Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thraxious 03-18-04, 06:39 PM	Personally, I kind of hate some of them... ability damagers without saving throws? Eesh... what a nightmare. Maybe I am wrong? But the 3.5 PHB now has Ray of Enfeeblement (1st lvl spell) with no saving throw. Ranged touch attack against that tough fullplate fighter (hmm ac 11?) and presto there goes d6 strength.. up to d6+5 at maximum levels. Not to mention there is another one, cannot recall the name offhand.. but I think it is around 3rd or 4th level that drains d6 from int, wis and cha... all in one spell. Sure it is only d6, but no saving throw, heh. one quick mid level spell and your opponent is now fighting without access to his highest level spells. Just me? Or does anyone else find this retardly over powered?
cwslyclgh 03-18-04, 06:46 PM	I like ray spells fine... and don't find ray of enfeeblement over powered after having used both as a DM and player several times. a quick note: Touch of Idiocy (the other spell you mentioned) is not a ray at all, it is (as the name suggests) a touch spell.
Unda Harvum 03-18-04, 06:48 PM	You are thinking of Touch of Idiocy - a 2nd level Enchantment spell. But it is a melee touch spell, not ranged. And no, I don't think they are overpowered. (You do know the effects from multiple castings don't stack, right? This is usually the misunderstanding when people think they are too overpowered.)
ManxomeFoe 03-18-04, 06:52 PM	I'm excited to hear that they don't stack, but I'm interested to know why not. According to the SRD, ray of enfeeblement causes "a penalty to Strength"... which sounds suspiciously like an unnamed penalty which would stack with anything, including itself. Why doesn't it stack?
Unda Harvum 03-18-04, 06:59 PM	It stacks with anything, excluding itself. See the definition of stack in the PHB Glossary (page 313).
kreynolds 03-18-04, 07:31 PM	Originally posted by Thraxious Maybe I am wrong? Yes. Neither Ray of Enfeeblement nor Touch of Idiocy deal ability damage.
Thraxious 03-18-04, 10:51 PM	What sort of damage does it do then? Also I was wondering if people could give me some explanations as to why they do not feel it is overpowered? Trying to see if from a view other then my own... The spell even at low level can dramatically change the flow of battle by giving up to a -3 to hit and damage.. possible causing even more penalties for encumberance. Sleep also is very powerful at low levels true... but loses its usefullness at higher levels whereas ray of enfeeblement only gains more power. What we wind up with is a first level spell with the potential to wipe out a non-strength based character in one shot, with no saving throw.. so no rogue evasion, etc would even apply. a ray of enfeeblement could potentially deal up to 11 points against an opponents strength! Is there another first level spell with that kind of power?
Thraxious 03-18-04, 10:55 PM	Oh yeah, and thanks to those who pointed out the touch of idiocy to me.... heh.. kind of funny that would be the name I would forget... hmm Basically though I thought of it, because like the ray of enfeeblement it offered no saving throw. The main other thing I can think of offhand that does stat damage would be poisons.. but of course they have saving throws.... Which is probably why I am finding those spells hard pills to swallow.
incubus 03-18-04, 11:01 PM	The spells you are citing DO NOT CAUSE ABILITY DAMAGE. They cause a penalty to stats. The difference? A penalty stops when the spell expires and can be dispelled. Also the penalty remains even if you polymorph.
Cainen Warlock 03-19-04, 10:17 AM	I do not feel that rays are overpowered, because there is a chance to miss. Sure, the fighter you described has a rather low chance, but a wizard must make an Attack roll with the lowest BAB in the book. If he misses, failed spell. You wouldn't expect a wizard to have a save against the fighter's sword would you?
Ellone 03-19-04, 10:32 AM	Additionaly, these spells cannot reduce ability score to 0. limit is 1 There's a lot of limit about them, still, i do think ray of enfeeblement is overpowered... a fighter or creature with -10 strength lose most of his efficiciency even a wizard could become overloaded and lose some dex bonus to ac. touhc of idiocy isn't overpowered, because it's one d6 without any bonus, you need to be next to your target and... could reduce his stat by only 1.
