Ray of Enfeeblement - most powerful spell 10th level wizard can wield!


Magic and Spells

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I can't believe this spell hasn't been discussed yet.

Paizo did well by limiting the duration to 1 rd / level, but the problem is not the duration as much as it is the maximum benefit of strength drain it can cause.

It becomes really stoopid with Empower Spell. On a roll of a 6 on a d6 (about 18% chance), a 10th level wiz can give a penalty of 16 points of Strength!!!

Even at fifth level when Empower can first start being used, it can drain 12 points!!! at Fifth level. And thats with a ranged touch attack (no save). Which we all know the targets most likley to be hurt by this spell (big armored fighters or ogre/troll/giant types) have little touch AC.

I propose a flat penalty (instead of random) to prevent the Empower power creep.

Spell: Ranged touch attack. Victim loses 2 points of strength penalty, plus 1 for every two caster levels to max 12 at 20th level.

Robert


Ray of Enfeeblement is a good spell, but some assumptions you made are not entirely true:

1) Ray of Enefeeblement gives a penalty to Stength, not Ability Damage to Strength; as such, it's not cumulative with itself (you only use the maximum value rolled on the d6) - this makes it useful against creatures immune to ability damage, though

2) At best, it's 11 Strength penalty at 10th level, not 16 (see below...)

3) The most controversial: Empower Spell. Some people say that Empower multiply all the value (1d6+5, x 1.5); I'm not really sure about this. On the Official 3.5 FAQ from WoTC I've never found this written clearly. The closest thing I've read comes from the Official 3.0 FAQ: these are the two sentences:

"The Empower Spell feat only affects randomly variableaspects of a spell. (See the second to the last line of the feat
description.) A lightning bolt spell's range is configurable, but not “variable” for purposes of Empower Spell. A lightning bolt spell's damage is “variable,” and an empowered lightning bolt deals 1.5 times damage. (Apply the multiplier before rolling saving throws.)"

"Since an empowered spell affects half again as many targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three missiles?
Because the Empower Spell feat increases a spell’s variable, numeric effects. In the case of magic missile, that’s the spell’s damage, not the number of missiles."

The fact that most people stil think that ALL the values must be multiplied derives (I think) from the example on the Player's Handbook, where magic missile is taken as an example; sadly, this was not the BEST example, because in the case of this spell the whole '1d4+1' IS the variable portion of the spell (every 2 caster levels, you make a missile that deals 1d4+1). Other spells (like produce flame) deal a variable portion (1d6) AND a fixed value (based on caster level).

Of course, I could be wrong, but I would like to find where the rules specifically say that on the formula '1d6, +1 every 2 levels' Empower Spell multiplies all...


I would basically do the following:

-Make an exception that the ability penalty from RoE doesn't reduce carrying capacity. That is, you can't screw someone with encumbrance of their own armor after you cast it. The ability damage is a penalty to attack and damage rolls and that's it.

-Make it clear that the ability penalty can't stack with real ability damage to bring someone's strength to 0. That is, if you take ability damage or drain, the penalty actually reduces to compensate by the same amount so that it won't put anyone to 0 or less strength.

-I might cap the scaling of the spell some. So that it caps out at 1d6. In fact, it might be best to just not have the spell scale at all. Pick something like 1d6+2 strength penalty and stick with it.

Aside from that, the penalty to attacks and damage is fairly severe, but at that level the wizard is using a 3rd level slot for an empowered ray of enfeeblement, or a 4th level slot for a maximized ray. The penalties are pretty large but generally they're about in line with a single target spell of that level shoudl do.

Also remember when using ray spells to take account for factors like cover, firing into a melee and so on. So many DMs forget that rays have to abide by the same rules as ranged weapons, so your wizard is probably taking a -8 penalty unless he took the feats necessary to use them in melee, and in which case would probably not have the feat slots left for empower.

RoE needs a slight nerf but nothing too serious. You don't want it to go back to being a spell nobody uses.

