Split Ray of Enfeeblement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Split Ray of Enfeeblement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
drboals
12-24-07, 12:43 AM I tried using the Gleemax PoS search engine to find out if this has been discussed before, since I am sure it has, but could not get anything meanful from my search. It either hung or gave me back a million meaningless search results.

Anyway, forgive me if this has been on the board before, but I need to know. If you split ray a ray of enfeeblement what happens?

Two arguments, the first is that the split ray is still one spell, therefore both rays effect the target if both hit. So a split ray of enfeeblement where both rays hit would do 2d6+10 strength penalty... the second is that there are two attacks using split ray, so it is "like" having two different spells go off and only the greater of the 1d6+5 penalties effect the target.

I can see both arguments. ONE SPELL, one cannot stack it is one spell not two, therefore both rays of the spell take effect. TWO ATTACKS, so they cannot stack and only the higher penalty takes effect, even though they both come from the same spell.

You don't have to repeat these two arguments, I am am aware of both. If you have another argument or point beside these two, I would be very interested in hearing it. Or if you are in some kind of position of authority to speak on it, I would love to hear your take.

Thanks,

Dan B.
bitznarf
12-24-07, 04:25 AM Or if you are in some kind of position of authority to speak on it, I would love to hear your take.
You aren't going to get anything of this sort; the only people with any kind of campaign wide authority is the circle, and they don't rule on core rules issues. I will say I have never seen it ruled that a split ray of e stacked. Ever.
drboals
12-24-07, 11:52 AM Seeing as you can't stack a single spell, I would have to agree with you that I have never seen a single spell stack either.

I have seen the spell with split ray, do 10+2d6 strength penalty.

Since you need two things to "stack" and it only is one spell (i.e. takes up one spell slot, cast in a standard action, etc ) there is no stacking involved.

Now if there were two rays of enfeeblement cast, then they would clearly not stack, but that would be two spells, not one. Hence the dilemna. Britt, any chance you will chime in on this?
Redfist
12-24-07, 11:54 AM I have also NEVER seen it ruled in such a way as to let it stack. I have ALWAYS seen it ruled as though it becomes 2 spells. Here is a good example why.

You cast a split ray of enfeeblement against 2 targets A and B. Target A doesn't have spell resistance. Target B does. If it is only ONE spell, then do you have to roll for spell resistance against B? If you fail against B, does the entire spell then fizzle and doesn't affect A?
Mattastrophic
12-24-07, 12:45 PM If you fail against B, does the entire spell then fizzle and doesn't affect A?

That argument doesn't really work:

If I cast a Fireball, affecting both A and B, and I fail my SR roll against B, A is still affected by the Fireball.

Split Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't grant 2d6+10 against one opponent simply because Ray of Enfeeblement applies a penalty to Strength instead of Strength damage. Just like how being doubly Dazed (from, say, Twin Daze Monster) or doubly Entangled (Twin Entangle) or doubly Slowed (Twin Slow) doesn't apply any additional effect, neither does being doubly Strength-penalized.

-Matt
Redfist
12-24-07, 02:26 PM Yeah - I thought of that right after I posted, but just now got back to the computer. :)
Timlagor
12-31-07, 11:15 AM You won't get 2d6+10 penalty at any table I run.
drboals
01-01-08, 08:36 PM Gee Timlagor, that is really good to know, I was so worried about your table, you being very important and all... :)
copperwyrmling
01-01-08, 09:42 PM We're just saying that we've never, ever, seen it ruled that the two rays stack. I've had the same experiences, playing a sorcerer who throws Split Empowered Rays of Enfeeblement on a fairly regular basis (if she could stack them, she'd be inflicting -32 to Strength on monsters when she rolls high, with a L5 spell... rather wrong). Since none of the Circle / Triad members are allowed to make Core rules calls, you're not going to get an authoritative answer on these boards apart from people pointing out the "bonuses/penalties from the same source don't stack" rules and noting what their own experience has been.
magebeast
01-01-08, 11:52 PM Gee Timlagor, that is really good to know, I was so worried about your table, you being very important and all... :)

This is pretty snarky coming from someone who came here asking for help.

