Fell Drain... Really that good?

[Shnigda]

Hey guys,
So my recent threads have all been relating to a wizard character I've been creating. You can have a look at my previous threads to find the build and whatnot. (Basically dragonborn grey elf Wizard 5/ Incantrix 2)
However, I am currently debating replacing my choice of Extend Spell with Fell Drain or some other Metamagic feat.
I had a look at fell drain and, while it seems good when combined with something like sonic snap or magic missile, surely there are better metamagic feats out there for the same cost? Or am I missing something huge about fell drain? (Perhaps there's a powerful combination of metamagics which uses it or a cheap, easy way of decreasing its cost? And yes, obviously Incantrix 3 is an easy way :P)

[A_S]

If you're just using on any random offensive spell, then it's probably no better than lots of other metamagic available. However, there are certain spells that work extremely well with Fell Drain, like those that hit many targets, or a single target lots of times. You mentioned Magic Missile; that's pretty good because delivering a single negative level to five different targets can be situationally strong. Cloud of Knives is often cited as the strongest option, since it lets you deliver one per round as a free action, which is excellent. Then there's the possibility of sharing your Fell Drain Cloud of Knives with your familiar, so that's 2/level as free actions. Then you can put Fell Frighten on them too for fear shenanigans...

Basically, if you just pick it up and apply it to the occasional spell, it's decent, but no better than lots of other metamagic. If you specialize in using spells that it works particularly well with, it can be a pretty strong trick.

Should be noted that, even if you're using it optimally, it's not amazingly strong on the scale of "impressive things Incantatrices can do with metamagic." But on the scale of "cool stuff that won't ruin the fun for most tables," it's not bad.

[Flickerdart]

Fell Drain is mostly good at low levels when 1 negative level will kill your enemy dead with no recourse.

[jiriku]

Ideally, you want to use Fell Drain on a spell that affects multiple targets repeatedly with no chance of missing or being negated. That spreads the negative levels around most liberally. Failing that, hitting a single target repeatedly is a good boss-killer. Consider Fell Drain on spells like power word pain, creeping cold, chain missile, kelgore's grave mist, freezing fog, or evard's black tentacles (as if that spell needed any help). Most of these spells will reliably tag multiple opponents with 2-3 negative levels before they can exit the effect, or will gradually pile up so many negative levels on a boss monster that all you really need to do is shut the door for a few rounds and wait it out. Using a metamagic reducer makes it possible to get into the negative level-spewing action even sooner. My biggest worry with a build that exploits this is that the DM might be tempted to shift to construct and undead opponents as an easy way to keep encounters challenging, thus invalidating all the resources you invested.

[Bad Wolf]

I think someone said its a good idea to put on Sonic Snap or Slash Tongue.

[A_S]

I think someone said its a good idea to put on Sonic Snap or Slash Tongue.
Yeah, it's good on level 0 spells that deal damage because of what Flickerdart said about how strong it is at level 1. If you can get one level of metamagic adjustment reduction (e.g., a Human Wizard 1 with Metamagic School Focus (evocation) and Fell Drain as their two feats), you can just instantly kill any level 1 enemy, no roll, no save, as a level 1 spell.

[Bad Wolf]

But won't they turn into wights or something?

[jiriku]

They will, but it takes a day. If you're worried about it, decapitate the corpse.

[Rubik]

They will, but it takes a day. If you're worried about it, decapitate the corpse.And burn it. And don't forget to mix the ashes with holy water. Of course, if you're a dwarf, feel free to "consecrate" the burnt corpse with dwarven holy water (ie, ale). Of course, it'd be a shame not to drink it, first.

[A_S]

Dig a hole that's ten by two
Ash and elm and rowan too...

[Venger]

I think someone said its a good idea to put on Sonic Snap or Slash Tongue.

not slash tongue, that's fortneg.


evard's black tentacles (as if that spell needed any help).
it comes bundled this way as "kyristan's malevolent tentacles." pretty cool spell for those without fell drain.