Dark Archive

The Wraith wrote:

Ray of Enfeeblement is a good spell, but some assumptions you made are not entirely true:

1) Ray of Enefeeblement gives a penalty to Stength, not Ability Damage to Strength; as such, it's not cumulative with itself (you only use the maximum value rolled on the d6) - this makes it useful against creatures immune to ability damage, though

2) At best, it's 11 Strength penalty at 10th level, not 16 (see below...)

3) The most controversial: Empower Spell. Some people say that Empower multiply all the value (1d6+5, x 1.5); I'm not really sure about this. On the Official 3.5 FAQ from WoTC I've never found this written clearly. The closest thing I've read comes from the Official 3.0 FAQ: these are the two sentences:

True points, Wraith; this spell is not "overpowered", as even empowered the maximum amount of Strength penalty is 14: 1d6(max:6) * 1.5 =9, + 5 =14. Plus, the PF Beta description puts a mininum Strength score of 1, so it won't even leave an opponent helpless (though greatly diminished). Compare that with a CR11 Cloud Giant, who has a Strength of 35 ... even with a net Strength of 21, it's still a big bruiser in combat with your fighter/barbarian ally.


I agree that it shouldn't go back to a spell that nobody uses, but I also heartily agree that the spell needs a little work. This spell has a tremendous power to skew encounters, I believe even beyond the degree intended.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Fortitude save for half. At mid to high levels dealing 4-8 strength as half damage would still be relevant (6 would be the equivalent of a bestow curse, no?) and I wouldn't grimace every time a player whipped out this old chestnut.

I'll be interested to see what suggestions pop up here, as I am somewhat at a loss myself.


ZeroCharisma wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing a Fortitude save for half. At mid to high levels dealing 4-8 strength as half damage would still be relevant (6 would be the equivalent of a bestow curse, no?) and I wouldn't grimace every time a player whipped out this old chestnut.

Fortitude half is a nice suggestion. Not every melee touch or ranged touch spells deal the full amount after they hit the target (the various Inflict spells and the Disintegrate spell come in mind).


I have this spell banned from my campaign at the moment, I came to the conclusion it was too powerful since the players had alot of trouble dealing with it.

dropping strength might collapse characters with armor instantly, negates the use of feats and abilities, makes you a target for grappling and cramps fighting ability.

I might try save for half though I think a save to negate isnt even terrible for a 1st level spell. I'd rather have a negative level than be hit by this spell.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Rather than have it affect Strength directly, perhaps having it apply a penalty to melee attack and damage?

This may allow the intent of the spell to stay intact, while avoiding some of the other consequences.


Mistwalker wrote:

Rather than have it affect Strength directly, perhaps having it apply a penalty to melee attack and damage?

This may allow the intent of the spell to stay intact, while avoiding some of the other consequences.

I would include Strength related skill and ability checks too.

Liberty's Edge

I gotta disagree here. The spell ought to be powerful since you're burning up a 3rd level spell slot and investing a feat to make it work. 1d6+5 plus up to half the roll for a potential of 6 to 14 points penalty for 10 rounds is roughly equal to hold person in save or suck spells, only you have a hit roll instead of a save.

Make it empowered and maximized and you're looking at a greater investment of resources, so it should be even more effective (takes up a 6th level slot now). Is that better than circle of death or about the same?

IMO the reduced duration does a fine job in balancing the spell and should not be tinkered with further.


Mistwalker wrote:

Rather than have it affect Strength directly, perhaps having it apply a penalty to melee attack and damage?

This may allow the intent of the spell to stay intact, while avoiding some of the other consequences.

Yeah, this may be the way to go. That way it can't cause people in armor to be super encumbered and unable to move, or be used in conjunction with other strength damage spells to put a character to 0 strength.

Really I've always hated ability score modification anyway in 3.5, and thought it should always just have been a modifier to melee attacks, melee damage, CMB and strength checks.

Scarab Sages

Xuttah wrote:

I gotta disagree here. The spell ought to be powerful since you're burning up a 3rd level spell slot and investing a feat to make it work. 1d6+5 plus up to half the roll for a potential of 6 to 14 points penalty for 10 rounds is roughly equal to hold person in save or suck spells, only you have a hit roll instead of a save.

