Need help on this from all you DMs out there, especially the game designers for Pathfinder RPG, if you're listening... my group has reached an impasse on the ruling of how the Ray of Enfeeblement spell works. More specifically, on whether multiple castings of Ray of Enfeeblement work on the same target.
For instance, a mid-level wizard is attacked by his companion, the party ranger who was so foolish as to go let herself fail a saving throw on a Domination spell (or whatever it is that vampires do). Instead of frying her on the spot with a lightning bolt for attacking him with sharp metal things, he decides make her too weak to use them... Round one, he hits her touch AC with a Ray of Enfeeblement, reducing her STR score by 8 points. Next round, he uses a Pearl of Power to cast the spell on her again, and one successful to-hit roll later, said ranger is still dominated, but has a whopping STR score of 2, too weak to stand up under the weight of her own equipment.
Now most of the other gamers in our group applaud this decision, since I could have just killed her outright with lightning or black tentacles or whatever... but one of the other players, now that he has his chance to DM, is saying that those don't stack, that the STR drain from Ray of Enfeeblement is a temporary effect that can't stack on multiple uses of itself. What do you say? How should multiple uses of Ray of Enfeeblement be applied?
a.) They stack, reducing target's STR by however much damage is rolled each time, to a minimum of 1.
b.) They don't stack, the first hit is the maximum you can be drained until the first one wears off.
c.) Multiple hits don't stack, but a better damage roll can replace a lower score from a previous hit.
Input, anyone?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There's some type of FAQ to confirm this (or at least there was on the WotC site pre-4e), but the official answer is that Ray of Enfeeblement gives a penalty and doesn't do stat damage. Because it's a penalty, it doesn't stack with additional penalties from the same source (i.e., more Rays of Enfeeblement). I think it might have done stat damage in 3.0 and they changed it because stat damage is so hard to heal.
If you get hit with multiple Rays, you take the biggest penalty. So, if you had a -2 penalty to Strength, and then got hit with a -6 penalty, you'd have a -6 penalty.
Ability penalties don't stack, the biggest one applies in a mirror to ability bonus of the enhancement type. You also can't critical properly with ray of enfeeblement nor sneak attack with it, as it doesn't do damage. Some of that was hiding in the Complete Arcane, don't remember about the rest as ability penalties are pretty rare. Sebastian's called it straight.
::facepalm::
It's a penalty. Penalties from the same source don't stack. Only the highest penalty from a source is counted.
Just like bonuses.
IF it was ability damage that would be different, but it's not so it isn't.
So, wait, you can't critical with ray of Enfeeblement?
Can you tell me where it says this? I've always felt this way, but most of my group believes it can be criticaled (but not stacked).
So, wait, you can't critical with ray of Enfeeblement?
Can you tell me where it says this? I've always felt this way, but most of my group believes it can be criticaled (but not stacked).
Not the best source, but I found it on page 86 of Complete Arcane:
"Spells that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll, but since the target of the spell takes a penalty to Strength (rather than Strength damage), the spell cannot score a critical hit."
I also like simple logic. Critical hits have damage multipliers, e.g. X 2. If you're not actually doing damage, you cannot critical, as you've got no damage to multiply. Since the ray has no damage, just a penalty, it would not be subject to critical hits.
~lays there unable to do anything~ Too...
...weak...
...too...
...comment.
~GRINS~
Well that clears up an issue or two.
So you can crit a touch of idiocy, but not a ray of enfeeblment, yes?
Btw, how DO you crit a touch of idiocy? 2d6 to each mental stat instead of 1d6? Yikes!
So wait, what about enervation? can you crit enervation even though it doesn't do "damage"?
|
it doesn't stack but I would have let go - it was dramatic way for the party to keep one of the characters from dying (and it cost the day's pearl use too).
Monte Cook has a great blog entry over on Dungeon A Day where he goes into how the rules should not be the game - they are there to facilitate the game.
|
it doesn't stack but I would have let go - it was dramatic way for the party to keep one of the characters from dying (and it cost the day's pearl use too).