The reasons for why it doesn't work were given, and Timlagor's response pretty much just says "I agree with the above reasons."
Iswald
01-02-08, 09:30 AM Neither argument seems correct, in my opinion. You have one spell with an additional opportunity to hit with a ray attack. The split ray feat doesn't change the effect of the spell. It's the same as two different casting of ray of enfeeblement hitting the same target, you would only use the higher penalty.

Strickly speaking, however, a literal interpretation of the feat would indicate the the second ray doesn't do anything. The text says that the second ray deals damage as normal. Since ray of enfeeblement doesn't do damage... Fortunately, it's unlikely you'll come across any judges who interpret the feat this way. ;)
drboals
01-02-08, 10:37 AM This is pretty snarky coming from someone who came here asking for help.

The reasons for why it doesn't work were given, and Timlagor's response pretty much just says "I agree with the above reasons."

Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently.

I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING.

I listed the two main arguments, not because I wanted someone to rehash them, I specifically said please don't, but because I understand the two main arguments for and against and am looking for something NEW that I haven't thought of.

But that's ok magebeast, don't read the post that is asking for NEW arguments, just jump in and call names like a dweeb. See you have me doing it now, ;)
drboals
01-02-08, 10:43 AM Strickly speaking, however, a literal interpretation of the feat would indicate the the second ray doesn't do anything. The text says that the second ray deals damage as normal. Since ray of enfeeblement doesn't do damage... Fortunately, it's unlikely you'll come across any judges who interpret the feat this way. ;)

I think the literal interpretation here, may at least be a good argument for disallowing rays that do not do damage to not work with this feat. It does specifically say damage, so any ray spell that does not do "damage" can be argued at least to not have an effect for the second ray. I don't think this is the intent of the feat, but at least it is a ruling that can be based on print and not opinion.
Redfist
01-02-08, 10:52 AM With any luck, I'll get a snarky comment too. :D

It'll never work at my tables either. I've never seen any DM allow Rays of Enfeeblement to stack.
magebeast
01-02-08, 10:58 AM Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently.

I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING.

I listed the two main arguments, not because I wanted someone to rehash them, I specifically said please don't, but because I understand the two main arguments for and against and am looking for something NEW that I haven't thought of.

But that's ok magebeast, don't read the post that is asking for NEW arguments, just jump in and call names like a dweeb. See you have me doing it now, ;)

I'll simply say that beggars cannot be choosers. If you cannot come up with the new arguments yourself, you came here asking for help. These boards and the threads within often do not stay within the bounds originally defined by the poster. As it stands, one argument isn't even an argument as outlined here. The other is correct.
MwaO
01-02-08, 11:25 AM Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently.

I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING.

What people are saying is that this is phenomenally clear cut as per page 172 of PHB. 4th paragraph down, where they actually use Ray of Enfeeblement as an example of how penalties from the same spell do not stack.

Hitting someone with 2 Rays of Enfeeblement, whether from Split Ray or casting the spell twice is the same thing - unless you'd like to argue that damage done as normal means something else than apply the penalty as per normal. As an example, you cast 2 Scorching Rays at someone, you don't just sum up the damage and compare against resistance once...
Timlagor
01-02-08, 03:35 PM It seems clear that most tables in LG won't allow a 2d6+10 penalty.

There is no way you are going to get anything official here and you have already been told that -the only way you might is to send it off to the "sage" and hope it appears in an FAQ.

Incidentally Split Ray Enervation does give double effect.
Jay_Ibero_911
01-03-08, 12:26 AM It seems clear that most tables in LG won't allow a 2d6+10 penalty.

There is no way you are going to get anything official here and you have already been told that -the only way you might is to send it off to the "sage" and hope it appears in an FAQ.

Incidentally Split Ray Enervation does give double effect.

And the reason is that enervation gives negative levels, which specifically do stack..
katrick
01-04-08, 07:45 AM there are several diferences that apear to have been missed
Ray of Enfeeblement is an attribute penalty(not damage)
Enervation causes neg levels
Thats three terriblly distinctly different things
With Ray of Enfeeblement Split you can hit two targets that is the intention. As opposed to Twin Spell which hits the same opponents twice.

[Penalty] is why ray of enfeeble doesnt stack(no other reason)
zlmost everyhing stacks
P.S. the winds of Thor are blowin cold
LZ katrick
allowing 2d6+10 not in this backwater, mooseknuckle country
Timlagor
01-04-08, 07:04 PM Errmmm...

