Fell Drain question

[Darth_Versity]

So if you applied fell drain to a spell that causes damage over time such as evaded black tentacles, does the negative level apply several times against the same character or only once per casting?

[The Mentalist]

AFB at the moment but if I recall correctly it only hits once per target per spell.

[Calanon]

Living foes damaged by your spell also gain a negative level.

Benefit: You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative
level. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit
Dice, it dies. Assuming the subject survives, the negative level
disappears (without requiring a Fortitude save) after a number
of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15). A fell draining
spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s
actual level.

By RAW DoT spells could work repeatedly over and over again... Why prey tell are you asking? :smallconfused:

[The Mentalist]

"that is dealt damage also gains a negative level."

This is where it gets murky. It doesn't say "Any time the creature is dealt damage" it could be a one off or an every time they are dealt damage.

(Read: Magic Missile vs Fell Drain)

Ask your DM, if you are the DM determine what is balanced for your table.

[ahenobarbi]

By RAW DoT spells could work repeatedly over and over again... Why prey tell are you asking? :smallconfused:

Actually I think it's pretty clear a creature can get onloy one negative level per spell from fell drain


...
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level.

[Darth_Versity]

Its just where is says "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level" which has no cap on the number of negative levels per spell. It just seemed open to the interpretation that a spell that causes damage over several rounds would then bestow several negative levels. If that is the case, area effects that constantly do damage (such as evards black tentacles) would be amazing.

[prufock]

I say no. By my interpretation the text is pretty clear. The decision process is basically:
Are you dealt damage by the spell?
Yes - you take a negative level.
No - you do not take a negative level.

There is no other clause in the feat.

[Darth Stabber]

I say no. By my interpretation the text is pretty clear. The decision process is basically:
Are you dealt damage by the spell?
Yes - you take a negative level.
No - you do not take a negative level.

There is no other clause in the feat.

There doesn't have to be another clause for it to be debatable. By pure raw it probably should go off each hit, if damage than negative level. Now that would make this feat WAY powerful, and rule 0 should probably be employed to reign that in.

The problem is WotC designs the game with the idea that every wizard is going to be an evoker, or at least use a lot of evocation, and with evocation spells this feat works (mostly) fine, when you get to other things, not neccessarily.

[ahenobarbi]

I say no. By my interpretation the text is pretty clear. The decision process is basically:
Are you dealt damage by the spell?
Yes - you take a negative level.
No - you do not take a negative level.

There is no other clause in the feat.

Yeah, I don't see how you could understand description differently.

[Vegan Zombie]

I think fell drain dots would be a little broken. A Fell Drain Acid arrow could last up to 6 additional rounds and drain an additional 6 levels. All for a fourth level slot.

[prufock]

There doesn't have to be another clause for it to be debatable. By pure raw it probably should go off each hit, if damage than negative level.

That is not what the RAW says.
"You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level."

IF a living creature is dealt damage by the spell
THEN you gain a (one) negative level.

It doesn't matter if you're dealt 1000 points of damage or 1 point of damage. It doesn't matter if it's physical damage or energy damage. It doesn't matter if it deals damage over one round or many rounds. The only deciding factor is "are you dealt damage by the spell?"

[Bakkan]

Just to muddy the waters a little bit:

The spell "Kyristan's Malevolent Tentacles" from Shining South (p 47) is essentially Evard's Black Tentacles that gives a negative level each round to anything the tentacles are grappling, even if they don't happen to deal damage that round. It's Necromancy rather than Conjuration, but has no descriptors that would weaken it. So based on comparison with that spell, it would seem like Fell Drain Evard's applying a negative level every round when the spell deals damage might actually be underpowered.

[Darth_Versity]

That is not what the RAW says.
"You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level."

IF a living creature is dealt damage by the spell
THEN you gain a (one) negative level.

It doesn't matter if you're dealt 1000 points of damage or 1 point of damage. It doesn't matter if it's physical damage or energy damage. It doesn't matter if it deals damage over one round or many rounds. The only deciding factor is "are you dealt damage by the spell?"

With that reasoning then it does work. You've been grappled by tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. yes. Take a negative level.

Next round you are grappled by the tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. Yes. Take a negative level.

To be clear, I dont think this is RAI and I would never allow it in a game. But I'm unclear on the RAW and thought if it worked it would be good for a theoretical build.

[ahenobarbi]

With that reasoning then it does work. You've been grappled by tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. yes. Take a negative level.

Next round you are grappled by the tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. Yes. Take a negative level.


By that reasoning the spell gave you 2 negative levels. But despription says it can give a negative level. So reasoning lead you to wrong result, so reasoning is wrong.