Monte Cook has a great blog entry over on Dungeon A Day where he goes into how the rules should not be the game - they are there to facilitate the game.
Hehe, you have to be careful saying that kind of thing around roleplayers. It's been known to cause flame wars :)
|
|
Hehe, you have to be careful saying that kind of thing around roleplayers. It's been known to cause flame wars :)
I hear ya! But I'm also sensing a bit of branching out by the players...I'm letting them get away with more creative heroics and the positive reinforcement is encouraging more of the same. Just last session, the druid used a summoned squid to pull a doomed (already negative hp) character out of a flotsam ooze. I didn't stress over the hows, I just rolled an opposed Str and the squid won. It was dramatic, creative, and critical.
Well that clears up an issue or two.
So you can crit a touch of idiocy, but not a ray of enfeeblment, yes?
Btw, how DO you crit a touch of idiocy? 2d6 to each mental stat instead of 1d6? Yikes!
So wait, what about enervation? can you crit enervation even though it doesn't do "damage"?
Touch of Idiocy is another ability penalty, so no crit there either. Same with enervation.
All of this is based on the idea that when we see the complete game in August that certain rules aren't changing. I believe these won't. Think of it like this: if you shoot someone with a beam and it does damage, a critical means you shot them in the face, the kidneys-somewhere it would really do extra physical damage. Hence, you critical. But ability penalties don't matter that way: you are suppressing aspects of the target's physical or mental abilities, temporarily of course. Does it matter where you hit someone if the spell is affecting all of their muscles (ray of enfeeblement), weakening them? Or just their judgment, personality, and mental acuity (touch of idiocy)? I suppose you could say that you smacked the target with a board to get a better effect for touch of idiocy, that's up to you, but that wouldn't be a tcuch attack roll, it'd be a normal attack;-) And enervation suppresses a target's life force: can you imagine hitting one part of a human (or illithid, dragon, giant, pixie, etc.) body is going to be better at suppressing life force?
~lays there unable to do anything~ Too...
...weak...
...too...
...comment.
~GRINS~
Like that ever happens, Sharoth!
*ducks swipe of dragon's tail and grins*
How should multiple uses of Ray of Enfeeblement be applied?
a.) They stack, reducing target's STR by however much damage is rolled each time, to a minimum of 1.
b.) They don't stack, the first hit is the maximum you can be drained until the first one wears off.
c.) Multiple hits don't stack, but a better damage roll can replace a lower score from a previous hit.
Yep, c. is correct
Since we are diving into the details of the rules:
I think a pearl of power allows you to re-memorize I spell (as a standard action I think) then you must still take another action to cast it.
"Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor
to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast."
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Since we are diving into the details of the rules:
I think a pearl of power allows you to re-memorize I spell (as a standard action I think) then you must still take another action to cast it."Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor
to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast."
Nope a pearl of power will let you recast a spell you've already cast of a certain level. Using the pearl to cast the spell over is a standard action.
I have a PoP 3rd level and I have fireball and lightning bolt memorized today. During my adventure I cast my fireball on some kobolds frying them good. Ok cool I still have a lightning bolt to play with! But a few hours later we run into a troll and no has any Alchemists fire (oh no!). So I can use my PoP to re-cast my Fireball, not rememorize.
|
Nope a pearl of power will let you recast a spell you've already cast of a certain level. Using the pearl to cast the spell over is a standard action.I have a PoP 3rd level and I have fireball and lightning bolt memorized today. During my adventure I cast my fireball on some kobolds frying them good. Ok cool I still have a lightning bolt to play with! But a few hours later we run into a troll and no has any Alchemists fire (oh no!). So I can use my PoP to re-cast my Fireball, not rememorize.