Make it empowered and maximized and you're looking at a greater investment of resources, so it should be even more effective (takes up a 6th level slot now). Is that better than circle of death or about the same?

IMO the reduced duration does a fine job in balancing the spell and should not be tinkered with further.

I was going to post something, but Xuttah already said what I would. :) I'm good with this spell as-is.

Liberty's Edge

hmarcbower wrote:
Xuttah wrote:

I gotta disagree here. The spell ought to be powerful since you're burning up a 3rd level spell slot and investing a feat to make it work. 1d6+5 plus up to half the roll for a potential of 6 to 14 points penalty for 10 rounds is roughly equal to hold person in save or suck spells, only you have a hit roll instead of a save.

Make it empowered and maximized and you're looking at a greater investment of resources, so it should be even more effective (takes up a 6th level slot now). Is that better than circle of death or about the same?

IMO the reduced duration does a fine job in balancing the spell and should not be tinkered with further.

I was going to post something, but Xuttah already said what I would. :) I'm good with this spell as-is.

Well, Marc, I don't disagree with you often, but I do so now. I just can't accept that RoE is a balanced spell for first level - especially when used against a party.

1) its a penalty - not damage from a negative source so not even Death Ward helps.

2) It's not ability "damage" so it's not restored by Heal Spell.

3) At 10th level, the wizard can practically turn the fighter into a nobody cutting his strenth virtually in half with one first level spell requiring nothing more than a touch attack - typically against and AC of about 14 against tanks - sapping 11 points of Strength.

That spell effectively RUINS a fighter's effecitiveness in a whole combat. There is no one 1st level ability that a fighter can ever hope to do to ruin a wizard half effective with such ease.

Compound that in Restoration taking 3 rounds to cast means that this spell is a real combat changer with very little cost.

And by the strictest ruling of the Empower feat, you add 50% to the TOTAL - not just the dice. So 11 + 150% is 16 points of Strenth with a single 3rd level slot.

A good 10th level fighter is going to be left with about a 7 strength after that - removing his ability to do MOST of his feats (since power Attack needs a 13 and all of it's sub-feats) leaving him encumbered and lowering his attack roll by 8!

Robert


So what you are saying is you would never prepare any spell but Ray of Enfeeblement (metamagiced in higher slots) for combat?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Wouldn't it be easier to drop the casting time for lesser restoration to 1 standard action?

Second level spell removes the penalty from the first level spell "Lesser restoration dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject’s ability scores" And if you're RoE happy, a quickened Lesser restoration is a 6th level spell, so is an Empowered + Maximized RoE.


1) Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops it flat.

2) It can be Dispelled.

3) Or the fighter could lose 6pts of Strength as easily as the maximum of 11 that could be rolled. Or on a roll of 1 end up with 9 points of Strength lost with Empower.

F10, Str 22 (18 +2 advancements + 2 GoOP) vs W10 = Str reduced to 16-11. I'd say W10 still has to worry about him.

Replace GoOP with BoGS +4 (Str 24) vs W10 = Str 18-13. Still a problem.

Finally BoGS +6 (Str 26) vs W10 = Str 20-15. Still a big problem.

An Empowered spell then ranges 13-6, 15-8, and 17-10.

A Fighter that is really worried about it could get a Ring of Counterspelling too. Unless he's going after Womack the Warrior Killer who specializes in RoEs because he likes whoopin' weakened jocks, I mean, Fighters, the first counterspell should handle things.

Lastly, if the Wizard is devoting himself to diminishing the fighter then that's one more chance for everyone else to put the smack on him. The fighter is doing his job by drawing fire so the others can get into position or take advantage.

Liberty's Edge

I think the fact that the spell requires a hit roll and has a very short duration makes it very reasonable. It can easily be dispelled or counterspelled and not every enemy caster is going to have it on their list, so ruining PC fun is a non-issue.

If every enemy wizard your PC encounters hits you with the same spells, that's bad DMing, not a broken spell. The application of the right metamagic is simply good resource allocation.

