Multiple Fell Drain augmented casts stack?

[Kafana]

I'm not talking about damage over time spells here, as I think that would be a bit too much. However, if I cast two scorching rays augmented by fell drain and I hit both times will I be able to reduce the creature by two levels? If not, what about if I cast scorching ray and then Kelgor's Grave Mist? It's a different spell, even a different energy type.

I've read several topics about this and nowhere did I see a consensus being formed.

That being said, cast your vote:


Fell Drain can only affect the creature once, no matter the circumstances.
Fell Drain can only affect the creature once per spell that deals damage (this excludes DoTs)
Fell Drain can only affect the creature once per different spell that deals damage (forces the PC to cast different (usually non-optimal) spells)
Fell Drain can only affect the creature once per different damage type dealt with spell (limits specialized sorcerers, especially if the target is resistant to one or more damage types)

[Thanatosia]

#2 is the only reading that makes any sort of sense to me. I see nothing in the RAW or RAI to support an interpretation of #3 or 4. #1 has a little more legitimacy wriggle room, but I don't really see that being the intent or the literal worded mechanics either.

#2 I also would not exclude dots entirely if that's what you're suggesting. Fell Drain affects a spell that deals damage, the number of times it deals damage or the amount of damage dealt is immaterial, so it doesn't matter if you hit the target with a fireball or pelt it with 5 magic missiles or deal 1 damage a round for 300 rounds, as soon as the spell deals any damage, it triggers fell drain on the damaged target, and that's all the effect fell drain has on that target for that casting.

There is another form of wriggle room where I'd argue that the spell has to deal damage itself. This can get kind of hazy. For example, it's clear a fireball should trigger it. It's also reasonably clear that if you summon a sword with a spell, damaging something with that sword would not trigger it - the sword was summoned by the spell, but is not the spell itself. The real grey area is in the Ball Conjurations that don't allow spell resistance, as you could argue they are summoning something that is dealing damage, but not dealing damage itself. Another grey area could be a spell that causes an affliction that deals damage - is the affliction part of the spell itself or something simply created by the spell? What about spells like heat armor?

[Karnith]

A single instance of a Fell Drain'd spell will only ever give a particular creature a single negative level. There is nothing in the text of Fell Drain suggesting that multiple instances won't stack, however, so multiple castings will give additional negative levels (in much the same way that casting a damage-dealing spell multiple times will deal damage to a creature multiple times).

[TiaC]

#2, although I remain open to once per damage packet.

I recommend Kaupaer's Quickblast for this. It has the wonderful line "Casting Time: 1 free action"

[Darrin]

I thought that's what Twin Spell and Repeat Spell was for?

[Thiyr]

Aww, you forgot the stupidly-broken, easily dismissed 5th option, and the far more reasonable 6th option which I'd say would be how it actually works.

5. Fell Drain can affect the creature multiple times, each time the spell hits.

That would mean, say, treating each missile from a magic missile as a separate source of damage, each giving a negative level. This is shaky at best, as it says "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level". I recommend against #5, but include it for completeness sake.

You could also argue for

6. Fell Drain can affect the creature multiple times from a single spell, but only once per spell per round.

This could be held back by the same ruling as the previous, but due to the addition of a second round in there, you have a better argument for it being a different instance of taking damage and thus gaining a negative level. Meaning if you used Kelgore's Grave Mist and the person decided that it was comfy and laid down for a nap, they'd get a negative level each round, rather than only once up front.

Personally, I opt for #6 (which I just noticed now you kinda referenced parenthetically in #2, but hey, I'll leave it here), though I can see the arguments for 5 and 2. But 5 is stupidly easy to go overboard with (twin repeat quicken fell drain magic missile anyone?), so I nix that one in the name of sanity, but I still like the idea of DoT spells being able to use Fell Drain.

[Thanatosia]

I honestly see no valid justification for #5 or #6 in the way the feat is writtain.