[Douglas]

By that reasoning the spell gave you 2 negative levels. But despription says it can give a negative level. So reasoning lead you to wrong result, so reasoning is wrong.
Your logic is circular. You're proving his reasoning is wrong by assuming that it is wrong.

For an amusing sidetrack, it would technically be correct by the actual wording of the feat as quoted in post #3 for a sword-swinging fighter to say the guy he just cut with his sword gains a negative level because the wizard cast an unrelated Fell Drain spell. The wording as written is missing a rather crucial "by the spell" between "damage" and "also". In fact, once any wizard anywhere casts a Fell Drain spell, all damage dealt to living creatures anywhere in the multiverse from then on is accompanied by a negative level. Talk about an overpowered feat.:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Darth Stabber]

{{scrubbed}}

[Darth_Versity]

By that reasoning the spell gave you 2 negative levels. But despription says it can give a negative level. So reasoning lead you to wrong result, so reasoning is wrong.

Your reasoning is wrong because it is wrong! WTF?

[Alienist]

Your logic is circular. You're proving his reasoning is wrong by assuming that it is wrong.


That's not actually what he said.

I don't think technically speaking that what he said was a Circular argument... more like this:

If the rules are read in a certain way then P implies Q
But P and Q cannot both be true
Therefore P does not imply Q

I think perhaps you might have been thinking of a tautology, not circular. And if that is so, then the proper approach to disagree with (a properly formed) tautology is to disagree with the premises or inputs (an argument can be correctly formed, or logically valid, but still be wrong, because even a logically perfect argument is only as good as its premises)

The proper thing to do is not to resort to mockery, the proper thing to do is state that you think the reasoning is wrong (as it is in the example I gave) or alternately to disagree with the premises and assumptions.

Unfortunately, like most such arguments about RAW, both sides assume that English is a perfectly clear language and that for each statement there is a single unambiguous interpretation. If that is true about English, it is only true for a very small subset of it, and it takes enormous effort to put ones statements into that subset... and personally I just don't think that Wizards made more than a token effort at this.

I DO find however, that reading most of what they wrote there is usually a clear interpretation, a first impression if you will, that leaps off the page. It is only when we go back for a second reading, when we are looking specifically for loopholes, that we end up with something that says the exact opposite of what it would appear to say at first blush. And this is, I think, why wizards has never bothered to patch over some of the more egregious abuses, because the use of those loopholes requires going against the 'obvious' meaning of what they have written.

As this very example shows though, what is obvious to one person, may not be obvious to others, and they may have their own interpretation that seems just as obvious to them.

Personally, I was surprised by wizards ruling that magic missile plus fell drain only gives one negative level if you hit a single target with multiple missiles, but that if you spread them out then everyone gets one. I suppose they have a concept of 'simultaneity' that they are applying, so that multiple missiles are treated as a single entity when fired at the same target. But to my reading that does not preclude things like creeping cold handing out multiple negative levels over time, because they are separate instances of damage.

Hence, I disagree with the premise that the spell only deals its negative level once per unique target, but I do so respectfully.

[The Mentalist]

Very convincing stuff.

You have convinced me that these negative levels should actually repeat (though I will be tossing around dispels if it gets OP) and perhaps even magic missile should give you multiples on a single target (because screw WOTC that's why) though I am worried about that primarily due to the fact that it makes Enveneration obsolete, makes extend valuable on DoTs though, which I rather like.

*scurries off into a corner to do balance analysis*

[Rebel7284]

For the record, a first level Human Wizard with Metamagic School Focus and Fell Drain as feats can walk around dealing negative levels with cantrips in 1st level slots. Kinda deadly at that level.

[Chronos]

You don't get a negative level when the spell hits your in round 2, because you've already gotten it. First round, the spell damages you, so you need to gain a negative level. Second round, the spell damages you, so you need to gain a negative level, but look, you already have. The requirement is already fulfilled, so you don't need to gain any more.

It's like going to a bar that has live music. If you listen to the band play a song, you have to pay the cover charge. If you listen to a dozen songs, you still only pay the cover charge once. If you and three friends go, each of you has to pay the cover charge.

[The Mentalist]

It's like going to a bar that has live music. If you listen to the band play a song, you have to pay the cover charge. If you listen to a dozen songs, you still only pay the cover charge once. If you and three friends go, each of you has to pay the cover charge.


I'm pretty sure this analogy doesn't work.

The feat says Upon A, B happens
Spell that makes A happen multiple times makes B happen multiple times. You can read this multiple ways (hence this debate) but this analogy doesn't compare to the conditions.