A Pearl of Power does not let you re-cast the spell immediately, it just re-prepares it. You must still take a standard action on the next round (a Wondrous Item with a 'command (word)' requires a standard action to activate, unless otherwise defined) to cast the newly recalled spell.
Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.
Command Word
If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Otherwise, your definition is accurate. If a wizard had a single Fireball and Lightning Bolt prepared, cast the Fireball, then needed it later on, he could use the Pearl of Power to 'recall' or 're-prepare' it as a Standard Action. On his next turn, he could then cast it again like normal.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
So penalties from the same source don't stack, but do penalties from different sources stack?
Two example scenarios:
1) Two casters both fire Rays of Enfeeblement at the same target. Since they are two different casters, is this a different source?
I think the same named spell applying the penalty would be considered the same source, not different, but I'm not sure I have a rules precedent to back it up.
2) Same caster on successive rounds casts a Ray of Enfeeblement and a Ray of Exhaustion. The exhausted condition applies a -6 penalty to Strength (amongst other things), so since these are both penalties, do they stack?
Here I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. A different spell would apply separately. Since the penalties in both cases are unnamed (as almost all penalties are), then they should stack.
What do you think?
Mostly I'm interested in opinions based in the rules or other written precedents. I know I can house rule it either way I want :)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
So penalties from the same source don't stack, but do penalties from different sources stack?
Two example scenarios:
1) Two casters both fire Rays of Enfeeblement at the same target. Since they are two different casters, is this a different source?
I think the same named spell applying the penalty would be considered the same source, not different, but I'm not sure I have a rules precedent to back it up.
2) Same caster on successive rounds casts a Ray of Enfeeblement and a Ray of Exhaustion. The exhausted condition applies a -6 penalty to Strength (amongst other things), so since these are both penalties, do they stack?
Here I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. A different spell would apply separately. Since the penalties in both cases are unnamed (as almost all penalties are), then they should stack.
What do you think?
Mostly I'm interested in opinions based in the rules or other written precedents. I know I can house rule it either way I want :)
Any 2 Rays of Enfeeblement from any caster are still the same source (i.e. the named spell).
Ray of Enfeeblement and Waves of Exhaustion however would stack together.
I was always under the impression that negative levels (as in enervation and energy drain), could crit and be used for sneak attacks (dealing negative energy sneak attack damage).
All monsters deal twice as many negative levels on a crit, and negative levels DO deal hitpoint damage. And i seem to remember seeing that in a faq/book/sage advice (cant remember where exactly).
Agreed on crit'ing with enervation. Also ray of enfeeblement/exhaustion can do sneak attack damage - crit'ing does nothing though - dealing negative energy damage. Mind you I find sneak attacking with rays a bit outrageous to begin with, but that's the rule (source unsure, I believe Sage Advice/FAQ).
One thing though - negative levels don't actually *deal* damage - they reduce maximum hit-points. So if you have 30 hit-points, take 12 damage, then get hit for two negative levels, you will have 20 maximum hit-points and 12 damage for 8 hp remaining.
So penalties from the same source don't stack, but do penalties from different sources stack?
Same source never stacks unless it explicitly states so (some temporary hit point source that I can't remember does this).
On the flip side though, nearly all penalties are typeless, so if it's not the same source - they stack (and yes, the same spell from different people is the same source). Definitely some DM discretion if things that are nearly identical crop up (like... entangled by vines while trapped in a tar pit or something).
We'll see what the final rules say hopefully. Also I think this is certainly an area where some DM discretion may be needed. Abuses can get hairy on this one.
|
|
Agreed on crit'ing with enervation. Also ray of enfeeblement/exhaustion can do sneak attack damage - crit'ing does nothing though - dealing negative energy damage. Mind you I find sneak attacking with rays a bit outrageous to begin with, but that's the rule (source unsure, I believe Sage Advice/FAQ).One thing though - negative levels don't actually *deal* damage - they reduce maximum hit-points. So if you have 30 hit-points, take 12 damage, then get hit for two negative levels, you will have 20 maximum hit-points and 12 damage for 8 hp remaining.