You can alter a spell that deals damage to foes so that
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative
level.
YOu can just as easily claim that a fireball that does 12 damage should do 12 negative levels as justify a multiround or multistrike spell doing multiple negative levels. The feat clearly states A (singular) negative level to any creature that is dealt damage by the spell - there is no allowance for variance based on the amount of damage done, the frequency or the number of times damage is dealt, or the time frame in which the damage is dealt - there is not even the slightest hint that the feat is supposed to scale with any of those factors - trying to alter the feat's functionality based on any of those parameters is adding clauses to the feat's functionality out of nothingness, there is nothing there to support it. All that matters is that a spell was cast, and it dealt damage in some form, at which point it grants exactly one negative level (per living creature damaged), there is no plural syntax for the negative levels to imply it would ever grant multiple under any conditions.

[Thiyr]

Except, to use an example, each missile of MM does damage separately. Each ray of Scorching Ray does damage separately. Same reason they put in text to Warmage's Edge that the bonus damage only applies once to a given spell.The comparison I'd make is sneak attack on multiple attacks. Just as
any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level. for fell drain, we have
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. with sneak attack

Your fireball example, for instance, would NOT be arguable, as it is a single hit. that'd be like saying DR 1/- would immediately nullify any mundane hit. That's obvious. But that DR would reduce from multiple attacks, as each are individual instances, even if they are the result of the same action, on the same turn, unless otherwise specified. The same principle applies here. If you shot a psicrystal with a magic missile, you would do precisely 0 damage, as each missile would be reduced by the hardness. You could fire thousands of missiles and do nothing, because the damage isn't a total, it is per missile. Each one is its own separate entity, even if it comes from the same source. Thus, if each deals damage separately, then each has the rider added on "If damage is dealt, Then negative level." thus meaning 5 missiles = five negative levels, spread however you choose. Same reason getting hit multiple times from something like Kelgore's Grave Mist, Thunderhead, or Sphere of Fire will drop multiple negative levels

Again, however, I must specify that I do not endorse playing in a game and trying to play Captain Magic Missile, Level Drainer. That's excessive by most people's standards, my own included. But its a viable reading of things.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The RAW is ambiguous, but this thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11109.0) thoroughly covers each possibility.

The general consensus is that a given spell cast with fell drain applied cannot inflict more than one negative level on a given creature in a given round, but that it otherwise always inflicts a negative level whenever it deals damage.

A Scorching Ray or Magic Missile that targets the same creature more than once will only inflict a single negative level on that creature. That same spell that targets multiple different creatures inflicts a negative level on each target.

A Kelgore's Grave Mist will inflict a negative level on every creature damaged by it each round that they're damaged by it. The same goes for Acid Arrow, Power Word: Pain, Creeping Cold, Cloud of Knives, Fire Shield, Flame Blade, Produce Flame, and any other spell capable of dealing damage multiple times over multiple rounds.

Basically, RAW says that any creature damaged by the spell also receives a negative level. There is no built-in limitation on this, if damage is dealt by the spell then there's a negative level attached to it. A spell that would normally deal X damage instead deals X damage and one negative level. If a spell normally deals X damage each round, it deals X damage and one negative level each round instead. If a spell normally deals X damage to each target, it deals X damage and one negative level to each target instead.

[Kafana]

Doesn't that make it too powerful? If you put three Kelgor's Grave Mists in a corridor and have a tank hold the line, the creatures would be getting 3 negative levels per round.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Doesn't that make it too powerful? If you put three Kelgor's Grave Mists in a corridor and have a tank hold the line, the creatures would be getting 3 negative levels per round.

Or they just back up and now your party is stuck walking through the mists and gaining three negative levels to engage them.

[Kafana]

Or they just back up and now your party is stuck walking through the mists and gaining three negative levels to engage them.

That's a weak argument, as the PCs could follow suite, and back up to wait a few rounds. The NPCs will still be at least three levels lower than they started. The question you need to be asking is "how does this compare to empower?". If it deals a negative level every round, I find it far more powerful.

[Karnith]

That's a weak argument, as the PCs could follow suite, and back up to wait a few rounds. The NPCs will still be at least three levels lower than they started. The question you need to be asking is "how does this compare to empower?". If it deals a negative level every round, I find it far more powerful.
It took 3 4th-level spell slots to deal those negative levels, though. That's a pretty big resource expenditure (in terms of spell slots and actions) for that effect, particularly when it's not that hard to avoid and fairly situational.