No one said Enrvation was the same as RoE. I was just pointing out that it makes for a very nice Split Ray.
Newpaintbrush
01-16-08, 07:00 PM As a default, you should expect your DM NOT to allow Split Ray of Enfeeblement to stack if both hit a single target. Why? Because it smacks of shenanigans. Any time you want to do ANYTHING that's really strong, you should expect your DM to arch an eyebow and demand to see the rulings.

Page 311, Player's Handbook, "penalty: A negative modifier to a die roll. Penalties do not usually have a type, and always stack with other penalties (except those from the same source) unless otherwise stated."

Either the split rays are effectively ONE spell creating TWO rays (in which case they don't stack as listed above), or they are TWO DIFFERENT rays (in which case they still don't stack) :)
solbergb
01-16-08, 08:06 PM Split Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't grant 2d6+10 against one opponent simply because Ray of Enfeeblement applies a penalty to Strength instead of Strength damage. Just like how being doubly Dazed (from, say, Twin Daze Monster) or doubly Entangled (Twin Entangle) or doubly Slowed (Twin Slow) doesn't apply any additional effect, neither does being doubly Strength-penalized.

-Matt

Yes. Although all those cases require two separate successful dispels to eliminate it, as you have two effects on you. Only the higher penalty applies.
solbergb
01-16-08, 08:08 PM As a default, you should expect your DM NOT to allow Split Ray of Enfeeblement to stack if both hit a single target. Why? Because it smacks of shenanigans.

You allow it, you just enforce the "penalties from same source don't stack" rule. It does let you get the better of two die rolls, and both effects end up on the target.

Split ray expressly creates an extra ray with limited targeting options, which is treated as a separate spell in all ways. Twin spell is similar, except it is exactly like casting the spell twice at the same target.

I really dislike the word "Shenanigans" as it is used on these boards. It is usually combined with a tendency to just say no without realizing the rules actually cover a situation.
Puggle Halfwine
01-17-08, 12:08 AM Absolutely would not stack.

My reasoning:

A high level spellcaster casts scorching ray, producing two rays, and targets a creature with fire resistance 5. Each ray suffers five fire resistance, for a sum of ten fire resistance (one per ray). Therefore, even separate rays from the same spell are treated as separate incidences, with resistances and stacking applied thusly. Incidentally, this circumstance has far more of a claim to being "the same spell" than a split-ray ray of enfeeblement.
_metz_
01-18-08, 02:23 AM Absolutely would not stack.

My reasoning:

A high level spellcaster casts scorching ray, producing two rays, and targets a creature with fire resistance 5. Each ray suffers five fire resistance, for a sum of ten fire resistance (one per ray). Therefore, even separate rays from the same spell are treated as separate incidences, with resistances and stacking applied thusly. Incidentally, this circumstance has far more of a claim to being "the same spell" than a split-ray ray of enfeeblement.

That really doesn't prove anything.

Scorching ray is ONE spell. just look at SR. Multiple rays doesn't mean multiple spells.

However I as a GM feel it goes against the intent of ray of enfeeblement to let it stack.

Though some people disregard how laws ares actually interpreted in the legal system and have this unusual obsession with RAW that supercedes intent, something most unusual to a person who has done law...
magebeast
01-18-08, 01:22 PM That really doesn't prove anything.

Scorching ray is ONE spell. just look at SR. Multiple rays doesn't mean multiple spells.

However I as a GM feel it goes against the intent of ray of enfeeblement to let it stack.

Though some people disregard how laws ares actually interpreted in the legal system and have this unusual obsession with RAW that supercedes intent, something most unusual to a person who has done law...

There's not really a meaningful central authority (the courts) to help provide precedent or interpretation. We've got the FAQ and a few rulings, but there's not necessarily the same sort of rigorous review from an authoritative source.
_metz_
01-18-08, 08:22 PM There's not really a meaningful central authority (the courts) to help provide precedent or interpretation. We've got the FAQ and a few rulings, but there's not necessarily the same sort of rigorous review from an authoritative source.

No unfortunately there isn't.

Occasionally there is a clear breakdown from intent to RAW though (see fire resistance 1 = lava immunity)

And people who exploit it bug me a little from time to time. In a worldwide setting like LG you will have these issues unfortunately.