Most of these spells will reliably tag multiple opponents with 2-3 negative levels before they can exit the effect, or will gradually pile up so many negative levels on a boss monster that all you really need to do is shut the door for a few rounds and wait it out. Using a metamagic reducer makes it possible to get into the negative level-spewing action even sooner. My biggest worry with a build that exploits this is that the DM might be tempted to shift to construct and undead opponents as an easy way to keep encounters challenging, thus invalidating all the resources you invested.
that'd be a real jerk move for your DM to pull. I've had that happen before though, so it's worth considering.

like with all things, just ask him first "hey, are you adequately prepared for my guy to do (thing)? if not, that's cool, just let me know so I don't waste my time"

[Red Rubber Band]

Dig a hole that's ten by two
Ash and elm and rowan too...

Absolutely fantastic book.

[erok0809]

Dig a hole that's ten by two
Ash and elm and rowan too...

I want the next one to come out, great series.

On topic, I thought Fell Drain only gave one negative level per spell? Like if you use it on spells that damage over time, it only gave you a negative level on the first instance of damage? That's what I've seen in the past, because it says "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level." That can be read as a binary statement that only activates once, rather than activating every time damage is dealt.

[jiriku]

As with so many bits of text in this beloved game, the phrasing is ambiguous. You can interpret it that way. You can also interpret it differently by noting that some spells deal damage more than once and concluding that these spells therefore inflict a negative level more than once. It is easy to imagine cases where the former interpretation becomes very strained. For example, suppose you cast fell drain flame arrows on a set of 50 arrows and then distribute them to a team of archers who attack a group of foes. All of the arrows are imbued with negative energy, right? So why do some of them drain levels but others not? How do the arrows "know" not to drain a level when they strike someone who's already lost a level. Why, if such an arrow is reflected by magic at a different target, does it suddenly regain the ability to inflict a negative level? To me, the only satisfying answer is that each arrow possesses the ability to independently drain a level, and you could in fact give a foe 50 negative levels if you shot him with all 50 arrows (assuming some hypothetical foe that survive the first 49 arrows).

[erok0809]

Okay, that's fine. The next question I have then is what about a spell like magic missile or scorching ray, something that has a potential for multiple targets but might also target the same person multiple times? If magic missile has the potential to give out 5 negative levels if each of the 5 missiles is directed at a different target, does it give one person 5 negative levels if they're all aimed at the same target? You could argue that since each missile does 1d4+1 damage, it's not actually 5d4+5 but is instead 5 instances of 1d4+1, which would make it 5 negative levels, automatically, with no save. That seems a bit ridiculous. The same thing would go for scorching ray's multiple rays, and that one has an even stronger argument since you have separate attack rolls for each ray, making them separate attacks.

[Sith_Happens]

For example, suppose you cast fell drain flame arrows on a set of 50 arrows and then distribute them to a team of archers who attack a group of foes. All of the arrows are imbued with negative energy, right? So why do some of them drain levels but others not? How do the arrows "know" not to drain a level when they strike someone who's already lost a level. Why, if such an arrow is reflected by magic at a different target, does it suddenly regain the ability to inflict a negative level? To me, the only satisfying answer is that each arrow possesses the ability to independently drain a level, and you could in fact give a foe 50 negative levels if you shot him with all 50 arrows (assuming some hypothetical foe that survive the first 49 arrows).

That example is invalid. Flame Arrow doesn't deal damage, it makes the targeted arrows deal more damage. Therefore Fell Drain doesn't work with it.

[jiriku]

Perhaps something like stars of arvandor or cloud of knives then? The principle is merely that we have a number of identical, magically created damage sources that all theoretically have the potential to inflict a negative level on somebody.

[Saintheart]

Okay, that's fine. The next question I have then is what about a spell like magic missile or scorching ray, something that has a potential for multiple targets but might also target the same person multiple times? If magic missile has the potential to give out 5 negative levels if each of the 5 missiles is directed at a different target, does it give one person 5 negative levels if they're all aimed at the same target? You could argue that since each missile does 1d4+1 damage, it's not actually 5d4+5 but is instead 5 instances of 1d4+1, which would make it 5 negative levels, automatically, with no save. That seems a bit ridiculous. The same thing would go for scorching ray's multiple rays, and that one has an even stronger argument since you have separate attack rolls for each ray, making them separate attacks.