Another example would be Kunth's (I think) challenge for finding a flaw in his book, if you do it multiple times you get multiples of the reward.

[OracleofSilence]

In addition to Alienists excellently written argument, simple examination of used logic devices comes to our aid. The two sides state either

Fell drain says "if the target takes damage, they gain A negative level". This mean the target can only gain a single negative level

or

Fell drain says "IF THE TARGET TAKES DAMAGE, they gain a negative level", thus EVERY time the target takes damage, they gain a negative level.

The wording supports both cases, so their is no logically wrong answer.

all implication can say is this

D: the domain of target/s effected by the spell modified by fell drain.

p(x): the target takes damage

q(x): the target gains a negative level

p(x) -> q(x).

however, the question comes down to a DOMAIN argument. the terms are the same in both cases.

One side states

∀(x∈D)p(x)→q(x)

(meaning that for every case within the domain, p -> q)

the other states

∃!(x∈D)p(x)→q(x)

where this is only true for the first p.

In conclusion? Logic seems to favor he universal qualification here, since no limiters are in place. However, this is not a testable hypothesis, so the true answer is indeterminable. We can only come to some agreement, or just agree to disagree.

[Draz74]

or

Fell drain says "IF THE TARGET TAKES DAMAGE, they gain a negative level", thus EVERY time the target takes damage, they gain a negative level.

Good summary. And this is the very reason why (by RAW) the spell should only deal a negative level once per target per spell.

"IF" is not the same as "WHEN". "IF ..." is not the same as "EACH ROUND, IF ..." Therefore the statement I have quoted above is inherently flawed.

[Darth_Versity]

Good summary. And this is the very reason why (by RAW) the spell should only deal a negative level once per target per spell.

"IF" is not the same as "WHEN". "IF ..." is not the same as "EACH ROUND, IF ..." Therefore the statement I have quoted above is inherently flawed.

"You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level."

is the actual wording so that statement doesn't hold. Admittedly as has been pointed out it only states that it applies to any one who is dealt damage, not damage by the spell, so technically any damage by anyone would work. WotC should really pay more attention to their wording.

[ahenobarbi]

Benefit: You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative
level. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit
Dice, it dies. Assuming the subject survives, the negative level
disappears (without requiring a Fortitude save) after a number
of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15). A fell draining
spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s
actual level.

Yeah, I messed up previous. My point is "one negative level per damaged living creature per spell" is only reasonable. And I fail to understand how you could interpret it any other way. Especially if you read short description "Living foes damaged by your spell also gain a negative level" (yes I know that short descriptions are sometimes misleading and this specific is misleading too (your allies can get a negative level too) but it is a big hint how to understand feat description).

Also if you insist on making it "gain a negative level whenever takes damage from the spell" (by ignoring short description).

EDIT: Ninja'ed

Then I insist you go all the way and make Fell Drain Spell a death sentence for all living beings in multiverse.

Description says "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level".

So after you cast spell modified by fell drain any living being (whenever, wherever, no matter it's resistances. Description says clearly "any living being" it puts no limits on place, time, relation to the spell cast) is deal damage (again from any source because the description says just that) it also gets a negative level.

[gbprime]

IMHO, I'm interpreting it as being able to repeatedly do negative levels as well.

Reasoning: Fell Weaken feat takes the trouble to specify that strength damage dealt by this feat is not cumulative. Fell Drain on the same page of the book written by the same author, and does not specify such a thing. We could call this yet another epic failure of editorial prowess, or we could assume that the rule as intended allowed for multiple doses of negative levels.

I'm not too worried about the PC's being able to drain a life level or two every round until the target is dead, since the Warblade can kill it faster than that anyway. :smallamused:

[prufock]

Reasoning: Fell Weaken feat takes the trouble to specify that strength damage dealt by this feat is not cumulative. Fell Drain on the same page of the book written by the same author, and does not specify such a thing.

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant, as they do 2 different things. Fell Weaken applies a penalty; penalties from the same source don't stack. The wording just points out that the feat, rather than the spell altered by the feat, is the "source."

Negative levels, on the other hand, DO stack, so it's sort of apples and oranges.


With that reasoning then it does work. You've been grappled by tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. yes. Take a negative level.

Next round you are grappled by the tentacles. You take damage.

Are you taking damage from the spell. Yes. Take a negative level.

You are asking the same question multiple times "does the spell deal damage to the creature." Using your reasoning, you don't even need to wait until the next round.
Round 1: Does the spell deal damage? Yes. Negative level.
Round 1: Does the spell deal damage? Yes. Negative level.
Round 1: Does the spell deal damage? Yes. Negative level.
A single instance of damage from the spell by your reasoning can remove all levels.