[Chronos]

I don't see the logic behind it inflicting only one negative level per round, but another one the next round. If two Magic Missiles hitting at once don't trigger it twice, why would a damage-over-time spell trigger it twice?

Near as I can tell, you get one negative level per casting, and casting multiple spells (even different instances of the same one) will give multiple.

[Thanatosia]

Except, to use an example, each missile of MM does damage separately.
Your fireball example, for instance, would NOT be arguable, as it is a single hit.
You're drawing an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in the Feat discription. It does not say 'grants a negative level every time the spell does damage', it says it grants a negative level 'if the spell deals damage'. Saying you get a proc for every point of damage you dealt is just as justified (that is, not at all) as saying you get a proc for every time you deal damage - there is no language in the feat to justify either one.

Again, it does not matter how many times you deal damage with the spell, because the feat doesn't say it does 'each time you deal damage', it only has a (singular) effect on a given (living) creature if it deals any damage at any point. It makes no distiction or allowances for varying this effect if it deals 1 damage or if it deals 100 damage, nor does it give any slightest hint or suggestion that it should change it's effect if it deals damage once or if it deals damage 100 different times. Saying that it has a different effect if it deals damage multiple times vs one time is simply adding something to the feat's discription that is completely not there, either implicitly or even vaguely suggested. There is no hint in the language or syntax used to suggest that dealing damage multiple times or over multiple rounds will have any different effect then dealing damage once up-front, all that matters is that it does damage.

[gomipile]

Say that there are two level 3 wizards in an adventuring party together, Wizard A and Wizard B. Both have Sudden Maximize Fell Drain Magic Missile prepared. They are facing two enemies, Mook 1 and Mook 2.

Wizards A and B fire their Sudden Maximize Fell Drain Magic Missiles at the Mooks.

I would say that the interpretation that makes the most sense is the one in which the same total number of negative levels and damage are doled out no matter how Wizards A and B split up their missiles. That is, each missile carries with it an individual negative level.

[Thanatosia]

Say that there are two level 3 wizards in an adventuring party together, Wizard A and Wizard B. Both have Sudden Maximize Fell Drain Magic Missile prepared. They are facing two enemies, Mook 1 and Mook 2.

Wizards A and B fire their Sudden Maximize Fell Drain Magic Missiles at the Mooks.

I would say that the interpretation that makes the most sense is the one in which the same total number of negative levels and damage are doled out no matter how Wizards A and B split up their missiles. That is, each missile carries with it an individual negative level.
Only if you ignore what is written and insert your own 'each time it deals damage' clause to fel drain just because you want it to work that way. If your DM is ok with it, and he thinks it makes sense to work that way, more power to you, but it's diffinately not RAW, and probably not RAI.

By RAW, the most you could do is -2 levels (one from Wizard A and one from Wizard B) to both Mook 1 and Mook 2 (So 4 negative levels total added up between both Mooks, 2 negative levels to each one).

Ignoring the RAW debate and just looking at it on the balance level, I'd say that interpretation is pretty freak'n OP as well. Enervation is a lv4 spell that requires a ranged touch attack to do 1d4 negative levels and no damage to a single target. Fel-Drain Magic Missile under your interpretation is a lv3 spell slot that does not require a ranged touch attack roll to do 5 negative levels and 5d4+5 force damage that can be divided as you wish between up to 5 targets.

A 10th level wizard with Arcane Thesis:Magic Missile, Quicken spell, and Fel-Drain could use a 2nd level spellslot and a 5th level spell slot to inflict 10 negative levels in one round, instantly gibbing any equal level opponent with no save or hit roll needed, even a 15th level opponent will be little challenge to such a Wizard as one round would see it eat 10 negative levels severely handicapping it, and another 2nd level spellslot next round will instagib it as well.

[Thiyr]

You're drawing an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in the Feat discription. It does not say 'grants a negative level every time the spell does damage', it says it grants a negative level 'if the spell deals damage'. Saying you get a proc for every point of damage you dealt is just as justified (that is, not at all) as saying you get a proc for every time you deal damage - there is no language in the feat to justify either one.