One effect per target per spell. A single cast of Magic Missile at max level gives you 5d4+5 damage distributed over five small packages. The thinking may well have been that the balance was that while you can distribute the damage over several targets, it's going to be less damage per target than if you focused fire on one. They just did not think of that when it came to incorporating Fell Drain into the system, or didn't think far enough.

Hell, if you want an example of this sort of use applied as a gamebreaker, try runes of Magic Missile, permanent, Fell Drained, conditioned to fire on being passed, on six grey ioun stones. This'll set you back about 12,000 gp or so and every time an opponent steps within 30 feet of you, it's hit with six Fell Drained Magic Missiles as a free action, because each rune of Magic Missile is a single spell with a separate Fell Drain effect attached.

[jiriku]

I see your concern, but that particular example is game-breaking chiefly because it's highly likely to murder random NPCs who stray too close. You don't always have enough warning to put your death-stones away before company comes over, and you only have to turn the duke's daughter into a wight once to become unwelcome in the kingdom.

In general, all of the Fell metamagics (and many of the basic metamagics as well) break the moment you put them on a permanent item. That's more the fault of permanent portable magic effects than the metamagic feats.

[Saintheart]

I see your concern, but that particular example is game-breaking chiefly because it's highly likely to murder random NPCs who stray too close. You don't always have enough warning to put your death-stones away before company comes over, and you only have to turn the duke's daughter into a wight once to become unwelcome in the kingdom.

In general, all of the Fell metamagics (and many of the basic metamagics as well) break the moment you put them on a permanent item. That's more the fault of permanent portable magic effects than the metamagic feats.

Agreed*





*though the NPC apocalypse can be averted, because a rune can be set to "almost any special conditions the runecaster specifies", which can include Contingent Spell shenanigans such as "anyone who is my enemy once initiative has been rolled." As you were saying about broken permanent mechanics... :smallbiggrin:

[ben-zayb]

My favorite use of Fell Frain is on Wu Jen spell Fire Shuriken, to stock up arbitarily large amounts of fell draining weapons. 'course it requires Searing Spell too for maximum efficiency.

[Chronos]

Another interesting point about Fell Drain is that there's almost no defense against it. It causes negative levels, but there's nothing in the feat that says that it does so via negative energy, or via energy drain, or via necromancy of any sort. There are many defenses against all of those things, but I haven't yet found anything, short of not being alive, that protects against negative levels that don't fit into any of those categories.

[Jormengand]

Atalia (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19308619&postcount=43) was built around Fell Drain - Spells such as Caltrops (0lvl, can affect multiple targets and possibly more than once each), Hail of Stone (1st, AoE), Thunderhead (1st, hits CL times though each can be avoided with a reflex save), Body of the Sun (2nd, you affect anyone you punch or grapple), Thunderlance (4th, you have a 20 ft reach and all your attacks can be fell drain) and eye of power (9th, you can now cast low-level spells from the other side of the continent) allow her to do nasty things with Fell Drain.

[Segev]

A dread necromancer with Fell Drain can make excellent use of his Rebuke Undead class feature. Any sor/wiz or DN able to cast 2nd level spells can substitute Command Undead, if needs be. Wight minions are quite useful.

[Rubik]

A dread necromancer with Fell Drain can make excellent use of his Rebuke Undead class feature. Any sor/wiz or DN able to cast 2nd level spells can substitute Command Undead, if needs be. Wight minions are quite useful.Not to mention that negative levels are buffs for undead. Fell Drain Mass Harm in a room full of undead underlings and living enemies? No real downsides, and it'll probably kill most of the opposing side.

[Jormengand]

Not to mention that negative levels are buffs for undead. Fell Drain Mass Harm in a room full of undead underlings and living enemies? No real downsides, and it'll probably kill most of the opposing side.