There are far more unbalanced I level spells out there; take magic missile for example. It never misses, can target multiple foes and does force damage at medium range. Couple that with Fell Draining (libris mortis) and you can hit up to 5 targets and give them a negative level every round. All this for a 3rd level slot. Just an example of a good choice of metamagic effects making a spell seem too powerful. :)


Robert Brambley wrote:


And by the strictest ruling of the Empower feat, you add 50% to the TOTAL - not just the dice. So 11 + 150% is 16 points of Strenth with a single 3rd level slot.

By the strictest ruling of the empower feat, you add 50% of the variable roll. ("All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell

are increased by one-half.")
So it can add 3 points to the penalty. For two slots higher, it's not really the problem.


I'm playing a sorcerer in Savage Tide and as I'm rather focused on control and debuffing, I used a lot RoE (and its Empowered version) until the 10th level.

The first thing I can say is that it's a very efficient spell. But I noticed 1 thing : it is really complicated for the DM to apply this spell => he has to recalculate the attack and damage of his mobs and it can qucikly become really complicated.

A easier way to handle it would be to make the spell give a penalty to attack and damage, like some people already proposed.


Noir le Lotus wrote:

I'm playing a sorcerer in Savage Tide and as I'm rather focused on control and debuffing, I used a lot RoE (and its Empowered version) until the 10th level.

The first thing I can say is that it's a very efficient spell. But I noticed 1 thing : it is really complicated for the DM to apply this spell => he has to recalculate the attack and damage of his mobs and it can qucikly become really complicated.

A easier way to handle it would be to make the spell give a penalty to attack and damage, like some people already proposed.

It already gives a penalty to attack and damage. Every two points of strength penalty equal -1 to hit and damage. If the fighter gets hit with -7 strenght, then he gets a -3 to hit and damage (or -4 if his strength is an even number). Just subtract 3 after the roll. It's relatively easy to convert the strength penalty to -att -dam.

If people are concerned with encumbrance then they should all be familiar with the rules and have a general idea of how close they are to their encumbrance limits. Most NPC/bad guys arnt packing the loads of gear that the PC usually are so encumbrance becomes less of a factor for them.

Liberty's Edge

selios wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:


And by the strictest ruling of the Empower feat, you add 50% to the TOTAL - not just the dice. So 11 + 150% is 16 points of Strenth with a single 3rd level slot.

By the strictest ruling of the empower feat, you add 50% of the variable roll. ("All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell

are increased by one-half.")
So it can add 3 points to the penalty. For two slots higher, it's not really the problem.

"all variable, numeric effects..."

1d6+1/2 levels - all of that is variable.

Furthermore FAQ on wizards.com 3.5 rules specifically indicate examples were these per level as well as the die roll are added first before multiplying by 1.5.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
So what you are saying is you would never prepare any spell but Ray of Enfeeblement (metamagiced in higher slots) for combat?

I suppose if we knew ahead of time that we would only be fighting wizards and constructs - then I probably wouldn't.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to drop the casting time for lesser restoration to 1 standard action?

Okay you've convinced me then. In order to fix this too powerful spell, we'll change the ruling on a different spell.

"the brakes on this car aren't working."

"Meh, don't worry about it - we'll just change the transmission and put in a lower gear so you don't drive as fast...."

Fixes it every time.

Sorry, but it just doesn't ever make sense that in order for spell A to be balanced, to change spell B that winds up affecting so many other spells/conditions etc that spell B is associated with.

That all being said - I've never seen the logic that Lesser Restore requires 3 rounds to cast - but that is irrespective of effects of RoE.

Robert

Dark Archive

Robert Brambley wrote:


"all variable, numeric effects..."

1d6+1/2 levels - all of that is variable.

Furthermore FAQ on wizards.com 3.5 rules specifically indicate examples were these per level as well as the die roll are added first before multiplying by 1.5.

Robert

If that is the case, does that mean that an empowered fireball at tenth level would do 15d6 * 1.5 (as the number of dice are variable)? If so, I've greatly underestimated the usefullness of the feat.


Thammuz wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:


"all variable, numeric effects..."

1d6+1/2 levels - all of that is variable.

