In 3.0/3.5, ray of enfeeblement didn't have a save, and was considered one of the most effective ways of ending a fight against anything based on attacking with strength. Pathfinder added a save for half the effect, balancing it out somewhat with other options.
Unfortunately, this does mean that at low caster level it can have zero effect, on a save with onlya 2 or 3 penalty going to 1. Other than that though, the spell is still quite effective, roughly equivalent to the doom spell, often even if the save is successful.
That it is a fortitude save is simply appropriate, and makes it worse for rogue/bard types generally, and wizardy types defensively (vs combat maneuvers and such). The potential of -5 attack and damage (at CL 4+) is a nice option.
But yeah, I'm playing a 4th level wizard right now, and that spell is inconsistent enough that I'm kind of regretting spending gold to learn it.
Hmm, at 4th level you will always have at least a -1 atk/dmg effect, so long as you hit. And half the time you will have at least -2, an anti-bull strength when the save is made. Heck, next level you can take Empower Spell for your feat and do an empowered ray of enfeeblement, for at least -2, and up to -8 (on a roll of 6 and failed save).
On the face of it, a penalty to strength (including that from RoE) doesn't affect carrying capacity. And likewise any temporary bonus doesn't affect it either. Is this right?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On the face of it, a penalty to strength (including that from RoE) doesn't affect carrying capacity. And likewise any temporary bonus doesn't affect it either. Is this right?
Regarding STR penalty:
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage...
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
You could debate whether carrying capacity is a "statistic listed with the relevant ability", but even if it is, then the result is to "apply a —1 penalty to [carrying capacity]", whatever the hell that would mean.
As for temporary bonuses, there's actually a FAQ explaining that temporary bonuses are supposed to affect everything that a permanent bonus would affect. This sort of leaves some unanswered questions about the purpose of some actual rules language in the Core Rulebook, but hey, internal consistency was never one of Pathfinder's strengths. :/
It is a 3 roll spell and they are always really swingy
I roll to hit
You roll to save
I roll to damage
Yuk
Ray of enfeeblement is actually one of the better 1st level spells for a high level caster. At 10th level it becomes 1d6+5 points of STR damage. You are guaranteed that the target will lose at least 3 STR maybe as much as 5 even if you make the save. Bonuses are based on even numbers that usually works out to a -2 to a -3 penalty if the save is made. Also since two handed weapons get extra damage from STR the penalty to damage ends up even higher. Hitting a fully armored foe with a ranged touch attack is so easy it does not really matter.
At higher level most low level spells have almost no affect; this is not the case with ray of enfeeblement. If the target for some reason fails the save they lose on the average 8 STR that is enough to cripple almost any martial class. Basically the spell causes a -2 to -4 chance to hit and reduces the damage by -3 to -6. Not bad for a first level spell.
When you are 10th level almost anything you encounter is going to be able to have a reasonable chance of making the save vs a 1st level spell. Charm person may have the potential to do more, but realistically it is actually pretty useless vs level appropriate targets.
1st level spells aren't meant to be very good. Obviously some are better than others, but that doesn't mean they should all cripple an enemy. Succeeding on a ranged touch attack is not hard. Getting past someone's Fort has varying difficulty depending on the target you choose. So you have to pick your target. If this were a higher level spell, it would probably have only one or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see a bad spell versus barbarians, I see a great spell versus wizards. Let's be honest, how many optimized wizards dump their strength? This makes for a strength score of 5-7 to deal with, which makes STR damage on a Wizard's weak save quite deadly.
I've always thought that RoE was more effective against casters that melee classes. I am playing a debuffer in one of my games. I dropped a 12th level wizard with this spell. 1st round I cast the spell, he fails the save losses 10 str.
I've always thought that RoE was more effective against casters that melee classes. I am playing a debuffer in one of my games. I dropped a 12th level wizard with this spell. 1st round I cast the spell, he fails the save losses 10 str.
You see a bad spell versus barbarians, I see a great spell versus wizards. Let's be honest, how many optimized wizards dump their strength? This makes for a strength score of 5-7 to deal with, which makes STR damage on a Wizard's weak save quite deadly.
That's not how the spell works. It was in 2E, sure, but it isn't now.
TL;DR: Strength penalty doesn't recalculate carrying capacity and can't drop a creature.
Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be Will or Reflex? It's a Ray effect, it's magically imposed strength penalty, so Will to dull the effects or reflex (because you dodge the ray partially) seems like it'd make more sense then fortitude.
But yeah, I'm playing a 4th level wizard right now, and that spell is inconsistent enough that I'm kind of regretting spending gold to learn it.