Again, it does not matter how many times you deal damage with the spell, because the feat doesn't say it does 'each time you deal damage', it only has a (singular) effect on a given (living) creature if it deals any damage at any point. It makes no distiction or allowances for varying this effect if it deals 1 damage or if it deals 100 damage, nor does it give any slightest hint or suggestion that it should change it's effect if it deals damage once or if it deals damage 100 different times. Saying that it has a different effect if it deals damage multiple times vs one time is simply adding something to the feat's discription that is completely not there, either implicitly or even vaguely suggested. There is no hint in the language or syntax used to suggest that dealing damage multiple times or over multiple rounds will have any different effect then dealing damage once up-front, all that matters is that it does damage.

Except that the plurality isn't needed. You don't need to add anything. You are giving a single negative level when the spell deals damage. That's not in question at all.

If it helps, think of it like an If/Then statement. If damage is dealt to a living creature, then add one negative level. This is synonymous with "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level." The only way to NOT get to the conclusion of multiple negative levels at that point is to ignore the part where magic missile and its ilk don't deal damage once. It isn't a distinction present in the feat, its a distinction present in the spell it is applied to, as well as a fundamental function of the game. To ignore that would be to say that a rogue 20 that hits 6 times would only deal 10d6 sneak attack damage (which is incorrect, as they get that bonus damage each time they hit. Note that the same kind of wording is used for both SA and FD), that the archer making 10 attack rolls for 15 damage each would still do 135 damage to a balor (which is incorrect, as the DR applies to each arrow, not the full attack as a whole), and that you could ever damage a psicrystal with magic missile (which is incorrect, as the hardness applies to each missile). Each missile is a separate instance of damage being dealt, so each one would activate the if statement, leading to negative levels going up by one. It doesn't need to give that clarification because that's -how things work-. It is the default unless it is spelled out otherwise (such as the sneak attack rules presented in the rules compendium, regarding multishot or scorching ray). I agree that it is excessive and should not see play (as I've said each prior post), but then again, so are plenty of other things (I'm looking at you, drown healing and candles of invocation), so I agree with the consensus put out by Biffoniacus above.

Let me repeat that separate from the above paragraph. I do not thing giving multiple negative levels to a single creature from a single fell drained spell on a single round should ever see play. That path leads to madness and a wightocalypse. But it is one RAW reading of the feat.

[Thanatosia]

If it helps, think of it like an If/Then statement. If damage is dealt to a living creature, then add one negative level. This is synonymous with "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level." The only way to NOT get to the conclusion of multiple negative levels at that point is to ignore the part where magic missile and its ilk don't deal damage once. It isn't a distinction present in the feat, its a distinction present in the spell it is applied to, as well as a fundamental function of the game. To ignore that would be to say that a rogue 20 that hits 6 times would only deal 10d6 sneak attack damage (which is incorrect, as they get that bonus damage each time they hit. Note that the same kind of wording is used for both SA and FD), that the archer making 10 attack rolls for 15 damage each would still do 135 damage to a balor (which is incorrect, as the DR applies to each arrow, not the full attack as a whole), and that you could ever damage a psicrystal with magic missile (which is incorrect, as the hardness applies to each missile). Each missile is a separate instance of damage being dealt, so each one would activate the if statement, leading to negative levels going up by one. It doesn't need to give that clarification because that's -how things work-. It is the default unless it is spelled out otherwise (such as the sneak attack rules presented in the rules compendium, regarding multishot or scorching ray). I agree that it is excessive and should not see play (as I've said each prior post), but then again, so are plenty of other things (I'm looking at you, drown healing and candles of invocation), so I agree with the consensus put out by Biffoniacus above.
THe problem is you are treating the damage as the source of the Fel Drain Negative Level. It's not. The Spell is what causes Fell Drain. You are correct that it is a simple Boolean statement 'did this spell deal damage to that living creature', if yes, then it gains one negative level for that spell, if no, then it does not. The Fel Drain negative level is NOT attached to the damage, the damage is just a requirement for the spell to qualify to deliver the fel drain.