[ahenobarbi]

Reasoning: Fell Weaken feat takes the trouble to specify that strength damage dealt by this feat is not cumulative. Fell Drain on the same page of the book written by the same author, and does not specify such a thing. We could call this yet another epic failure of editorial prowess, or we could assume that the rule as intended allowed for multiple doses of negative levels.

Actually description says something different "any living creature that is dealt damage also takes a -4 penalty to Strength for 1 minute. Strength penalties from multiple spells enhanced by the Fell Weakening feat do not stack" (and untyped penalties from the same source (single spell) don't stack by general rules).

Anyways I think feat is ok with 1 negative level per spell per living creature damaged. Of course every DM can use the feat interpretation as [s]he sees fit (well I know one, who thinks it's overpowered).

If we are talking about RAW I really see only 2 ways to handle this:
1) Take "short" description into account => deals 1 negative level per spell per living creature damaged.
2) Ignore "short" description => every living being dies soon.

[Pigkappa]

Sorry to interrupt, but:

WotC should really pay more attention to their wording.
Nope.
Players should learn to consider the sentences in their context and consider fluff and balance when interpreting the rules, instead of reading a game manual as if it was a list of definitions and axioms with a lot of useless stuff about the fantasy setting placed there just to be annoying.

[SirFredgar]

First I would like to mention I'm a strong believer that every time the spell deals damage it produces a negative level.



You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level.

The reading that because it says "a" negtive level, only one can ever be produced is silly. If you follow that logic, then in that same sentance "You can alter a spell" would mean this feat only ever applies to a single spell, when (I hope we all agree) isn't the case RAW or RAI.

This sentance is best expressed in a simple if/then statement. If your spell that deals damage, damages a foe, then apply a negative level. It never specifies that this if/then statement is not repeatable. Since the text never closes the loop every seperate intance of "If" (dealt damage by spell) should trigger the "then" (acquire a negative level). Since negative levels stack, nothing prevents you from gaining another one.

Also, the logic behind "every creature everywhere gains a negative level by any damage" seems like a stretch as well. I mean, "You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level" is pretty clearly pointing to the cause/effect of how/why you are gaining this negative level.

However: I would rule that the fell drain would be like SA on a volley spell. It only applys to one target of the volley.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"Benefit: You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative
level."

I see this as the spell gaining an effect which states that, "Any living creature dealt damage by this spell also gains a negative level." This effect persists for the full duration of the spell, and it applies to any damage directly dealt to a creature by the spell. A creature cannot gain multiple negative levels in a single round from a given Fell Drain spell, but that is a clarification later added and has to do with the rules on volley damage.

Say you cast a Fell Drain Fire Shield, Creature A hits you once and Creature B hits you twice, and each of them gains one negative level. The following round, Creature A and Creature C both attack you and both gain one negative level. In both rounds, that spell deals a negative level with its damage, but a given creature can only gain a single negative level per round from the same spell.

[Darth Stabber]

Sorry to interrupt, but:

Nope.
Players should learn to consider the sentences in their context and consider fluff and balance when interpreting the rules, instead of reading a game manual as if it was a list of definitions and axioms with a lot of useless stuff about the fantasy setting placed there just to be annoying.

1) we are discussing RAW, such sentiment is only so many pretty words that contribute nothing.
2) every one already does exactly what you are saying to various extents. That however is in response to known poor wording and balance.
3) The rules are the rules, and there is a reasonable expectation that they explain how they are supposed to work. The rules ARE a list of definitions and axioms that describe the mechanical underpinnings of simulating a fantasy setting.
4) fluff isn't relevant to this discussion, it has almost no impact on this discussion.
5) This is the internet, if we can't have a heated discussion of rules lawyering hear, where can we. That's what this board is partially for. We are nerds we enjoy arguing esoteric semantic points for their own sake, if it involves one our hobbies the fun is doubled.

[Pigkappa]

1) we are discussing RAW, such sentiment is only so many pretty words that contribute nothing.

[and the rest]

And you are certainly free to do so.

I just meant that the sentence "WotC should really pay more attention to their wording.", which subtly means "the game should be even more rules-heavy" (because that's the price of better clarity, when you have so many rules), is false.

Of course anyone can discuss RAW as long as he can do that without feeling empty inside; what I was trying to say is that a role-playing game shouldn't be turned into a strategical puzzle just because of people who should apply their skills (if any) to mathematics...

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trolling.

[Master Thrower]

And you are certainly free to do so.