That doesn't work because the healing is a replacement effect. The undead never take any damage so they don't get the negative level.

[Miss Disaster]

So a Fell Drained Cloud of Knives spell .... if a given single enemy is hit 4 times with it .... it still only gets 1 negative level from this metamagicked spell, correct?

Making a Fell Drained Cloud of Knives spell more cost-effective against lots of enemies, not just one.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would also note that none of the other fell metamagics stack with themselves. Fell fear does not stack to panic. Fell weaken does not stack until the target has zero strength.

[Zaq]

So a Fell Drained Cloud of Knives spell .... if a given single enemy is hit 4 times with it .... it still only gets 1 negative level from this metamagicked spell, correct?

Making a Fell Drained Cloud of Knives spell more cost-effective against lots of enemies, not just one.

As has been said, it's ambiguous, so you pretty much have to ask your GM. The last time I messed around with the Fell X metamagics in an actual game, the GM ruled that they only triggered once per spell per target, and I honestly felt like that wasn't unfair (since they're pretty strong metamagics anyway, at least at the level range I was playing at). That said, you can see from some of the responses here that some people view the Fell X metamagics as triggering every time a given target takes damage from a Fell X spell. The rules don't strongly support one interpretation over the other, so it falls to the GM in question to make a ruling.

[Segev]

If you need an IC reason for it, think of it as a miasmic effect. Once you're afflicted, it's "on" you. It's a binary state: you're afflicted by that spell's Fell Drain, or you're not. The result of being so afflicted is to have a negative level.

[Miss Disaster]

If you need an IC reason for it, think of it as a miasmic effect. Once you're afflicted, it's "on" you. It's a binary state: you're afflicted by that spell's Fell Drain, or you're not. The result of being so afflicted is to have a negative level.
I like this ... it seems very much what was supposed to be RAI.

To note, you can also attach the Fell feats to ability-damaging spells (like Shadow Spray, Ray of Stupidity, etc.).

[Fouredged Sword]

If you apply the sane 1 application per spell reading, you are pretty safe from game breaking abilities unless someone spellsurges or otherwise does something that would break the game to begin with.

Remember though, turn about is all fair in love and war. A fell draining enemy is a great debuff to throw at the party. It's interesting and it fixes itself in 15 hours, so no permanent level drain. Pair a necromancer with an undead or two like ghouls, and you have a very interesting necromancy themed combat. That DC 12 save VS paralysis is much more dangerous with a few negative levels, and a fell drain magic missile can hit the whole party.

2 ghasts and a level 5 necromancer wizard makes a great encounter to weaken a level 7 party before the boss.

[Curmudgeon]

As I see it, Fell Drain applies a modifier (a negative level) to a damage roll.
Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. If the source is Fell Drain you get just one negative level, because the feat has no stated exception to the stacking rule.

[Starbuck_II]

Another interesting point about Fell Drain is that there's almost no defense against it. It causes negative levels, but there's nothing in the feat that says that it does so via negative energy, or via energy drain, or via necromancy of any sort. There are many defenses against all of those things, but I haven't yet found anything, short of not being alive, that protects against negative levels that don't fit into any of those categories.

What about Lumi's?

[Rubik]

What about Lumi's?What? Are you using "Lumi is," or is that a possessive? Because it doesn't make sense either way.

Here is a lumi for you.http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/3335000/3335382/lumi-hd-01-551x535.jpg

[Necroticplague]

I'm pretty sure that 'lumi' is both the singular and the plural for that race. We're both referring to the PEP natives with no necks, right?

[Venger]

What about Lumi's?

Nope. They have a bunch of immunities, but none protect against negative levels:


It is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects

as chronos said, it's not a spell, death effect, negative energy, or energy drain, so there's no reason they'd be immune to it.


I'm pretty sure that 'lumi' is both the singular and the plural for that race. We're both referring to the PEP natives with no necks, right?