Furthermore FAQ on wizards.com 3.5 rules specifically indicate examples were these per level as well as the die roll are added first before multiplying by 1.5.

Robert

If that is the case, does that mean that an empowered fireball at tenth level would do 15d6 * 1.5 (as the number of dice are variable)? If so, I've greatly underestimated the usefullness of the feat.

Not, it doesn't, because of several reasons but most notably his flat out wrong interpretation of the feat.

A 10th level wizard's empowered fireball would do 10d6*1.5

You only multiply variable effects. What part of variable is hard to understand? 1d6 is variable, because, you see, it can vary. +5 is not. If I'm a 10th level wizard and I cast ray of enfeeblement it's always going to be +5. It doesn't vary.

There isn't an issue with the spell. It does what it's supposed to. The only reason you're reading into it as overpowered is because you're misinterpreting another rule - as is often the case when people complain about how something isn't balanced.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

GM VICTORY wrote:

1) Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops it flat.

2) It can be Dispelled.

To heck with these, a Lesser Restoration (a 2nd level spell), completely gets rid of all effects by RoE.

Liberty's Edge

Robert Brambley wrote:


Furthermore FAQ on wizards.com 3.5 rules specifically indicate examples were these per level as well as the die roll are added first before multiplying by 1.5.

I would like to point out that the FAQ for WotC isn't official errata; they've even said so themselves on occasion. Secondly, this is PFRPG, so the WotC rulings are not nescessarily relevant, depending on how Jason words the final text. An example and clarification would be helpful (hint, hint!).

I think there's an inherant danger in blunting the effects of various rules mechanics (like spells or weapons) when someone notices there is even the slightest potential for making it highly effective when other resources are added to it under certain circumstances. Pretty soon, you'll end up having to tear the entire system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up just to make it "fair". Even then, someone will find fault.

It's better to count on the good judgement of a fair DM and good players to make sure the game is balanced and challenging for everyone. Just IMO. I am probly insane though.

Liberty's Edge

DMcCoy1693 wrote:


To heck with these, a Lesser Restoration (a 2nd level spell), completely gets rid of all effects by RoE.

Never mind that. Counterspelling it with a first level version does just fine and represents an even lower expenditure of resources for the defenders. :)


Peter Stewart wrote:
You only multiply variable effects. What part of variable is hard to understand?

It says variable and numeric and the example in the book specifically calls demonstrates how to apply it to magic missile (1d4+1)*1.5.

How hard is it to understand? I read it the same way you did but many people read it the other way and the example supports them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xuttah wrote:


I would like to point out that the FAQ for WotC isn't official errata; they've even said so themselves on occasion. Secondly, this is PFRPG, so the WotC rulings are not nescessarily relevant, depending on how Jason words the final text. An example and clarification would be helpful (hint, hint!).

Your right it is not an Errata... It is an Official Clarification to the rules.. They don't change the rules in the FAQ.. they Clarify them.

The FAQ are official Clarification to the Rules in the WotC books to include the Open Source material. As such any Clarification from the FAQ are official as stated in the FAQ and and should be used as such to clarify any dispute on rules that are covered in the FAQ.

Bringing up the FAQ in a Dispute over rules arguments is Valid and should be thought as Official clarifications.

Liberty's Edge

From PFRPG: "Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered
spell are increased by one-half."

That's a comma, not an "and".


Xuttah wrote:

From PFRPG: "Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered

spell are increased by one-half."

That's a comma, not an "and".

Regardless, it is not entirely clear and the example in the PHB supports the idea that the non-random portion is multiplied.

Personally, I like your way of reading it better. I was just pointing out that the answer is not as obvious as you seen to believe it is.

Liberty's Edge

Yet another opportunity for PFRPG to distinguish itself: rules that are clear and are explained with an easy to follow example. :)

Liberty's Edge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


It says variable and numeric and the example in the book specifically calls demonstrates how to apply it to magic missile (1d4+1)*1.5.

many people read it the other way and the example supports them.

Thank you Dennis - that is exactly the way it's written.

