What protects against ability drain?

[pawsplay]

A must have, true, which is why it's a good reason to houserule it otherwise. It's 10min/level IMC and still used regularly by the cleric.

pawsplay wrote: It does NOT, in fact, say your Str can not drop below 1 during the spell.

The rule says: The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

Quite honestly, I don't think this could be any more clear or concise. What you wrote is an exact opposite of the rule. Now, many people (myself included) assume that the rule corresponds to only the penalty associated with the spell, but some people, in fact, do not.

I'm saying it does not matter. There is nothing that suggests that "The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1" overrides "Strength Damage (Su): The touch of a shadow deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living foe. A creature reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow dies. This is a negative energy effect."

Unless there is a rule somewhere that specific descriptions of spells override all logic, common sense, descriptions of monsters, descriptions of monster abilities, and even other spells, causing a logical contradiction and the subsequent rupture of the universe.

 

[airwalkrr]

The key to reading ray of enfeeblement is context. You are reading the spell in the context of the spell. With that in mind, the purpose of the statement regarding dropping your Strength score below one is clearly intended to be a limiting factor of ray of enfeeblement, i.e. it can not be used to incapacitate a foe. While I admit the statement would have been more exact if it had read "The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1 from this penalty," the juxtaposition of the statement makes its intent clear.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm saying it does not matter. There is nothing that suggests that "The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1" overrides "Strength Damage (Su): The touch of a shadow deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living foe. A creature reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow dies. This is a negative energy effect."

Unless there is a rule somewhere that specific descriptions of spells override all logic, common sense, descriptions of monsters, descriptions of monster abilities, and even other spells, causing a logical contradiction and the subsequent rupture of the universe.

I don't understand your point. The text in the spell (if read that way, mind you) is what overrides the shadow attack. It's no different than death ward "overriding" it.

As airwalkrr points out, the RoE spell has a certain context and 'funny' little rules loopholes like this usually rely on misinterpreting context. It's not literally wrong, but as you say, it's logically wrong.

 

[BOZ]

ah, yes...

when i pointed it out to the DM that it says right in plain english in the shadow entry that the ability drain is a negative energy effect... well, let's just say he didn't like that. he ruled that instead of total immunity, death ward gave us a saving throw. well hell, that's better than nothing.

i think, later on, that he must have switched out some of the shadows for wraiths. unless the wraiths were planned to be in there anyway and i was just being paranoid.

 

[Question]

Pants of negative energy protection.

 

[KarinsDad]

when i pointed it out to the DM that it says right in plain english in the shadow entry that the ability drain is a negative energy effect... well, let's just say he didn't like that. he ruled that instead of total immunity, death ward gave us a saving throw.

Nothing worse than "on the fly" house rules by a DM because a PC's spell upsets his carefully crafted plans.

 

[Question]

Nothing worse than "on the fly" house rules by a DM because a PC's spell upsets his carefully crafted plans.

Oh yes........

Player : I cast meteor swarm into the midst of the orcs.

DM : The orcs appear to be immune to your meteor swarm.

Player : What do you mean immune?

DM : As in, fire immunity.

Player : Erm orcs are not immune to fire......

DM : These orcs are.

Player : So they are half-dragon(Red) orcs?

DM : No they are normal orcs.

Player : But normal orcs are not immune to fire.

DM : These are.

Player : Fine i gate in a solar to kill the orc horde.

DM : The spell fails. You dont know why.

Player : What?!

DM : I dont want you killing the orcs, that is not part of the plan.

 

[moritheil]

Are there people that really use it that way in game?

A strict RAW reading means a strict RAW reading. Why are people continually surprised that it is at times counterintuitive?

 

[moritheil]

It's not literally wrong, but as you say, it's logically wrong.

It's not logically wrong unless you start with the assumption that the game has some sort of reality independent of the rules.

 

[MarkB]

It's not logically wrong unless you start with the assumption that the game has some sort of reality independent of the rules.

You only need to assume that the rules are intended to simulate something reasonably self-consistent. From that assumption, anything that stands out as particularly counter-intuitive can certainly be considered logically wrong.