Lumi is the singular and plural, like moose. Yeah, that's what we're talking about, not the winged balls of light from rayman2

[jiriku]

As I see it, Fell Drain applies a modifier (a negative level) to a damage roll. If the source is Fell Drain you get just one negative level, because the feat has no stated exception to the stacking rule.

I'm not going to take it as my mission to convert everyone in the "once only" camp... but this strikes me as a particularly tortured explanation. A negative level is not a penalty in the same sense that, say, the Strength penalty from Fell Weaken is a penalty. A negative level is damage, more like hit point damage or ability damage. Complete Arcane describes a weaponlike spell as one that deals damage, "whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain." Penalties are affected by stacking limitations, but damage is not. You might be able to defend a "once only" interpretation of Fell Drain -- but you can't defend it with the stacking rule.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not going to take it as my mission to convert everyone in the "once only" camp... but this strikes me as a particularly tortured explanation. A negative level is not a penalty in the same sense that, say, the Strength penalty from Fell Weaken is a penalty. A negative level is damage, more like hit point damage or ability damage.

negative level

A loss of vital energy resulting from energy drain, spells, magic items, or magical effects. A successful energy drain attack bestows one or more negative levels on the opponent. A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained.

-1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
-1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
-5 hit points.
-1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
There's no mention of "damage" there (see the full definition at the Glossary link (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N)). There is quite a bit of penalty language in that description. I don't see any problem applying the stacking limits to these penalties from Fell Drain.

[Petrocorus]

In TO, there's also the Locate City Fell Wight Apocalypse. I wonder if anyone has ever used it with a BBEG?

[Venger]

In TO, there's also the Locate City Fell Wight Apocalypse. I wonder if anyone has ever used it with a BBEG?

that'd be a fun backdrop to a hacknslash game:

"someone accidentally the wightocalypse. fix it"

[jiriku]

Complete Arcane describes negative levels as a damage type that is multiplied on a critical. By contrast, it notes that spells that inflict penalties can't score critical hits (85-86).

Rules Compendium recognizes damage, negative levels, conditions, and penalties as four separate categories. "Regular" damage and negative levels are treated approximately identically, while conditions and penalties receive different treatment (132, 136). Rules Compendium repeatedly lumps negative levels together with damage when describing how to adjudicate spell effects. It never groups negative levels and penalties together.

As supporting evidence, I'd also point out that negative levels can kill you if they accumulate and characters have a natural method of recovering from them over time. Penalties and conditions generally don't accumulate and with the exception of fatigue/exhaustion, characters don't recover from them with rest. This isn't enough to be a basis for a ruling, but conceptually it supports the idea that the rules treat negative levels more like hit point damage or ability damage than like a penalty or a condition.

I see the case you're making Curmudgeon. It just seems like a terribly weak case to me. If the designers saw negative levels like a penalty, why do the rules always recommend treating them like damage and never recommend treating them like a penalty? To me it makes more sense to treat negative levels like damage whenever a questionable situation arises.

[Miss Disaster]

An effective way to buildcraft a Fell Drain-themed spellcaster would be to have a mid-level Sorceror with a cost-reduction method of bringing her Fell Drain cost down to +1. This way she could use her plethora of low-level, no-save attack spell slots to spam out a *LOT* of these spell types in order to best maximize the *1* negative level granted per spell. Thereby getting some serious debuff stacking action happening. Then she could use her middle to higher level spells for other things.

[Segev]

Complete Arcane describes negative levels as a damage type that is multiplied on a critical. By contrast, it notes that spells that inflict penalties can't score critical hits (85-86).

Rules Compendium recognizes damage, negative levels, conditions, and penalties as four separate categories. "Regular" damage and negative levels are treated approximately identically, while conditions and penalties receive different treatment (132, 136). Rules Compendium repeatedly lumps negative levels together with damage when describing how to adjudicate spell effects. It never groups negative levels and penalties together.

As supporting evidence, I'd also point out that negative levels can kill you if they accumulate and characters have a natural method of recovering from them over time. Penalties and conditions generally don't accumulate and with the exception of fatigue/exhaustion, characters don't recover from them with rest. This isn't enough to be a basis for a ruling, but conceptually it supports the idea that the rules treat negative levels more like hit point damage or ability damage than like a penalty or a condition.