The comparison with Sneak Attack IS applicable. Sneak attack triggers on every attack, not every time you deal damage. If you sneak attack with a flaming Dagger, you don't get to add sneak attack for the dagger damage and sneak attack again for the flame damage, because Sneak attack is not attached to the damage, it's attacked to the attack. If you had a dagger that causes the target to bleed for 1d6 damage every round for 4 rounds, you don't get to add sneak attack every time the bleed triggers, because damage is not the trigger for sneak attack, the attack itself is.

You CAN get multiple fel drains in a round, but just like you have to use multiple attacks to trigger multiple sneak attacks, you have to use multiple spell casts (most likely using Quickened spell, but there are other methods, such as Contingencies), just having the spell deal damage in seperate packages does not make it multiple spells, it's still the same spell, and it's the spell, not the damage that is delivering the fell drain, the damage is just a requirement to cause the spell to qualify.

[TypoNinja]

Fell drain only triggers once off a magic missile casting, because a magic missile spell only deals damage once. Its a single instantaneous effect, regardless of the number of missiles generated.

You can spread out your missiles to give everything you tag a negative level (my favorite for mook sweeping), but if you send all the missiles at one target the spell only damages the target once.

Even something like Scorching Ray, that requires multiple attack rolls is still a single instantaneous effect.

Something like Kelgore's Grave Mist has a duration and will damage any target in it each round, so each round your spell is producing a new damage source.

[Deophaun]

Fell drain only triggers once off a magic missile casting, because a magic missile spell only deals damage once. Its a single instantaneous effect, regardless of the number of missiles generated.

You can spread out your missiles to give everything you tag a negative level (my favorite for mook sweeping), but if you send all the missiles at one target the spell only damages the target once.

Even something like Scorching Ray, that requires multiple attack rolls is still a single instantaneous effect.
So, does it not deal multiple Fell Drains because it only deals damage once, or does it not deal multiple Fell Drains because it is a single instantaneous effect? Your scorching ray example proves that the two are not synonymous. (For why, consider what happens when multiple rays from scorching ray hit a target with fire resistance.)

[Jormengand]

Given that the text says "Any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level," it seems obvious that a creature that is, at any point during the spell's duration, any number of times during the spell's duration, dealt damage, and that is also a living creature, takes one, single negative level from that spell. Further, if another fell drain spell deals any amount of damage to that creature, they will take another, single negative level.

The feat does not read "For each instance in which a living creature is dealt damage" or "Each time a living creature is dealt damage" or even "Each round in which a living creature takes damage." It says "Any living creature that is dealt damage."

Contrast the sneak attack. It affects "The rogue's attack." That's it. That means that each time something happens which can be considered "The rogue's attack," the sneak attack is applied separately.

There isn't really a debate here as far as RAW is concerned. Fell drain only affects each living creature once per spell.

[Chronos]

But it doesn't even matter if it's a new damage source. It's still the same spell. The question isn't "How many times was I damaged by this spell?". It isn't "Was I damaged by this spell this round?". It's "Was I damaged by this spell?".

[Segev]

There isn't really a debate here as far as RAW is concerned. Fell drain only affects each living creature once per spell.

Precisely this. On the plus side, it DOES affect each living creature that takes damage.

So if you can damage multiple creatures, you can deal a negative level to each of them.


The more interesting question, to me, that this thread raised is the one about what constitutes the spell doing damage? Does a Flaming Sphere count? (Probably.) Does a Summon Monster spell count? (Less clear)

I'd argue that any Conjuration (Calling) spell wouldn't count the damage dealt by the called creature; the spell's effect is to bring the creature, not the creature itself. (Sadly, this actually means that the same logic being applied to, say, the Orb spells, would argue that they cannot deliver the negative level. After all, the same logic that makes them immune to AMFs would apply. I almost said "the same logic that makes them SR: no," but that's not quite true - while the reasoning behind why that tag is applied is the same, technically the mechanics logic is simply that they're labeled as such.)

[Deophaun]

I'd argue that any Conjuration (Calling) spell wouldn't count the damage dealt by the called creature; the spell's effect is to bring the creature, not the creature itself.
The Effect line of Summon Monster I disagrees with you.

[Segev]

The Effect line of Summon Monster I disagrees with you.

Summon Monster I is a Conjuration(Summoning) spell, not Conjuration(Calling). For Calling, you're looking at Planar Binding or Gate.