If it instead said, "All random amount results generated by rolling dice were effectively increased by 150%...." THEN it would be more supportive of the arguement to my case.

But it doesn't. And how hard would that be to stipulate that? I've done it, and I'm no game designer.

Instead, the feat provides us with wording that may leave a little gray area, but an example that leans that gray area more to one side of the sprectrum than the other - that side of the spectrum that substantiates my claims.

Dragnmoon wrote:

Your right it is not an Errata... It is an Official Clarification to the rules.. They don't change the rules in the FAQ.. they Clarify them.

The FAQ are official Clarification to the Rules in the WotC books to include the Open Source material. As such any Clarification from the FAQ are official as stated in the FAQ and and should be used as such to clarify any dispute on rules that are covered in the FAQ.

Bringing up the FAQ in a Dispute over rules arguments is Valid and should be thought as Official clarifications.

Absolutely, Dragnmoon. It is indeed official clarifications - otherwise it would just be useless waste of time to have written them, and space to have kept them.

With rules of this game as complex as they are it's important to have these universally accepted clarification to misinterpretations and misnomers that perpetually plague rules discussions - otherwise we'd never make any progress and just spin our wheels while trying to reinvent them.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Xuttah wrote:
Yet another opportunity for PFRPG to distinguish itself: rules that are clear and are explained with an easy to follow example. :)

True enough.

That being said - I still think the spell is too powerful, and I would prefer seeing it do a specified finite amount of Strength penalty as opposed to rolling a dice and possibly empowering (making the 6 a 9 etc).

If it's not - no big deal - it won't make me not play the game. It's just that it's too easy to completely destroy a warriors effectiveness with that one first level spell.

Edit: You'll notice that there is a spell to hurt a wizard's prime ability score (Touch of Idiocy); but it's a second level spell - requires in your face touch attack (not at a safe distance ranged touch - which wizards usually have a better Ranged Touch attack bonus than standard touch), and it's only 1d6 to the intelligence score - not 1d6 + 1/2 levels.)

True the spell affects the Wis and Cha, too; but those are ancillary stats at best for a wizard.

So in my summation: its signifantly easier to completely diminish a warrior's contribution to a combat than it is to do so to the arcane caster.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:

as Official clarifications.

Absolutely, Dragnmoon. It is indeed official clarifications - otherwise it would just be useless waste of time to have written them, and space to have kept them.

With rules of this game as complex as they are it's important to have these universally accepted clarification to misinterpretations and misnomers that perpetually plague rules discussions - otherwise we'd never make any progress and just spin our wheels while trying to reinvent them.

Robert

That is assuming that people are using the FAQ for the correct argument..

The FAQ does not go into the specific details of the Empower Feat.

Liberty's Edge

I think that by bringing in the old 3.5 FAQ into the discussion, you're comparing apples to...much older apples. :) We need definite direction on this and how it will apply to PFRPG, not the previous edition of the rules.

All that set aside, I think RoE is fine as it is. Good judgement and fair-minded play is what's in need of a tune up.


Xuttah wrote:

I think that by bringing in the old 3.5 FAQ into the discussion, you're comparing apples to...much older apples. :) We need definite direction on this and how it will apply to PFRPG, not the previous edition of the rules.

All that set aside, I think RoE is fine as it is. Good judgement and fair-minded play is what's in need of a tune up.

I don't see RoE as a big issue.

I agree with regards to the 3.5 FAQ and while it was a questionable source previously it is clearly out of date with the release of PfRPG. My thought is that anything which was frequently asked in 3.5 should be abundantly clear in PfRPG. The FAQ is there for reference.

I've suggested exactly that and the word from the power that be seems to be that they are making an effort to incorporate a lot of the FAQ stuff into the core game. We'll see with the final release.

Liberty's Edge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


I've suggested exactly that and the word from the power that be seems to be that they are making an effort to incorporate a lot of the FAQ stuff into the core game. We'll see with the final release.

Maybe we can put together a list of rules that are so badly worded they make us cry and put them in the final design forum sub-category.

Now that we're all friends, let's go eat toffee and sing songs!