I must be in a grumpy mood these past few days... :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
drboals 12-24-07, 12:43 AM	I tried using the Gleemax PoS search engine to find out if this has been discussed before, since I am sure it has, but could not get anything meanful from my search. It either hung or gave me back a million meaningless search results. Anyway, forgive me if this has been on the board before, but I need to know. If you split ray a ray of enfeeblement what happens? Two arguments, the first is that the split ray is still one spell, therefore both rays effect the target if both hit. So a split ray of enfeeblement where both rays hit would do 2d6+10 strength penalty... the second is that there are two attacks using split ray, so it is "like" having two different spells go off and only the greater of the 1d6+5 penalties effect the target. I can see both arguments. ONE SPELL, one cannot stack it is one spell not two, therefore both rays of the spell take effect. TWO ATTACKS, so they cannot stack and only the higher penalty takes effect, even though they both come from the same spell. You don't have to repeat these two arguments, I am am aware of both. If you have another argument or point beside these two, I would be very interested in hearing it. Or if you are in some kind of position of authority to speak on it, I would love to hear your take. Thanks, Dan B.
bitznarf 12-24-07, 04:25 AM	Or if you are in some kind of position of authority to speak on it, I would love to hear your take. You aren't going to get anything of this sort; the only people with any kind of campaign wide authority is the circle, and they don't rule on core rules issues. I will say I have never seen it ruled that a split ray of e stacked. Ever.
drboals 12-24-07, 11:52 AM	Seeing as you can't stack a single spell, I would have to agree with you that I have never seen a single spell stack either. I have seen the spell with split ray, do 10+2d6 strength penalty. Since you need two things to "stack" and it only is one spell (i.e. takes up one spell slot, cast in a standard action, etc ) there is no stacking involved. Now if there were two rays of enfeeblement cast, then they would clearly not stack, but that would be two spells, not one. Hence the dilemna. Britt, any chance you will chime in on this?
Redfist 12-24-07, 11:54 AM	I have also NEVER seen it ruled in such a way as to let it stack. I have ALWAYS seen it ruled as though it becomes 2 spells. Here is a good example why. You cast a split ray of enfeeblement against 2 targets A and B. Target A doesn't have spell resistance. Target B does. If it is only ONE spell, then do you have to roll for spell resistance against B? If you fail against B, does the entire spell then fizzle and doesn't affect A?
Mattastrophic 12-24-07, 12:45 PM	If you fail against B, does the entire spell then fizzle and doesn't affect A? That argument doesn't really work: If I cast a Fireball, affecting both A and B, and I fail my SR roll against B, A is still affected by the Fireball. Split Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't grant 2d6+10 against one opponent simply because Ray of Enfeeblement applies a penalty to Strength instead of Strength damage. Just like how being doubly Dazed (from, say, Twin Daze Monster) or doubly Entangled (Twin Entangle) or doubly Slowed (Twin Slow) doesn't apply any additional effect, neither does being doubly Strength-penalized. -Matt
Redfist 12-24-07, 02:26 PM	Yeah - I thought of that right after I posted, but just now got back to the computer. :)
Timlagor 12-31-07, 11:15 AM	You won't get 2d6+10 penalty at any table I run.
drboals 01-01-08, 08:36 PM	Gee Timlagor, that is really good to know, I was so worried about your table, you being very important and all... :)
copperwyrmling 01-01-08, 09:42 PM	We're just saying that we've never, ever, seen it ruled that the two rays stack. I've had the same experiences, playing a sorcerer who throws Split Empowered Rays of Enfeeblement on a fairly regular basis (if she could stack them, she'd be inflicting -32 to Strength on monsters when she rolls high, with a L5 spell... rather wrong). Since none of the Circle / Triad members are allowed to make Core rules calls, you're not going to get an authoritative answer on these boards apart from people pointing out the "bonuses/penalties from the same source don't stack" rules and noting what their own experience has been.
magebeast 01-01-08, 11:52 PM	Gee Timlagor, that is really good to know, I was so worried about your table, you being very important and all... :) This is pretty snarky coming from someone who came here asking for help. The reasons for why it doesn't work were given, and Timlagor's response pretty much just says "I agree with the above reasons."