Despite being one of my chosen, I must disagree with you on some of these points Acolyte.
As classified in the Complete Arcane, only 'weaponlike spells' may threaten critical hits and be used in sneak attacks. Accordingly, they are defined as such:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses.
Ray of Enfeeblement is even used as an example.
Spells that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll, but since the target of the spell takes a penalty to Strength (rather than Strength damage), the spell cannot score a critical hit.
I will consent that this is specifically about critical hits. However, the spell is not mentioned otherwise, and does not seem to fall under the initial definition for a weaponlike spell. I would be hesitant to call it such. Ray of Exhaustion, similarly, does not do any damage but rather imposes a status effect. I would not consider this a weaponlike spell as well.
Enervation, on the other hand, does deal energy drain and would be considered a weaponlike spell. It is also used as an example for both critical hits (where it imposes 2d4 negative levels on a successful critical) and sneak attacks (where the sneak attack damage is negative energy damage).
Same source never stacks unless it explicitly states so (some temporary hit point source that I can't remember does this).On the flip side though, nearly all penalties are typeless, so if it's not the same source - they stack (and yes, the same spell from different people is the same source). Definitely some DM discretion if things that are nearly identical crop up (like... entangled by vines while trapped in a tar pit or something).
We'll see what the final rules say hopefully. Also I think this is certainly an area where some DM discretion may be needed. Abuses can get hairy on this one.
I argee with this assessment. Two "Ray of Enfeeblement"s from two different casters would overlap, and not stack. However, a Ray of Enfeeblement followed by a Ray of Exhaustion could impose a strength penalty that did stack with each other. This is quite the deadly effect.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
|
|
As an addendum, feats appear to be a bit more loose when it comes to weaponlike spells. They state that there are two categories of weaponlike spells, "Ranged Spells" (those that required ranged touch attack rolls or spells that generate effects that act as ranged weapons and require ranged attack rolls) and "Touch Spells" (any damage-dealing spells with a range of touch).
Were there not the other definition of a Weaponlike Spell, mentioned above, I would agree that both Ray of Exhaustion and Ray of Enfeeblement fall under the "Ranged Spells" category. However, due to the aforementioned definition, I would be hesitant to say that they are usable with feats based around them. Weapon Focus (Ranged Spell) could be useful with Enervation, but not with Ray of Enfeeblement.
It us up to the individual DM how he rules such feats, as always. If you consider just the text of the Ranged Spell or Touch Spells, all the Rays apply to Ranged Spells. If you consider the definition of the Weaponlike Spells in general, then some do not.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Despite being one of my chosen, I must disagree with you on some of these points Acolyte.
May Osirion rise strong again in the light of its Brightest Son. :)
I humbly agree with your assessment of the lack of clarity in the precise region of non-damage, attack-roll spells with sneak attacks, and personally would be pleased to have it made clear that they cannot grant such.
|
Using Nethys' posts above, I will agree completely with you guys on Ray of Enfeelblement(we have always played with it allowed to crit since its a dice roll, but no sneak attacks before), but that doesn't appear to be something you should be able to crit or sneak attack.
However, his quote mentions ability damage and negative levels specifically in the 'allowed' category, so I would consider things like enfeeblement and things that do actual stat damage, rather then penalty to be something that you can crit on.
|
|
Using Nethys' posts above, I will agree completely with you guys on Ray of Enfeelblement(we have always played with it allowed to crit since its a dice roll, but no sneak attacks before), but that doesn't appear to be something you should be able to crit or sneak attack.
However, his quote mentions ability damage and negative levels specifically in the 'allowed' category, so I would consider things like enfeeblement and things that do actual stat damage, rather then penalty to be something that you can crit on.