I did mention the madness, didn't I? ;)


Xuttah wrote:


All that set aside, I think RoE is fine as it is. Good judgement and fair-minded play is what's in need of a tune up.

I have to agree that with good judgment and a sense of fair play, RoE would be much safer and saner. Does fair play mean I get to use it as much as the party uses it? *devilish grin*

Liberty's Edge

ZeroCharisma wrote:
Does fair play mean I get to use it as much as the party uses it? *devilish grin*

When I DM, I always warn the players that any sourcebook, feat, dirty trick or spell they have access to, so do I. A few superbuilds/rules exploit characters go down early in the campaign, and we get on with serious role play.


Xuttah wrote:
Maybe we can put together a list of rules that are so badly worded they make us cry and put them in the final design forum sub-category.

I think a thread on "sections of the rules which drive me nuts" would be a good topic. There are plenty of places where the rules could use some serious working over.


Robert Brambley wrote:


"all variable, numeric effects..."

1d6+1/2 levels - all of that is variable.

Furthermore FAQ on wizards.com 3.5 rules specifically indicate examples were these per level as well as the die roll are added first before multiplying by 1.5.

Robert

+x is not a variable, or I don't understand what variable means...


Robert Brambley wrote:


Edit: You'll notice that there is a spell to hurt a wizard's prime ability score (Touch of Idiocy); but it's a second level spell - requires in your face touch attack (not at a safe distance ranged touch - which wizards usually have a better Ranged Touch attack bonus than standard touch), and it's only 1d6 to the intelligence score - not 1d6 + 1/2 levels.)

True the spell affects the Wis and Cha, too; but those are ancillary stats at best for a wizard.

So in my summation: its signifantly easier to completely diminish a warrior's contribution to a combat than it is to do so to the arcane caster.

Robert

If you lower a caster primary stat, he could be restrained from casting his higher level spells, even no spells at all. Your fighter can still fight even if he loses some bonuses to hit and damage.

Also RoE is a close spell, I don't call that "safe distance" even it it's still better than touch.

And with 1 round/lvl duration, this spell is completely useless now, at least at low levels.


Peter Stewart wrote:
A 10th level wizard's empowered fireball would do 10d6*1.5

I think it was mentionned that you multiply each die by 1.5 not the whole result, which may lead to different totals...


Kalyth wrote:
Noir le Lotus wrote:

I'm playing a sorcerer in Savage Tide and as I'm rather focused on control and debuffing, I used a lot RoE (and its Empowered version) until the 10th level.

The first thing I can say is that it's a very efficient spell. But I noticed 1 thing : it is really complicated for the DM to apply this spell => he has to recalculate the attack and damage of his mobs and it can qucikly become really complicated.

A easier way to handle it would be to make the spell give a penalty to attack and damage, like some people already proposed.

It already gives a penalty to attack and damage. Every two points of strength penalty equal -1 to hit and damage. If the fighter gets hit with -7 strenght, then he gets a -3 to hit and damage (or -4 if his strength is an even number). Just subtract 3 after the roll. It's relatively easy to convert the strength penalty to -att -dam.

I know this but do you realize how complicated can it be to recalculate att & dam of a creature with multiple attacks (some with 1.5xStr to dam, others with only 0.5xStr), plus Grapple and don't forget feats that have a strength requirement and eventually skills. A good simplification would be to directly have the penalty to attacks & damage instead of spending 5 minutes in maths !!!

The Exchange

I've read through this post and found a few things that are a bit alarming.

Firstly, it clearly states in the magic section that spells or effects that affect the same statistic, attack etc. won't stack with each other. This has been pointed out already but still seems to be popping up occasioanlly. The only way they stack is if you get a different type of effect (not a different spell or school of magic).

Secondly I've heard a number of people say how hard it is to calculate the new attacks etc. but that just sounds like lazy maths to me. For every 2 points of stat damage, you lose 1 from attack and damage (for strength at least). This isn't hard to calculate nor to apply across critters, assuming you're keeping notes.