Iswald 01-02-08, 09:30 AM	Neither argument seems correct, in my opinion. You have one spell with an additional opportunity to hit with a ray attack. The split ray feat doesn't change the effect of the spell. It's the same as two different casting of ray of enfeeblement hitting the same target, you would only use the higher penalty. Strickly speaking, however, a literal interpretation of the feat would indicate the the second ray doesn't do anything. The text says that the second ray deals damage as normal. Since ray of enfeeblement doesn't do damage... Fortunately, it's unlikely you'll come across any judges who interpret the feat this way. ;)
drboals 01-02-08, 10:37 AM	This is pretty snarky coming from someone who came here asking for help. The reasons for why it doesn't work were given, and Timlagor's response pretty much just says "I agree with the above reasons." Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently. I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING. I listed the two main arguments, not because I wanted someone to rehash them, I specifically said please don't, but because I understand the two main arguments for and against and am looking for something NEW that I haven't thought of. But that's ok magebeast, don't read the post that is asking for NEW arguments, just jump in and call names like a dweeb. See you have me doing it now, ;)
drboals 01-02-08, 10:43 AM	Strickly speaking, however, a literal interpretation of the feat would indicate the the second ray doesn't do anything. The text says that the second ray deals damage as normal. Since ray of enfeeblement doesn't do damage... Fortunately, it's unlikely you'll come across any judges who interpret the feat this way. ;) I think the literal interpretation here, may at least be a good argument for disallowing rays that do not do damage to not work with this feat. It does specifically say damage, so any ray spell that does not do "damage" can be argued at least to not have an effect for the second ray. I don't think this is the intent of the feat, but at least it is a ruling that can be based on print and not opinion.
Redfist 01-02-08, 10:52 AM	With any luck, I'll get a snarky comment too. :D It'll never work at my tables either. I've never seen any DM allow Rays of Enfeeblement to stack.
magebeast 01-02-08, 10:58 AM	Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently. I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING. I listed the two main arguments, not because I wanted someone to rehash them, I specifically said please don't, but because I understand the two main arguments for and against and am looking for something NEW that I haven't thought of. But that's ok magebeast, don't read the post that is asking for NEW arguments, just jump in and call names like a dweeb. See you have me doing it now, ;) I'll simply say that beggars cannot be choosers. If you cannot come up with the new arguments yourself, you came here asking for help. These boards and the threads within often do not stay within the bounds originally defined by the poster. As it stands, one argument isn't even an argument as outlined here. The other is correct.
MwaO 01-02-08, 11:25 AM	Snarky is some noone posting his personal opinion when I am asking for NEW arguments or for an OFFICIAL opinion. Sorry that I don't care about you or timlagor, you guys just aren't that important in the real world, contrary to how important you are to yourselves apparently. I need to know how to adjudicate this when it comes up, not based on some yahoo's personal opinion, but on a reasonable argument or an official errata or SOMETHING. What people are saying is that this is phenomenally clear cut as per page 172 of PHB. 4th paragraph down, where they actually use Ray of Enfeeblement as an example of how penalties from the same spell do not stack. Hitting someone with 2 Rays of Enfeeblement, whether from Split Ray or casting the spell twice is the same thing - unless you'd like to argue that damage done as normal means something else than apply the penalty as per normal. As an example, you cast 2 Scorching Rays at someone, you don't just sum up the damage and compare against resistance once...
Timlagor 01-02-08, 03:35 PM	It seems clear that most tables in LG won't allow a 2d6+10 penalty. There is no way you are going to get anything official here and you have already been told that -the only way you might is to send it off to the "sage" and hope it appears in an FAQ. Incidentally Split Ray Enervation does give double effect.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-03-08, 12:26 AM	It seems clear that most tables in LG won't allow a 2d6+10 penalty. There is no way you are going to get anything official here and you have already been told that -the only way you might is to send it off to the "sage" and hope it appears in an FAQ. Incidentally Split Ray Enervation does give double effect. And the reason is that enervation gives negative levels, which specifically do stack..
katrick 01-04-08, 07:45 AM	there are several diferences that apear to have been missed Ray of Enfeeblement is an attribute penalty(not damage) Enervation causes neg levels Thats three terriblly distinctly different things With Ray of Enfeeblement Split you can hit two targets that is the intention. As opposed to Twin Spell which hits the same opponents twice. [Penalty] is why ray of enfeeble doesnt stack(no other reason) zlmost everyhing stacks P.S. the winds of Thor are blowin cold LZ katrick allowing 2d6+10 not in this backwater, mooseknuckle country