I just meant that the sentence "WotC should really pay more attention to their wording.", which subtly means "the game should be even more rules-heavy" (because that's the price of better clarity, when you have so many rules), is false.

Of course anyone can discuss RAW as long as he can do that without feeling empty inside; what I was trying to say is that a role-playing game shouldn't be turned into a strategical puzzle just because of people who should apply their skills (if any) to mathematics...

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trolling.

The whole point of RAW is that they aren't about how I think the rules should be this. If you want to change rules by all means feel free to do so, but RAW is very important to many people who try and "play the game as wizards designed it"

and role-playing games still need rules, otherwise its just an open-ended imagination fest of everybody creating their own ideas and stating what they do which doesn't even remotely resemble a game, but is more of a story.

[nyjastul69]

The OP never asked for a RAW answer, he asked for opinions.

My opinion is that FD applies only once per spell/target. It wouldn't do continuing damage with Acid Arrow for example. It seems clear to me. There are others that disagree.

We've established a lack of clarity in the description of this feat. Let's not loose focus on the question: what do you do?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I think it adds a negative level to every instance of damage the affected spell deals, there's no built-in limit. Due to the general rules/intent on volley spells, it won't inflict more than one negative level on a given opponent in a single round, but that's one per round, not one per spell.

[SirFredgar]

I think it adds a negative level to every instance of damage the affected spell deals, there's no built-in limit. Due to the general rules/intent on volley spells, it won't inflict more than one negative level on a given opponent in a single round, but that's one per round, not one per spell.

+1 I don't think you said anything in that post I can disagree with, or put better.

[Tokiko Mima]

I would allow it to hit opponents damaged in multiple rounds with a new negative level, but would only allow the first negative level to count because after that you run into same source stacking issues.

[Darth Stabber]

I would allow it to hit opponents damaged in multiple rounds with a new negative level, but would only allow the first negative level to count because after that you run into same source stacking issues.

negative levels have no issue stacking in any way, it's not a penalty.

[SirFredgar]

I would allow it to hit opponents damaged in multiple rounds with a new negative level, but would only allow the first negative level to count because after that you run into same source stacking issues.

Negative Levels always stack.

Edit: Swordsaged

[olentu]

The two cases I currently find reasonable are either every instance of damage (even in the same round) gives a negative level or only one negative level per spell ever.

[Darth_Versity]

I think it adds a negative level to every instance of damage the affected spell deals, there's no built-in limit. Due to the general rules/intent on volley spells, it won't inflict more than one negative level on a given opponent in a single round, but that's one per round, not one per spell.

Well I think you have all changed my mind. At first I wasn't sure on the RAW, but was pretty sure it would only be once per spell per target, but now I've changed my mind. This now makes Power Word Pain a really deadly low level spell. With Practical Metamagic you can cast it as a 2nd level spell with only SR to stop it, which is pretty rare at low levels.

Am I right in thinking that anyone killed by negative levels gets up the next day as a Wight? If so, this is now the Dread Necromancers best friend.

[Darth Stabber]

Well I think you have all changed my mind. At first I wasn't sure on the RAW, but was pretty sure it would only be once per spell per target, but now I've changed my mind. This now makes Power Word Pain a really deadly low level spell. With Practical Metamagic you can cast it as a 2nd level spell with only SR to stop it, which is pretty rare at low levels.

Am I right in thinking that anyone killed by negative levels gets up the next day as a Wight? If so, this is now the Dread Necromancers best friend.

Wight's formed in this way are not under your control in any way. They can still be rebuke/controlled, but it's not an automatic minion spawning manuever. It does mean that areas you've fought before will now be under seige of the wightpocalypse.

[Alienist]

Yet another use for a bag of holding. Also, probably a good idea to be flying when you empty it.

[Madara]

Yeah, this plus Kelegore's Grave mist= win.

Draining Necromancers are just as good as their minionmancer cousins, and the party likes them more.

[Chronos]

This now makes Power Word Pain a really deadly low level spell.Power Word: Pain has always been a really deadly low level spell. So deadly, in fact, that there almost has to have been a typo in it somewhere.

[Darth Stabber]

Yeah, this plus Kelegore's Grave mist= win.

Draining Necromancers are just as good as their minionmancer cousins, and the party likes them more.

1) gotta love the mist, and yet some how I have had casters with both fell drain and this spell and I never thought to put them together.

2) nothing keeps a specialist necromancer/dread necromancer from doing both, infact I've never seen a minionmancer not also take advantage of the drains as well. And despite the long turns a minionmancer tends to take, I appreciate the battlefield control they tend to generate and the number of things that aren't me taking hits.