCs cutting down multiple opponents, Ray of Enfeeblement is better.

When "Overpowered" is mentioned regarding a game mechanic, it is usually so because it is too powerful for the PCs; the only argument for this spell being "Overpowered" at low levels is that it gives the NPCs a slight advantage relative to Bull's Strength. Again, at 3rd level, Bull's Strength is the superior spell for PCs.

Too wonderful. I think 2nd-level would be more appropriate as is. The words "wonderful" and 1st-level should not be in the same sentence when you're talking about high-level characters!

To what purpose? If the spell is powerful as levels increase, but not at low levels, then you hardly change a thing by shifting it from 1st to 2nd level; all you do is remove the spell from the two levels where the spell is the least effective.

Rather, I should say that almost all you do is get rid of the levels at which the spell is not overpowered, but you also increase the spell level for metamagiced castings. So an [Empowered] Ray of Enfeeblement would be 4th level instead of 3rd. That still won't make much of a difference in how powerful the spell is at higher levels, and 4th level spells are generally as abundant as 3rd at the high levels you don't want this spell to be useful at.

If you want to power-down the spell, then change the effect. 1d4+1/2 levels instead of 1d6. 1d6+1/3 levels. Something like that. I don't think it's necessary, but that will be much more effective at reigning in the "overpoweredness" of the spell than making it a 2nd level spell.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You are definately not the first to think ray of enfeeblement is too powerful. Keep in mind that unlike ability damage, the effect can be fixed with a dispel magic, and of course it can never drop you below 1. But that's said, yeah its one of the best fighter debuffs in the game.

Note that it can also be removed by chugging a potion of lesser restoration. (You could cast lesser restoration too but the 3 round casting time pretty much removes that from contention).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Should I take it you dislike the Quicken Spell feat then? Because there are very very few spells in the game worth quickening at the moment. Ray of Enfeeblement is one of the few 1st level spells that, when quickened is worth the 5th level slot for a character who can actually cast it. (The other ones being magic missile and, depending upon the interpretation of the wording of Quicken Spell, Enlarge Person). For high level casters, wonderful first level combat spells are spells that have more of an effect on combat than spending a full round action to pick your nose or that are worth a high level slot in quickened or empowered form. It's a good thing that they exist, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in the Quicken and (to a lesser extent) Empower Spell feats. (There are also, and appropriately so, wonderful 1st level utility spells like endure elements and alarm that really only come into their own at high levels when the opportunity cost is lower--I presume you're not objecting to them).

Too wonderful. I think 2nd-level would be more appropriate as is. The words "wonderful" and 1st-level should not be in the same sentence when you're talking about high-level characters!