Timlagor 01-04-08, 07:04 PM	Errmmm... No one said Enrvation was the same as RoE. I was just pointing out that it makes for a very nice Split Ray.
Newpaintbrush 01-16-08, 07:00 PM	As a default, you should expect your DM NOT to allow Split Ray of Enfeeblement to stack if both hit a single target. Why? Because it smacks of shenanigans. Any time you want to do ANYTHING that's really strong, you should expect your DM to arch an eyebow and demand to see the rulings. Page 311, Player's Handbook, "penalty: A negative modifier to a die roll. Penalties do not usually have a type, and always stack with other penalties (except those from the same source) unless otherwise stated." Either the split rays are effectively ONE spell creating TWO rays (in which case they don't stack as listed above), or they are TWO DIFFERENT rays (in which case they still don't stack) :)
solbergb 01-16-08, 08:06 PM	Split Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't grant 2d6+10 against one opponent simply because Ray of Enfeeblement applies a penalty to Strength instead of Strength damage. Just like how being doubly Dazed (from, say, Twin Daze Monster) or doubly Entangled (Twin Entangle) or doubly Slowed (Twin Slow) doesn't apply any additional effect, neither does being doubly Strength-penalized. -Matt Yes. Although all those cases require two separate successful dispels to eliminate it, as you have two effects on you. Only the higher penalty applies.
solbergb 01-16-08, 08:08 PM	As a default, you should expect your DM NOT to allow Split Ray of Enfeeblement to stack if both hit a single target. Why? Because it smacks of shenanigans. You allow it, you just enforce the "penalties from same source don't stack" rule. It does let you get the better of two die rolls, and both effects end up on the target. Split ray expressly creates an extra ray with limited targeting options, which is treated as a separate spell in all ways. Twin spell is similar, except it is exactly like casting the spell twice at the same target. I really dislike the word "Shenanigans" as it is used on these boards. It is usually combined with a tendency to just say no without realizing the rules actually cover a situation.
Puggle Halfwine 01-17-08, 12:08 AM	Absolutely would not stack. My reasoning: A high level spellcaster casts scorching ray, producing two rays, and targets a creature with fire resistance 5. Each ray suffers five fire resistance, for a sum of ten fire resistance (one per ray). Therefore, even separate rays from the same spell are treated as separate incidences, with resistances and stacking applied thusly. Incidentally, this circumstance has far more of a claim to being "the same spell" than a split-ray ray of enfeeblement.
_metz_ 01-18-08, 02:23 AM	Absolutely would not stack. My reasoning: A high level spellcaster casts scorching ray, producing two rays, and targets a creature with fire resistance 5. Each ray suffers five fire resistance, for a sum of ten fire resistance (one per ray). Therefore, even separate rays from the same spell are treated as separate incidences, with resistances and stacking applied thusly. Incidentally, this circumstance has far more of a claim to being "the same spell" than a split-ray ray of enfeeblement. That really doesn't prove anything. Scorching ray is ONE spell. just look at SR. Multiple rays doesn't mean multiple spells. However I as a GM feel it goes against the intent of ray of enfeeblement to let it stack. Though some people disregard how laws ares actually interpreted in the legal system and have this unusual obsession with RAW that supercedes intent, something most unusual to a person who has done law...
magebeast 01-18-08, 01:22 PM	That really doesn't prove anything. Scorching ray is ONE spell. just look at SR. Multiple rays doesn't mean multiple spells. However I as a GM feel it goes against the intent of ray of enfeeblement to let it stack. Though some people disregard how laws ares actually interpreted in the legal system and have this unusual obsession with RAW that supercedes intent, something most unusual to a person who has done law... There's not really a meaningful central authority (the courts) to help provide precedent or interpretation. We've got the FAQ and a few rulings, but there's not necessarily the same sort of rigorous review from an authoritative source.
_metz_ 01-18-08, 08:22 PM	There's not really a meaningful central authority (the courts) to help provide precedent or interpretation. We've got the FAQ and a few rulings, but there's not necessarily the same sort of rigorous review from an authoritative source. No unfortunately there isn't. Occasionally there is a clear breakdown from intent to RAW though (see fire resistance 1 = lava immunity) And people who exploit it bug me a little from time to time. In a worldwide setting like LG you will have these issues unfortunately. I must be in a grumpy mood these past few days... :)