I see the case you're making Curmudgeon. It just seems like a terribly weak case to me. If the designers saw negative levels like a penalty, why do the rules always recommend treating them like damage and never recommend treating them like a penalty? To me it makes more sense to treat negative levels like damage whenever a questionable situation arises.

It never quite comes out and states it, though you have a good implicit case. The trouble is, specific trumps general, and the Fell Drain feat does specifically state that its own negative level from the same spell cannot stack with itself.

Think of it, perhaps, as less "damage" and more "inverse temporary hit points."

[ben-zayb]

Is there even an official parameter of the term "source"? Because you could make a case that, say in Faerun, Mystra is the source of all magic.

The sane reading IMO would be 1 negative level per spell, simply checked with a simple "if the creature took at least one point of damage, then it gains a negative level" with no loops/iterations. That way, you actually have to spend resources to deal more negative levels.

[DarkSonic1337]

There's no mention of "damage" there (see the full definition at the Glossary link (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N)). There is quite a bit of penalty language in that description. I don't see any problem applying the stacking limits to these penalties from Fell Drain.

Wouldn't such an interpretation (multiple instances of fell drain, even on different spells don't stack as the source is named "Fell Drain") also conclude that multiple castings of enervation wouldn't stack?

[Anlashok]

The trouble is, specific trumps general, and the Fell Drain feat does specifically state that its own negative level from the same spell cannot stack with itself.

Er... where? I'm looking at my copy of LM right now and I can't see any text that says that.

[atemu1234]

Nope. They have a bunch of immunities, but none protect against negative levels:



as chronos said, it's not a spell, death effect, negative energy, or energy drain, so there's no reason they'd be immune to it.



Lumi is the singular and plural, like moose. Yeah, that's what we're talking about, not the winged balls of light from rayman2

Pronunciation is Lu-me and Lu-mie, unless I am mistaken.

[Curmudgeon]

Er... where? I'm looking at my copy of LM right now and I can't see any text that says that.
Emphasis on the singular article: "a negative level", "the negative level". No plurals.

[Segev]

Er... where? I'm looking at my copy of LM right now and I can't see any text that says that.


Emphasis on the singular article: "a negative level", "the negative level". No plurals.

I thought I recalled something more specific than that. I will have to try to remember to look it up when I get access to my book.

[Starbuck_II]

Wouldn't such an interpretation (multiple instances of fell drain, even on different spells don't stack as the source is named "Fell Drain") also conclude that multiple castings of enervation wouldn't stack?

No because Fell Drain says it can't.
"The Fell Drain feat does specifically state that its own negative level from the same spell cannot stack with itself."

While Evervation or Energy Drain spell deals out true negative levels.

[Miss Disaster]

Yeah, Fell Drain has a reputation among many people as being a top-tier offensive metamagic feat. Once they realize the true RAW and scope of limitations of the feat, they'll see it's really more of just a "good" debuffing feat than a "killer" feat.

[Bonzai]

Next level my Necromancer/Pale Master will be slinging Fell Drain for free on all Necromancy spells (metamagic school specialization + Slay Mate).

I'm looking forward to breathing new life into spells with it. Something crappy like Chill touch becomes enervation light. Latter on I can get really interesting by combining it with Black Lore of Moil to add a damage component to spells that don't normaly deal damage, which can then trigger fell drain. Fell drain black blood of Moil Avasculate anyone? Halve their hp, then have them lose 5hp and a hd, then take 1d6 per caster level. Yeah, good times ahead.

[Segev]

To be clear, I don't think you need Black Lore of Moil to make Avasculate count as dealing damage. (You may have known that, but in context I wanted to be sure.)

Secondly, sadly, Black Lore is 1d6 per SPELL LEVEL, and you pay something like 25 gp per d6 in extra material component costs. It might be worth it for Fell Drain to be made to apply to some spells, but it's really not worth it as a general rule.