Your second paragraph is a bit confusing, so to clarify:
Weaponlike Spells
Ray of Enfeeblement (ability penalty) - NO
Ray of Exhaustion (incurs a status effect) - NO
Enervation (deals energy drain / negative levels) - YES
Weaponlike Spells may crit and be used in sneak attacks.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
|
|
Sorry about that, I'm running on fumes at the moment so I wasn't very clear, but that was what I meant. I was going to say that would mean you could crit with touch of idiocy as was mentioned above, but looking at the spell I guess that is actually just a penalty as well. Its not a spell that I have seen used too often so I was thinking it was stat damage.
"Complete Arcane,pg.85 wrote:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses."
Hmmmm, this confirms my suspicion that they were smoking crack when they wrote stuff like that. Sneak attack with energy drain? That is just stupid! (sorry, but it is) All the damage from sneak attack is the same kind of damage. Thus you would be adding d6's of negative levels? Or is that d6's of lowering your maximum hp? Same situation with ability damage - are all those d6's CON damage?
It is stuff like that that makes me wonder if they were deliberately trying to destroy 3.5 so that they could pave the way for new product.
Again, I'm sorry if someone on these boards wrote the book, but for junk like that to get printed as rules is a shame!
"Complete Arcane,pg.85 wrote:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses."Hmmmm, this confirms my suspicion that they were smoking crack when they wrote stuff like that. Sneak attack with energy drain? That is just stupid! (sorry, but it is) All the damage from sneak attack is the same kind of damage. Thus you would be adding d6's of negative levels? Or is that d6's of lowering your maximum hp? Same situation with ability damage - are all those d6's CON damage?
It is stuff like that that makes me wonder if they were deliberately trying to destroy 3.5 so that they could pave the way for new product.
Again, I'm sorry if someone on these boards wrote the book, but for junk like that to get printed as rules is a shame!
Now go back and read the rest of it. Your ignorance is exposed.
|
|
"Complete Arcane,pg.85 wrote:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses."Hmmmm, this confirms my suspicion that they were smoking crack when they wrote stuff like that. Sneak attack with energy drain? That is just stupid! (sorry, but it is) All the damage from sneak attack is the same kind of damage. Thus you would be adding d6's of negative levels? Or is that d6's of lowering your maximum hp? Same situation with ability damage - are all those d6's CON damage?
It is stuff like that that makes me wonder if they were deliberately trying to destroy 3.5 so that they could pave the way for new product.
Again, I'm sorry if someone on these boards wrote the book, but for junk like that to get printed as rules is a shame!
Since I am in a good mood today...
The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
I don't bother trying to hide my ignorance, that would require too much thinking, which would take the bliss out of my ignorance.
"The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage."
I stand by my conclusion about the crack smoking.
Negative levels each impart a -5 penalty to hp. and a bunch of negative energy damage when used as a sneak attack? How does that work again?
If Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty, as is touch of idiocy, neither should be able to crit or be used for precision based damage. Since Negative levels are something you "gain" which cause a penalty, I don't see how they would be treated any differently.
"A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained.
–1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
–1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
–5 hit points.
–1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level)."
PS - Nethys, I'm amazed at your extensive knowledge of the rules, from this thread and others. Please don't take my thinking these rules are ill conceived as a reflection on you in any way. Thank you for looking all this stuff up.
I don't bother trying to hide my ignorance, that would require too much thinking, which would take the bliss out of my ignorance.
Ok that was a great reply. I applaud, well played.
|
|
I don't bother trying to hide my ignorance, that would require too much thinking, which would take the bliss out of my ignorance.
"The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage."
I stand by my conclusion about the crack smoking.
Negative levels each impart a -5 penalty to hp. and a bunch of negative energy damage when used as a sneak attack? How does that work again?
If Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty, as is touch of idiocy, neither should be able to crit or be used for precision based damage. Since Negative levels are something you "gain" which cause a penalty, I don't see how they would be treated any differently.
"A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained.
–1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
–1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
–5 hit points.
–1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level)."