Necromancy spells typically are resisted by Fortitude saves.
Right. So, technically ability damage and ability penalties only apply to things "listed with" your ability, which for Strength is pretty limited:
Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength -based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
And, notably, doesn't include carrying capacity, and your Strength score doesn't actually change under ability penalties and ability damage, so there is a good case to say that a RoE won't make a wizard suddenly unable to carry his own spell book and robes.
However, the ruling on temporary versus permanent ability score bonuses, while not actually covering penalties or damage, does imply that temporary ability scores are treated like real scores in all ways, but won't affect your ability (or lack thereof) to meet prerequisites since you do (or do not) have the ability score in question, so any GM (including PFS) would be well within their rights to assert that Strength damage or a Strength penalty affects carrying capacity.
YMMV.
Right. So, technically ability damage and ability penalties only apply to things "listed with" your ability, which for Strength is pretty limited:
Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength -based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.And, notably, doesn't include carrying capacity, and your Strength score doesn't actually change under ability penalties and ability damage, so there is a good case to say that a RoE won't make a wizard suddenly unable to carry his own spell book and robes.
However, the ruling on temporary versus permanent ability score bonuses, while not actually covering penalties or damage, does imply that temporary ability scores are treated like real scores in all ways, but won't affect your ability (or lack thereof) to meet prerequisites since you do (or do not) have the ability score in question, so any GM (including PFS) would be well within their rights to assert that Strength damage or a Strength penalty affects carrying capacity.
YMMV.
Seems quite reasonable.
As TOZ mentioned, stuff which physically weakens you is generally resisted with a Fort save rather than Will or Reflex.
Anyhow, the spell is pretty effective. Figure, 1d6+5 has an average result of 8. As enemy who fails the save would effectively get a -4 to hit and -4 to damage(-6 on damage if using a two-handed weapon or single natural attack). Even one who makes the save will end up at -2 and -2(-3), which is still a meaningful debuff.
At higher levels metamagic is also an option, and the average Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement would inflict a Str penalty of -12. That's a whopping -6 to hit if you fail the save and -3 even if you make it. That's similar to the debuff on attacks you'd get out of the 3rd level Ray of Exhaustion spell if the target FAILS their save. Of course Ray of Exhaustion also debuffs the target's defenses, but which spell is superior might depend on the foe at hand.
Right. So, technically ability damage and ability penalties only apply to things "listed with" your ability, which for Strength is pretty limited:
Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength -based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.And, notably, doesn't include carrying capacity, and your Strength score doesn't actually change under ability penalties and ability damage, so there is a good case to say that a RoE won't make a wizard suddenly unable to carry his own spell book and robes.
However, the ruling on temporary versus permanent ability score bonuses, while not actually covering penalties or damage, does imply that temporary ability scores are treated like real scores in all ways, but won't affect your ability (or lack thereof) to meet prerequisites since you do (or do not) have the ability score in question, so any GM (including PFS) would be well within their rights to assert that Strength damage or a Strength penalty affects carrying capacity.
YMMV.
After they issued the FAQ that you're referring to and is linked somewhere above, the only thing I really thought it could be referring to is carrying capacity. My group sometimes runs it that way and sometimes doesn't. I do think it's more interesting if you allow the penalties to affect strength only because you then have such penalties be a real risk for characters who have dumped strength. They could crumple under the weight of their own gear. And I'm always a fan of things that could be deleterious to full casters.
To actually add something to this discussion, I think I have to side with Chemlak here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real reason is because the Str penalty was discovered to be too powerful for a 1st level spell back in 3.0. 3.5 gave it a save for half and that made it much more in line with the expected power of a level 1 spell.
|
TL;DR: Strength penalty doesn't recalculate carrying capacity and can't drop a creature.
Strength damage can absolutely drop a low strength wizard. If you take ability damage equal to or greater than your score in that ability you fall unconscious until the damage is healed. So you hit a wizard with 8 str a couple times they are out of the fight.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
TL;DR: Strength penalty doesn't recalculate carrying capacity and can't drop a creature.Strength damage can absolutely drop a low strength wizard. If you take ability damage equal to or greater than your score in that ability you fall unconscious until the damage is healed. So you hit a wizard with 8 str a couple times they are out of the fight.
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.
Ray of enfeeblement doesn't do STR damage.
Ability Penalties are for all intents and purposes, the same as Ability Damage. The only difference is that Ability Penalties are often a lot more transient, and almost every spell/effect that causes them also includes the clause "This cannot reduce the target's score below 1."
And even if they didn't:
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.