[Deophaun]

Summon Monster I is a Conjuration(Summoning) spell, not Conjuration(Calling). For Calling, you're looking at Planar Binding or Gate.
You're right. I mis-read your post.

[Jormengand]

But then, what happens if you maximised-summon a monster which can cast spells/SLAs? Are they all maximised? What about weapon damage rolls? Hell, what about weapon attack rolls? Are they not "Variable, numeric effects of the spell?"

Surely, the monster is an effect of the spell, but the attacks made by the monster aren't - the same way that if you cast a maximised explosive spell and shove someone off a cliff, the falling damage isn't maximised. If you maximise SMIII, you can get 3 monsters II or 5 monsters I, but their attacks aren't maximised. Similarly, fell drain summoning spells are pointless unless you actually deal damage by summoning the creature.

[Segev]

But then, what happens if you maximised-summon a monster which can cast spells/SLAs? Are they all maximised? What about weapon damage rolls? Hell, what about weapon attack rolls? Are they not "Variable, numeric effects of the spell?"

Surely, the monster is an effect of the spell, but the attacks made by the monster aren't - the same way that if you cast a maximised explosive spell and shove someone off a cliff, the falling damage isn't maximised. If you maximise SMIII, you can get 3 monsters II or 5 monsters I, but their attacks aren't maximised. Similarly, fell drain summoning spells are pointless unless you actually deal damage by summoning the creature.

All good arguments. Which brings us back to: Do Orb spells (both/neither/one but not the other) deliver Fell Drain and other "spell must do damage" triggered effects and work in AMFs?

[Thanatosia]

But it doesn't even matter if it's a new damage source. It's still the same spell. The question isn't "How many times was I damaged by this spell?". It isn't "Was I damaged by this spell this round?". It's "Was I damaged by this spell?".
Exactly this!

All good arguments. Which brings us back to: Do Orb spells (both/neither/one but not the other) deliver Fell Drain and other "spell must do damage" triggered effects [/i]and[/i] work in AMFs?
I'm much less certain on this one then I am about Multi-strike/dots not triggering multiple fel drains, but my interpretation is that no, they would not trigger Fel Drain, and yes they will hit a target in an AMF. My basis for the decision is that they do not allow spell resistance due to the fact that the spell creates the orb projectile, and that's it. The projectile is then a real, normal, non-magical object that is no longer considered a spell or part of a spell. So you can't cast an orb spell in an AMF, but an AMF wont stop your orb from hitting the target in an AMF because the magic was only used in summoning the orb, the orb itself is not magical, and similarly the spell that created the orb did no damage.... it just created the orb and imparted it with momentum in a direction, and whatever damage the orb does is not a direct part of the spell.

[Kafana]

But then, what happens if you maximised-summon a monster which can cast spells/SLAs? Are they all maximised? What about weapon damage rolls? Hell, what about weapon attack rolls? Are they not "Variable, numeric effects of the spell?"

This is actually a rather good question. Does an empowered summon monster deal 50% more damage and have 50% more health?

P.S. I realize I'm hijacking my own thread, but as far as fell drain is concerned you guys have really made great arguments. It is really fascinating how D&D can be a catalyst for so many, and I do mean so so many discussions of all types.

[Brookshw]

Shouldn't think so, the variable of the spell (when using higher versions for lower critter) is the number of them you get.

[TypoNinja]

So, does it not deal multiple Fell Drains because it only deals damage once, or does it not deal multiple Fell Drains because it is a single instantaneous effect? Your scorching ray example proves that the two are not synonymous. (For why, consider what happens when multiple rays from scorching ray hit a target with fire resistance.)

Fell drain triggers off the spell doing damage. An instantaneous effect is one damage source. One creature eating 5 magic missiles from one spell takes one negative level. He was damaged once by the spell.

5 creatures each getting 1 missile each take 1 negative level. Each was damaged by the spell, similarly to AoE. Everything hit by a fell drain fireball would take 1 negative level.

I was using scorching ray as an example that might cause confusion since it requires multiple attacks, some might consider it triggers more than once. It would not, just like magic missile its a single instantaneous effect.