Ellone 03-19-04, 10:35 AM	but remember than ray and touch attack can be modified by a lot of element: ally 5'' away? -4 penalty concealment? roll it any people between you and target? cover bonus and you could hit cover :p
Edymnion 03-19-04, 10:38 AM	Originally posted by Ellone any people between you and target? cover bonus and you could hit cover :p Actually, that was removed as a core rule in 3.5. They relegated it to an optional side-rule.
kreynolds 03-19-04, 12:34 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Actually, that was removed as a core rule in 3.5. They relegated it to an optional side-rule. Sort of. It's called soft cover, but it only matters in regards to melee... "Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against melee attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check." EDIT: Oh...nevermind. I misunderstood the post. I wonder why they moved it to an optional rule? Was it not a popular rule?
Nom 03-19-04, 10:50 PM	Originally posted by kreynolds EDIT: Oh...nevermind. I misunderstood the post. I wonder why they moved it to an optional rule? Was it not a popular rule?Because it's both clumsy and unrealistic? Clumsy: Compare attack roll to AC both with and without cover. If the cover makes the difference, next compare attack roll to cover's AC. If cover is missed, compare attack roll to cover's flat-footed AC, and if that would have hit, then treat target as being hit instead. That's a cascade of up to four different comparisons for every attack roll, without any of the 'coolness' factor of critical hits. Unrealistic: For all that complexity, you'd like it to model cover rather well. But it doesn't. It completely fails to consider the differences between static and dynamic cover, and the active use of cover. Consider the simplest case: the ranged touch attack. You don't need a clean hit - just a hit. A static obstacle (such as a pillar or low wall) might halve (or even quarter) your target area. You are no longer a Medium target, but instead a Small or Tiny. However, your cover bonus is +4, double the size bonus for a Tiny creature. This is because the cover does more than just reduce target area. Cover also messes up aim, as the object appears and disappears behind the cover. Finally, you can duck behind the cover as an improved shield, thus +2 to reflex saves. When the obstruction is another dynamic object, you have two sources of movement messing up aim rather than just one. This is balanced by the target being less able to use the object. Hiding behind a table is easy. Hiding behind someone moving about is harder. Likewise, this sort of cover provides no protection for Reflex saves or Hide checks, since you're not "protected", just obscured. The game abstracts all these effects into three simple bonuses: +4 for normal cover, +8 for improved cover (an arrow slit), and complete protection from total cover. There's no simple way to 'unabstract' the mechanic: when a disintegrate ray misses you because you're behind a table, did it miss because it hit the table or because you ducked behind the table and it whizzed over your head? It's also naive to think that a "missed" ray would only hit the table in the +4 range; any missed shot is almost as likely to hit static cover as be a clean miss, unless it's badly off target. Dynamic cover is way more complex. In addition to the static cover considerations, there's also the possibility that the cover moved at exactly the wrong time, or even that the ray almost got past but the cover's shield or sword intersected at exactly the wrong moment. In addition, there's a game balance issue; I've seen games where it was better to shoot at a target behind cover than at the cover, since you had more chance of an accidental hit than a deliberate one! Finally, I've been talking about rays. Projectiles add another complexity. The shooter is trying to get a clean hit on the target, not the cover. It's entirely possible for the projectile to hit the cover in a way that is not a clean hit. Moreover, it's hard to believe that I'm as likely to penetrate armour with an accidental hit than when I'm aiming for the weak spots, but this is the result given by a simple attack roll vs AC comparison. In summary, the chance of accidentally hitting cover is a lot higher than that given in the optional rule, but the chance of damaging it with a projectile is lower. The optional rule un-abstracts a lot of considerations into a single poorly implemented vector.