IT sounds more like the wording on empower needs to be clarified to explain exactly how to apply the 1.5x effect. We always just use this for any dice rolled (i.e. roll the dice, total this and multiply by 1.5, add other numbers). That certainly appears to be the intent as far as we can tell in my group, however clarification by the writers is probably called for here to help stop the confusion.

Given these points, I dont think the spell should be changed at all. It is an effective debuff for an encounter if used on the right type of mobs. If you're group is fighting something doing big damage with multiple attacks, then you want your caster to debuff them somehow.This spell may mean some of its secondary attacks start missing now and that's a good thing. The duration is short and unless their strength is pitiful, they're going to be in the fght still, only now more diminished. Sounds fairly balanced to me.

Cheers

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

selios wrote:
+x is not a variable, or I don't understand what variable means...

Actually isn't '+x' a variable, but '+1' is a constant?

Cheers

Edit: Sorry Selios, forgot the smiley. I knew what you meant, and it would be nice to get it clarified once and for all.

That said I never understood why they put that 'variable numeric' thing in. Is a Bull's Strength that grants a +6 really so terrible as a 5th level spell? Or a Power Word Blind that effects creatures with 300 hp instead of 200 as a 9th level spell?


Matthew Morris wrote:
selios wrote:
+x is not a variable, or I don't understand what variable means...

Actually isn't '+x' a variable, but '+1' is a constant?

Cheers

I used x because it's dependant of your caster level, and not variable.

The damage of a magic missile is variable (1D4+1), but not the number of missiles you get for your caster level (1+1 every two levels thereafter).

You don't get more missiles by empowering the spell, and 50% damage is added to each die, not to total damage.

You don't get more D6 on a fireball because this number is also based on your caster level.

As for RoE, you add 1 per two caster levels. By the same mechanics, empower spell does not apply to caster level. It will do 1D6*1.5+1/2 lvls.


This is the reason why I asked for a better rewording (complete with examples) in the Errata & Typos for Skills and Feats; the Empower Spell is prone to abuse without an official interpretation from Paizo.

First, from the Official FAQ from 3.5 I didnt find any examples as stated above; if you can pinpoint me where to look, I would gladly read the examples. At the moment, the only clarification on Empower Spell is from the old Official 3.0 FAQ... at it still is ambiguous.

"The Empower Spell feat only affects randomly variable aspects of a spell. (See the second to the last line of the feat description.) A lightning bolt spell's range is configurable, but not “variable” for purposes of Empower Spell. A lightning bolt spell's damage is “variable,” and an empowered lightning bolt deals 1.5 times damage. (Apply the multiplier before rolling saving throws.)"

"Since an empowered spell affects half again as many targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three missiles?
Because the Empower Spell feat increases a spell’s variable, numeric effects. In the case of magic missile, that’s the spell’s damage, not the number of missiles. A spell such as sleep, on the other hand, truly affects a variable number of targets: 2d4 HD worth of creatures. An empowered sleep spell affects 2d4 times 1.5 HD worth of creatures. (note: this last sentence refers to the old sleep spell from 3.0 rules)"

Nothing new under the sun...

The fact is, the example in the Player's Handbook lists Magic Missile, and it goes further saying that the WHOLE result of the damage is multiplied by 1,5. But is this a typo from the authors ? When they say that a spell deals half again as much damage as normal, do they REALLY intend ALL the damage (as some people believe), or do they intend only the VARIABLE damage (and so, only the XdX portion of the spell/s), and then you add the FIXED values? Because saying that "Empower Spell feat increases a spell’s variable, numeric effects" and then that ALL the damage (not only the variable, numeric effects) is multiplied is discordant at best... (you see, also a constant IS a numeric effect when you are speaking of a total result...). Or is the example on Magic Missile right because ALL the formula '1d4+1' is considered a 'variable' one (since that part of the formula is level-dependant)?

And again, do we really care how the 3.x version of the feat worked? IMHO we need only a clarification on how the feat works NOW, in order to start from a common ground and see (from that same common ground) if a spell is really too powerful or simply 'right'.
Sorry for derailing a bit...

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Magic and Spells / Ray of Enfeeblement - most powerful spell 10th level wizard can wield! All Messageboards