Spells with a duration have the potential to trigger more often, because damage is caused by the spell more than once.

I think the confusion is generated because people associate the damage with the fell drain effect instead of the damage source. One instantaneous effect generates damage once, be it a magic missile, orb of force, scorching ray, or fireball.

[Deophaun]

I think the confusion is generated because people associate the damage with the fell drain effect instead of the damage source. One instantaneous effect generates damage once, be it a magic missile, orb of force, scorching ray, or fireball.
If scorching ray generated damage once, then three beams hitting the same person with fire resistance 5 would deal 12d6-5 damage, instead of (4d6-5)+(4d6-5)+(4d6-5).

[Thanatosia]

Fell drain triggers off the spell doing damage.
NO

Fell Drain does not trigger off the spell doing damage, it triggers off a spell that does damage. There is a difference. This is what is tripping people up, the damage is not the source of the Fel Drain, the spell is, the damage is just a qualifier that the spell must satisfy.

[ben-zayb]

If it helps, think of it like an If/Then statement. If damage is dealt to a living creature, then add one negative level. This is synonymous with "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level." The only way to NOT get to the conclusion of multiple negative levels at that point is to ignore the part where magic missile and its ilk don't deal damage once.If we treat as simply an If/Then statement, then you only get the negative level once, as the feat says. However, if you house rule the feat as an If/Then statement with Recursion/Loops (e.g. "For <duration of spell>, Do <If/Then statement>", "While <spell lasts>, Do <If/Then statement>", or "Do <If/Then statement>, while <spell lasts>", etc.) because it is in no way indicated in the feat, then feel free to deal multiple negative levels.

[TypoNinja]

If scorching ray generated damage once, then three beams hitting the same person with fire resistance 5 would deal 12d6-5 damage, instead of (4d6-5)+(4d6-5)+(4d6-5).


One instantaneous effect, one trigger of metamagic modifiers. You cast Scorching Ray once, it fell drains once. Scorching Ray's text even calls out all rays are fired in the same instant.

This will be true of any instantaneous effect, by definition. Its instantaneous. One Triggering Condition.

Melfs Acid Arrow on the other hand deals a second set of damage, a second distinct triggering condition for Fell Drain, after the first one.

[Thanatosia]

Melfs Acid Arrow on the other hand deals a second set of damage, a second distinct triggering condition for Fell Drain, after the first one.
Except the damage is not the triggering condition for fel drain, any more then a bleeding dagger is a triggering condition for continuous sneak attack damage. It's the spell that causes Fel Drain, not the damage, the damage is just a requirement the spell has to meet to qualify. It's still the same Melf's Acid Arrow cast, so you don't get more Fel Drains on a given target, even if it deals damage another time - the requirement to deal damage was met, so Fel Drain takes effect, and that's all, it does'nt matter if you deal damage again after that - you'll have to cast another spell to get another fel drain effect.

[One Step Two]

If scorching ray generated damage once, then three beams hitting the same person with fire resistance 5 would deal 12d6-5 damage, instead of (4d6-5)+(4d6-5)+(4d6-5).

In the case of the Resistance to Energy special ability, it actually is 12d6-5 according to the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy) The resist energy spell is much better, but magic often is.

As for Fell Drain itself... it's poorly defined. I'm of the mind that if I create a Wall of Fire or some other lingering damage spell augmented by Fell Drain, that it doesn't have some mystic way of only being able to apply a single negative level to each creature that takes damage from it. Taking damage from the spell incurs a negative level. But I also agree wholeheartedly that a Fell Drain Magic Missile doing 5 negative levels is insane for a third level spell slot, but that's what it actually does. The Feat says "Living foes damaged by your spell also take a negative level." and "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 don't have any material on hand that discusses damage per instance, or that a Magic Missile Spell targeting someone with all 5 missiles counts as a single source of damage. But RAW the spell does exactly that.

In honesty, Fell Drain should be a +4 Metamagic for what it does as written, as I have described above. If it had said "No creature can gain more than one negative level from each spell affected by this metamagic" then +2 would be just fine.

[Brookshw]

In the case of the Resistance to Energy special ability, it actually is 12d6-5 according to the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy) The resist energy spell is much better, but magic often is.