PS - Nethys, I'm amazed at your extensive knowledge of the rules, from this thread and others. Please don't take my thinking these rules are ill conceived as a reflection on you in any way. Thank you for looking all this stuff up.
Your praise is encouraged and welcomed.
As to your question on the Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion, you will find my post earlier on that discusses both of them. Neither are, in fact, Weaponlike Spells. Thus, neither are applicable for critical damage or sneak attack.
Enervation, on the other hand, deals in energy drain. While I may normally agree that it is similar in that it imparts numerous penalties, spells that deal energy drain (negative levels) fall under the categories for a Weaponlike Spell. Enervation itself is used in two examples for criticals and sneak attacks, so there is little question that it qualifies.
If a rogue with, say, 3d6 sneak attack damage used Enervation to sneak attack, he would deal 1d4 negative levels + 3d6 points of negative energy damage (otherwise normal hit point loss unless the target has some specific protection or weakness to negative energy).
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
"Enervation, on the other hand, deals in energy drain. While I may normally agree that it is similar in that it imparts numerous penalties, spells that deal energy drain (negative levels) fall under the categories for a Weaponlike Spell. Enervation itself is used in two examples for criticals and sneak attacks, so there is little question that it qualifies."
I agree that the Complete Book clearly states that to be the case.
I just think they didn't clearly think that out, and it breaks several precedents about crits, sneak attacks, etc.
For example, what happens when the rogue above whacks someone who is protected by Deathward? The negative levels get blocked, but since the damage is different, it gets through? Is it "a negative energy effect"?
Or better yet, what if the rogue does the same thing, without realizing that it is an undead creature? Does that negative energy damage heal the undead, or disappear up the astral plane because undead can't be sneak attacked healed? Things start to get all screwed up.
I guess it just boils down to sneak attacks adding very specifically to "Damage", while the word doesn't appear at all under Enervation, or negative levels. I think that in order to bridge that gap, something from a glass pipe was required.
|
|
Personally, I would rule that Death Ward would protect someone from the negative energy damage generated from a sneak attack with an Enervation (or similar ray). With undead, it is a bit more unclear. Again, I would rule that if the undead was not subject to sneak attacks, then it would not be subject to the extra negative energy damage (or heal) as well.
Of course, this may change even more with the Pathfinder RPG and their rules on sneak attacks. We shall see.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Agreed, I think all of this will be solved, or moot once the final rules come out.
Do you know of any spells in the core rules that deal ability damage?
The only one I could find was chill touch. Other then that the best I could come up with was poison and contagion, but the wording is a little odd in the context of crits and stuff. Any other spells that cause ability damage?
|
|
Spells in the core Beta, at least, only will do Strength or Constitution damage. There are no spells that deal Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma damage (at least strictly, Contagion, for example, could do any of those depending on the effect).
Strength Damage
Chill Touch
Symbol of Weakness
Unholy Aura
Weird
Constitution Damage
Cloudkill
Poison
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Wow! Just noticed something I had always overlooked before:
Symbol of Weakness
3d6 STR damage!
10min/level
ouch!
Thanks for all the input, I'm gonna have to rethink my wizarding strategies for Ray of Enfeeblement. Although even without the stacking effect, a wand of Ray of Enfeeblement is still pretty much the best investment a low level wizard can get, as an average hit does 1d6+1 Str penalty, which in turn translates to 4.5 pts. of temporary Str loss for a short time and only needs to hit a touch AC, with no chance for saving throw. That's like an average -2 penalty to Str n' dmg to any melee-focused opponents, one at a time. Almost as good as the 1st-level Doom spell, but no saving throw allowed!
Anyway, thanks for all the help out there... I do want to go on record of mentioning that the whole multipost debate about crits n' sneak attacks never came from my lips... I never did think that Ray of Enfeeblement did either, since the spell doesn't specifically do ability score damage. Just know that the debate was not of my doing.
Long live Banjo!!