As for Fell Drain itself... it's poorly defined. I'm of the mind that if I create a Wall of Fire or some other lingering damage spell augmented by Fell Drain, that it doesn't have some mystic way of only being able to apply a single negative level to each creature that takes damage from it. Taking damage from the spell incurs a negative level. But I also agree wholeheartedly that a Fell Drain Magic Missile doing 5 negative levels is insane for a third level spell slot, but that's what it actually does. The Feat says "Living foes damaged by your spell also take a negative level." and "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 don't have any material on hand that discusses damage per instance, or that a Magic Missile Spell targeting someone with all 5 missiles counts as a single source of damage. But RAW the spell does exactly that.

In honesty, Fell Drain should be a +4 Metamagic for what it does as written, as I have described above. If it had said "No creature can gain more than one negative level from each spell affected by this metamagic" then +2 would be just fine.

its perfectly well defined and Thanatosia has consistently nailed it.

[One Step Two]

its perfectly well defined and Thanatosia has consistently nailed it.

This thread exists because the feat is poorly defined.

Edit: Just to be clear, in case it was missed, I agree that it should only be dealing only 1 negative level for a +2 metamagic, the rules need to be tightened up to better reflect this, because there wouldn't be a good dozen or so posts about this with a casual Google search regarding how this metamagic feat works. I also stated that if people demand that it deals a negative level every time it's worth is closer to a +4 .

[Brookshw]

This thread exists because the feat is poorly defined.

Edit: Just to be clear, in case it was missed, I agree that it should only be dealing only 1 negative level for a +2 metamagic, the rules need to be tightened up to better reflect this, because there wouldn't be a good dozen or so posts about this with a casual Google search regarding how this metamagic feat works. I also stated that if people demand that it deals a negative level every time it's worth is closer to a +4 .

This thread exists because people are unclear on the wording. The RAW is clear (possibly excluding orbs in amfs). The RAW is pretty straight forward honestly.

[Thanatosia]

its perfectly well defined and Thanatosia has consistently nailed it.
Thank you!

This thread exists because the feat is poorly defined.
It's perfectly well defined, but it's not as clear as it could be and reads in a matter counterintuitive to how people are generally used to thinking of things, which causes people to miss-associate the trigger of the feat as the damage rather then the spell itself, to which the damage is just a qualifier.

If it had said "No creature can gain more than one negative level from each spell affected by this metamagic" then +2 would be just fine.
It already does. It says any creature damaged by the spell gains a negative level. In normal English Syntax, 'a' means one, Singular, as in never two or more. You get one negative level per spell modified by the feat per living creature damaged. That's exactly what the feat discription says. If it COULD give more then one, it would say 'any creature damaged by this spell gains negative levels' or some other language that could possibly convey any possibility of giving more then one negative level per modified spell cast per creature, there is no plurality.

And again, it's a creature damaged by the spell, not 'every time a creature is damaged by the spell'. One spell = one Fel Drain per creature, the feat discription is actually clear and the only way to misinterpret it is to start adding arbitrary clauses about how the damage is dealt or the time frame when the damage is dealt, when the only clause that actually exists is 'did this spell deal any amount of damage in any number of sources or clusters or ways in any number of turns'. But as soon as you stop associating the feat with the spell itself and the damage it dealt, then it starts to make intuitive sense to proc the feat every time damage is dealt, even though the language does not in any way support this interpretation.

[georgie_leech]

If it helps, consider the Negative level to be an effect generated by the spell, and so subject to stacking rules. A Creature hit by a Slow spell and then a second Slow spell isn't super-duper-hyper Slowed, it's just Slowed, possibly with a longer duration if it was cast by the same caster and so refreshed the duration. In this case, you would treat each spell as it's own source, so two Fell Drain Fireballs would apply two distinct Negative Level effects, while Fell Drain Melf's Acid Arrow on the second round would attempt to apply the same Negative Level the creature already has, and so it would fail. Of course, this interpretation means that if a creature has, say, a Restoration spell cast to remove the Negative Level and they are damaged again, they would again get a Negative Level... Though I've seen this corner case come up exactly once, and that's precisely how I ruled it :smallbiggrin: