Magic missile and fell drain

[Crake]

So for some reason I've always had this impression that fell drain and magic missile could only apply a single negative level to any creature with any one casting, but upon re-reading fell drain, I see no wording that implies that to any degree. Was I wrong all this time, or am I missing something?

[erok0809]

This is very ambiguous, and there've been pretty long arguments before on this. The feat says that anyone damaged by the spell gains a negative level.

I fall on the side of one negative level per person per casting, because it reads like a toggle to me. If damaged by the spell, gain a negative level.

However, that seems odd if you think about each missile dealing one negative level to five different people, but five missiles only dealing one negative level to one person, but there's different ways to fluff it so that isn't an issue. In terms of the RAW, to me it seems the most logical, and most balanced, way to read it is to make it one negative level per person per casting.

[Crake]

This is very ambiguous, and there've been pretty long arguments before on this. The feat says that anyone damaged by the spell gains a negative level.

I fall on the side of one negative level per person per casting, because it reads like a toggle to me. If damaged by the spell, gain a negative level.

However, that seems odd if you think about each missile dealing one negative level to five different people, but five missiles only dealing one negative level to one person, but there's different ways to fluff it so that isn't an issue. In terms of the RAW, to me it seems the most logical, and most balanced, way to read it is to make it one negative level per person per casting.

Well, a single spell can deal damage multiple times after all. What about a fell drain Acid Fog? That deals damage every round, but would a creature only be subject to a single negative level per casting?

I feel like the way it's worded "any living creature that is dealt damage also gains a negative level" implies that when are dealt damage, you gain a negative level. If you take damage multiplie times, you qualify multiplie times for a negative level. Other similar abilities, such as death devotion, specifically mention any limitations like a level cap per use or the like. I feel like the lack of a "a creature can only be affected once per spell" clause is cause enough to believe that the limitation does not apply.

[Ravens_cry]

I guess it really depends on what works for your group and how optimised you and the DM play it.
A third level spell that deals a minimum three negative levels that can only be avoided by a very specific item or spell is pretty dang powerful and, also, freaking annoying, given how negative levels work in 3.5.:smallannoyed:

[Crake]

I guess it really depends on what works for your group and how optimised you and the DM play it.
A third level spell that deals a minimum three negative levels that can only be avoided by a very specific item or spell is pretty dang powerful and, also, freaking annoying, given how negative levels work in 3.5.:smallannoyed:

Also spell resistance, :P

[Jormengand]

I've always seen it done as one negalevel per person per round. Which means that fell drain thunderhead quickly becomes hilarious.

[Brookshw]

Without delving completely into the matter I believe the common objection to multiple effects is that its still a single source. Understandable to interpret it differently though based on the wording.

[Saintheart]

I always had it drilled into me that it was one negative level per iteration of Magic Missile itself rather than one negative level per packet of force damage that Magic Missile delivers.

This does lead to a rather hilarious situation where a single maximised Fell Drain Magic Missile can only deliver one negative level from its five missiles directed at the one target, while six separate Magic Missile spell traps delivering one missile each can deliver a total of six negative levels, but such is life.

[OldTrees1]

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

To me this reads:
FOR EVERY(living creature) IF(dealt damage) THEN(gains a negative level)
or
FOR EVERY(living creature && is dealt damage) DO(gains a negative level)
Which I believe are functionally equivalent logical statements.

It does not read, to me, as:
FOR EVERY(damage dealt) IF(living creature) THEN(gains a negative level)

[Segev]

I'm with the "toggle" crowd on it. It says every creature dealt damage by the spell is afflicted with a negative level. There is only one spell, no matter how many times it deals damage. You either have had damage dealt to you by the Fell Drain spell, or you have not. If you have been dealt damage, you have a negative level. If you have not, you do not. It doesn't matter if that damage was inflicted once, twice, or ten thousand times (though 10,000 hp or more of damage probably kills you anyway); if you've been dealt damage, you take exactly one negative level from that single spell.

[Crake]

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

To me this reads:
FOR EVERY(living creature) IF(dealt damage) THEN(gains a negative level)
or
FOR EVERY(living creature && is dealt damage) DO(gains a negative level)
Which I believe are functionally equivalent logical statements.

That would depend on when the function is checked. If it is checked upon damage being dealt, then it would trigger mutliple times, but if it triggers at the resolution of the spell, then yes, it would only trigger once.

Edit: I don't believe that the trigger occurs at the resolution of the spell, simply because there are enough non-instantaneous spells out there that deal damage that it simply wouldn't work. Think of a fell drain wall of fire, each time the creature passes through it qualifies for "a living creature that is dealt damage". I suppose you could argue that the instantaneous nature of magic missile means that all the damage is dealt at the same time, meaning that it is checked only once, but I personally don't buy that, simply because each missile could be resisted by force resistance (not actually that hard to achieve incidentally, some force based draconic heritage feat and the draconic resistance feat works) individually, which implies that each hit is an individual damage packet, which would trigger the function multiple times.

[OldTrees1]

That would depend on when the function is checked. If it is checked upon damage being dealt, then it would trigger mutliple times, but if it triggers at the resolution of the spell, then yes, it would only trigger once.

Edit: I don't believe that the trigger occurs at the resolution of the spell, simply because there are enough non-instantaneous spells out there that deal damage that it simply wouldn't work. Think of a fell drain wall of fire, each time the creature passes through it qualifies for "a living creature that is dealt damage". I suppose you could argue that the instantaneous nature of magic missile means that all the damage is dealt at the same time, meaning that it is checked only once, but I personally don't buy that, simply because each missile could be resisted by force resistance (not actually that hard to achieve incidentally, some force based draconic heritage feat and the draconic resistance feat works) individually, which implies that each hit is an individual damage packet, which would trigger the function multiple times.

It is not about the time of the trigger. It is about what is being iterated through. Aka it depends on if it is FOR EACH(dealt damage) or FOR EACH(living creature)/FOR EACH(living creature && dealt damage). Whichever thing we are iterating through determines the number of times the DO(negative level) statement would run.

Since "any" is closer to "living creatures" than "damage dealt" I presume that "living creatures" is what we are iterating through in an "any ___" manner(For Each/Every/For Every/...).

Edit: Although I should remember that this is one of the places English is inherently ambiguous.

[Jormengand]

If you think that each creature can only take a single negalevel from the attack, then when would you say the negative level from fell drain acid arrow was resolved?

[OldTrees1]

If you think that each creature can only take a single negalevel from the attack, then when would you say the negative level from fell drain acid arrow was resolved?

Again it depends on what is being iterated through. If we are iterating through "creatures dealt damage" rather than iterating through "damage dealt to creatures" then Melf's Acid Arrow would deal 1 negative level because there is 1 creature to iterate through.

[erok0809]

Even if it does make slightly more in-universe sense for it to be a negative level every time damage is dealt, that leads to some really unbalanced situations, as have been mentioned already. Magic is broken enough as it is. From a game balance perspective, it seems to me it would be a much better idea to have it one negative level per person per casting.

[Ravens_cry]

Also spell resistance, :P
Point, though SP is a double edged sword if your DM enforces the 'standard action to drop, stays down until next turn' rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance).

[Segev]

If you think that each creature can only take a single negalevel from the attack, then when would you say the negative level from fell drain acid arrow was resolved?

One, the first time it took damage. After that, the truth state of "has taken damage from this spell" does not change.

Think of it this way: You're given a survey. It asks you to check this box if this particular casting of this Fell Drained spell has done damage to you. You will check it iff you've taken damage from that particular casting of that particular spell. It doesn't get checked again if you take more damage; you still have taken damage. It doesn't matter how much or how many times.

[Jormengand]

One, the first time it took damage. After that, the truth state of "has taken damage from this spell" does not change.

Think of it this way: You're given a survey. It asks you to check this box if this particular casting of this Fell Drained spell has done damage to you. You will check it iff you've taken damage from that particular casting of that particular spell. It doesn't get checked again if you take more damage; you still have taken damage. It doesn't matter how much or how many times.

Right, only it doesn't actually say when the negative level is gained. Surely the spell will only check once, at the end of the spell, and then perform a check on all creatures to see whether or not they were damaged by the spell?

[Segev]

Right, only it doesn't actually say when the negative level is gained. Surely the spell will only check once, at the end of the spell, and then perform a check on all creatures to see whether or not they were damaged by the spell?

With lack of specification of "when" it "checks," the natural language conclusion is "as soon as it applies."

So the first time you take damage from that particular fell drain spell, you gain a negative level.

[Jormengand]

With lack of specification of "when" it "checks," the natural language conclusion is "as soon as it applies."

So the first time you take damage from that particular fell drain spell, you gain a negative level.

Right, but the problem I have with that is that you're trying to use the spell as the metric, and also use the creature as the metric, in some weird way that doesn't make sense.

[Troacctid]

On a close reading, I think the best-supported interpretation is that you only give one negative level to each target, even if a target is damaged multiple times. It's unclear, though. There's a reason why abilities like Warmage Edge go out of their way to explain how they interact with spells like Magic Missile; Fell Drain's failure to do so is an unfortunate oversight on the part of the writers and editors of Libris Mortis.

[Segev]

Right, but the problem I have with that is that you're trying to use the spell as the metric, and also use the creature as the metric, in some weird way that doesn't make sense.

I don't see how. It's a very simple, straight-forward reading of the feat.

Did you take damage from the spell? If yes, you also take a negative level. I think you're trying to insert complexity and convolution where none is needed.


At the risk of derailment, it's like virginity. Either you have never had sex, and are thus a virgin, or you have not, and thus are not. (The debate here might be over what counts as "sex;" I think that's getting off-topic, however. Let's assume an arbitrary definition has been agreed upon for argument, since the analogy is to a definite binary condition.) It doesn't matter, once you have had sex, how many times you have: you're still not a virgin. You didn't become a 2x non-virgin, or a 3x non-virgin, for having sex 2 or 3 times.

When the evil cult goes to sacrifice you, all it takes is that one time to make you an unacceptable one.



I'm really not seeing where you're seeing complication and confusion.

[Jormengand]

I don't see how. It's a very simple, straight-forward reading of the feat.

Did you take damage from the spell? If yes, you also take a negative level. I think you're trying to insert complexity and convolution where none is needed.

Yes, but does the spell check it, or does each creature check it? And if each creature checks each round, then they would get an extra negalevel for each time they took damage. If the spell checks, then all the negalevels happen at the end of the duration for no good reason.

[Miss Disaster]

Everything you need to know about adjudicating the Fell Drain feat is in its first sentence - its first 24 words.

As others have stated, it's a simple, minimalist sentence that states that if a creature affected by the parent spell takes damage from the parent spell, it receives a negative level. And then the effect STOPS .... because there's no existing follow-up, situation-based continuance text that details what happens after that effect takes place. None. Zippo. Zilch.

So don't create or hypothesize-about any follow-up, situation-based continuance text.

[Jormengand]

Actually, there's an easier way of resolving this. Go into the magic weapons section and check out the Disruption quality, specifically the wording:


A weapon of disruption is the bane of all undead. Any undead creature struck in combat must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be destroyed. A weapon of disruption must be a bludgeoning weapon. (If you roll this property randomly for a piercing or slashing weapon, reroll.)

Now, there are four ways of resolving this:

1: It is tracked per undead creature for all disruption weapons.
2: It is tracked per undead creature per disruption weapon.
3: It is tracked per undead creature per combat.
4: It works on every hit, regardless of which specific weapon or combat is involved.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever seen anyone rule any of the first three interpretations. An undead creature must save for each strike against them with that weapon or any other weapon of the same type. The same is true of the application of negative levels from fell drain. A living creature takes a negative level whenever they take damage from a fell drain spell. That is, if you are living creature, and you take damage from a fell drain spell, you gain a negative level. If the spell then hits you again, you're still (probably) a living creature and you've been struck by a fell drain spell again. You therefore take another negative level.

[OldTrees1]

Actually, there's an easier way of resolving this. Go into the magic weapons section and check out the Disruption quality, specifically the wording:

Irrelevant. This is a inherently ambiguous wording in English. The same word order can be used in different places to mean different things.

The easiest way to resolve this is to recognize English has this kind of ambiguity.

[Quiet Wizard]

Everything you need to know about adjudicating the Fell Drain feat is in its first sentence - its first 24 words.

As others have stated, it's a simple, minimalist sentence that states that if a creature affected by the parent spell takes damage from the parent spell, it receives a negative level. And then the effect STOPS .... because there's no existing follow-up, situation-based continuance text that details what happens after that effect takes place. None. Zippo. Zilch.

So don't create or hypothesize-about any follow-up, situation-based continuance text.
+1

I just checked a few prominent fell drain threads over at a few other forums (Min Max, etc.). The vast rules consensus is that the feat applies the neg level only once per creature damaged by a given fell-drained spell. That's how our group has always read it too.

[Jormengand]

Irrelevant. This is a inherently ambiguous wording in English. The same word order can be used in different places to mean different things.

Right, but the point is that my interpretation is valid while yours is more than a little odd in the way it resolves. Also, please see every other example of anything in the form "A creature who does X achieves Y". Not a single one of them that I can find refers to a character who does X, however many times they should do so, achieving Y once. Y is a result of X, and I don't see why you think Fell Drain should arbitrarily be excepted.

[Segev]

Yes, but does the spell check it, or does each creature check it? And if each creature checks each round, then they would get an extra negalevel for each time they took damage. If the spell checks, then all the negalevels happen at the end of the duration for no good reason.

Um.

The game state checks it. Has a creature taken damage from the Fell Drain spell? If yes, they also take a negative level.

It really, really isn't that complicated.


Actually, there's an easier way of resolving this. Go into the magic weapons section and check out the Disruption quality, specifically the wording:



Now, there are four ways of resolving this:

1: It is tracked per undead creature for all disruption weapons.
2: It is tracked per undead creature per disruption weapon.
3: It is tracked per undead creature per combat.
4: It works on every hit, regardless of which specific weapon or combat is involved.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever seen anyone rule any of the first three interpretations. An undead creature must save for each strike against them with that weapon or any other weapon of the same type. The same is true of the application of negative levels from fell drain. A living creature takes a negative level whenever they take damage from a fell drain spell. That is, if you are living creature, and you take damage from a fell drain spell, you gain a negative level. If the spell then hits you again, you're still (probably) a living creature and you've been struck by a fell drain spell again. You therefore take another negative level.

The first three don't follow from reading the effect of Disruption weapons. Nor is that directly analogous to Fell Drain, as you try to make it.

Disruption weapons require creatures hit by them to save. So when hit, they must make a save. If hit again, they make a save again, because they are not still making a save from before.

Fell Drain spells say that you take a negative level if you take damage. If you take more damage, you already have that negative level. It's there. Condition met. I suppose, if you healed that negative level then took damage from the same fell drain spell again, you're take the negative level again, just as the undead taking hits from the Disruption weapon must save again because they are not currently making a save from before.

But that's an awfully narrow corner-case. And it's still consistent.

[Jormengand]

Nor is that directly analogous to Fell Drain, as you try to make it.

They're worded the exact same. An undead hit by disruption saves, a living hit by fell drain takes a negalevel.

[Segev]

They're worded the exact same. An undead hit by disruption saves, a living hit by fell drain takes a negalevel.
The latter persists; the former does not. You have taken a negative level; it's there. You do not gain another. You have made a save, but it is past. You must make another because you're not currently making one.

[Jormengand]

The latter persists; the former does not. You have taken a negative level; it's there. You do not gain another. You have made a save, but it is past. You must make another because you're not currently making one.

So basically you're now coming up with nonsense justifications with no real rules support?

[Segev]

So basically you're now coming up with nonsense justifications with no real rules support?

Um.

I just gave rules support.

Frankly, I don't care enough to argue it beyond what I think is correct. You're free to disagree with me. I will admit that it's a finicky bit of rules interaction. I just think that's the most precisely correct way to read it.

[Jormengand]

Um.

I just gave rules support.

Frankly, I don't care enough to argue it beyond what I think is correct. You're free to disagree with me. I will admit that it's a finicky bit of rules interaction. I just think that's the most precisely correct way to read it.

Where in the fell drain rules does it say "Unless they already have a negative level from the same spell" or imply that the negative levels don't stack? Where are the rules regarding "Persistent effects" and "Non-persistent effects", terminology with which you just came up?

The point is, whenever you are a living creature who is taking damage from a fell drain spell (AKA "Any living creature that is dealt damage") you take a negative level. Regardless of however many you might have taken already.

If there were a weapon that inflicted a negative level on any creature it struck, would you argue that it could only ever inflict one negalevel on a creature at a time?

[OldTrees1]

The point is, whenever you are a living creature who is taking damage from a fell drain spell (AKA "Any living creature that is dealt damage") you take a negative level. Regardless of however many you might have taken already.

No. The point is that the phrase is worded ambiguously. If you want your position to be respected as "valid due to ambiguity" then you need to also respect the other position. Your continued assertion(see quote for example) that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation is weakening your position.

If on the other hand you wish to abstain from "valid due to ambiguity" then you have an uphill battle due to the order of the sentence in question.

[Jormengand]

No. The point is that the phrase is worded ambiguously. If you want your position to be respected as "valid due to ambiguity" then you need to also respect the other position. Your continued assertion(see quote for example) that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation is weakening your position.

If on the other hand you wish to abstain from "valid due to ambiguity" then you have an uphill battle due to the order of the sentence in question.

What I am saying is that in all of the other cases in which the exact same wording is used, there is only one interpretation that makes sense, therefore I choose to use that one for all purposes, rather than a different one for Fell Drain for no discernible reason.

[Curmudgeon]

I believe most of the confusion regarding Fell Drain comes from mistakenly treating negative levels (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N) as if they were damage (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=D). Damage always stacks. However, negative levels are not damage, but a set of penalties with special rules.


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).

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.

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).

A Fell Drain-altered spell applies modifiers to skill checks, ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. Fell Drain does not include any exception to the stacking rules. Another instance of Fell Drain applied to the same creature would apply modifiers from the same source (Fell Drain), so the basic stacking rule prevents that from happening.

A spell dealing multiple negative levels, like Enervation, would normally be subject to the same stacking rules. However, Enervation stipulates that
Negative levels stack. Obviously a single spell description doesn't create a general rule regarding negative levels. But this stacking language means that negative levels from multiple castings of Enervation and Energy Drain (which references Enervation) all stack together.

[OldTrees1]

What I am saying is that in all of the other cases in which the exact same wording is used, there is only one interpretation that makes sense, therefore I choose to use that one for all purposes, rather than a different one for Fell Drain for no discernible reason.

I see. So you are currently using imperfect analogies to argue about Rules as make sense to Jormengand (RaJ) and trying to assert that the other position is invalid? Why? You have already noticed the ambiguity and accepted when I stated the particular ambiguity was an inherent part of English. So you already know and acknowledged that both positions make logical sense. Furthermore people have stopped attacking your use of your position so obviously your motive is not defensive in nature. I truly am curious about why you are using this argument in this manner.

[ShaneMRoth]

So for some reason I've always had this impression that fell drain and magic missile could only apply a single negative level to any creature with any one casting, but upon re-reading fell drain, I see no wording that implies that to any degree. Was I wrong all this time, or am I missing something?

EDIT: My entire premise has been established to be faulty. So, please disregard.

Imagine you are using a Fell Drained Magic Missile spell on a target with Spell Resistance.

If the first Magic Missile fails to overcome the target's SR, then no damage is done, and the target suffers no level drain.

Should the target's SR overcome the first four missiles, but not prevent damage from the fifth missile, then it seems that the fifth missile would be just as effective at draining levels as all the other missiles.

A case could be made that, mechanically, all of the missiles are capable of level drain.

[The_Snark]

Imagine you are using a Fell Drained Magic Missile spell on a target with Spell Resistance.

If the first Magic Missile fails to overcome the target's SR, then no damage is done, and the target suffers no level drain.

Should the target's SR overcome the first four missiles, but not prevent damage from the fifth missile, then it seems that the fifth missile would be just as effective at draining levels as all the other missiles.

Not how SR works; the caster rolls once per spell to overcome SR. If they fail, none of the missiles work; if they succeed, all of them do. Similarly, if you fail to overcome SR the first time a target takes damage from a Wall of Fire or some such, then they're immune to that particular iteration of the spell for its duration.

[ShaneMRoth]

Not how SR works; the caster rolls once per spell to overcome SR. If they fail, none of the missiles work; if they succeed, all of them do. Similarly, if you fail to overcome SR the first time a target takes damage from a Wall of Fire or some such, then they're immune to that particular iteration of the spell for its duration.

This would seem to support the position that the Fell Drain feat is limited to one level drain per casting.

[Jormengand]

I see. So you are currently using imperfect analogies to argue about Rules as make sense to Jormengand (RaJ) and trying to assert that the other position is invalid? Why? You have already noticed the ambiguity and accepted when I stated the particular ambiguity was an inherent part of English. So you already know and acknowledged that both positions make logical sense. Furthermore people have stopped attacking your use of your position so obviously your motive is not defensive in nature. I truly am curious about why you are using this argument in this manner.

Put that poor strawman down. What did the little dude ever do to you?

[OldTrees1]

This would seem to support the position that the Fell Drain feat is limited to one level drain per casting.

Despite adopting that position myself, I must point out that SR affecting the spell once does not support or diminish either position. It all boils back to that one sentence. Is it any creature or is it any damage? Sadly English has ambiguities on that front "Everyone knows someone" being the classic example. Is there 1 person that everyone knows or does everyone know at least 1 other person? "Everyone knows someone" does not distinguish between the two and both are useful meaning depending on the circumstance.


Put that poor strawman down. What did the little dude ever do to you?
Where did it misrepresent you?
Was I wrong and you are feeling like you using your position is being attacked?
Was I wrong and you do not recognize the ambiguity?
Is it wrong to label analogies based on precise wording as imperfect when there is an ambiguity that renders that precise wording moot as a common ground for comparison?
Was I wrong and you do not recognize the 3 logical constructions resulting from the ambiguity as all logically valid logical constructions?
Was I wrong in labeling you saying "Rules as make sense" as "Rules as make sense to Jormengand"?
Was I wrong and you were not trying to assert the other position as invalid?
I did not try to misrepresent you so please correct me on where I misrepresented you.

[ShaneMRoth]

Despite adopting that position myself, I must point out that SR affecting the spell once does not support or diminish either position. It all boils back to that one sentence. Is it any creature or is it any damage? Sadly English has ambiguities on that front "Everyone knows someone" being the classic example. Is there 1 person that everyone knows or does everyone know at least 1 other person? "Everyone knows someone" does not distinguish between the two and both are useful meaning depending on the circumstance.


This is a case where two positions conflict with each other, yet don't come into conflict with the Rule As Written. And, as is often the case in these threads, the conflict arises from rules that appear in entirely different publications.

This is an illustrative example of why I don't believe there is one authoritative RAW read of these rules. Referee adjudication is necessary here.

[Jormengand]

Where did it misrepresent you?

By containing precisely none of my original argument? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a very good counter, it's just a counter to an argument I never actually made.


I believe most of the confusion regarding Fell Drain comes from mistakenly treating negative levels (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N) as if they were damage (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=D). Damage always stacks. However, negative levels are not damage, but a set of penalties with special rules.

Ah, now, that's true, the penalties from negalevels don't stack, because there is only one set of penalties (it's just the size of those penalties depends on the number of negative levels you have):


A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

The preceding paragraph is very explicit on the fact that multiple negative levels can be bestowed on a single creature. The last makes this even more abundantly clear.

[Segev]

This is a case where two positions conflict with each other, yet don't come into conflict with the Rule As Written. And, as is often the case in these threads, the conflict arises from rules that appear in entirely different publications.

This is an illustrative example of why I don't believe there is one authoritative RAW read of these rules. Referee adjudication is necessary here.

Sometimes, this is accurate. The trouble is that you're often wrong about rules where you claim it to be the case: the RAW are unambiguous in some places.

This is not one of them.

[Curmudgeon]

The preceding paragraph is very explicit on the fact that multiple negative levels can be bestowed on a single creature.
Multiple negative levels can be bestowed on a creature, as in the Enervation and Energy Drain examples I provided. They can't be bestowed by repeated applications of the same effect absent a stacking override.

[Jormengand]

Multiple negative levels can be bestowed on a creature, as in the Enervation and Energy Drain examples I provided. They can't be bestowed by repeated applications of the same effect absent a stacking override.

Yes, they can. There's nothing to stop you getting negative levels from multiple sources any more than there is to stop you getting action points from multiple sources (if there are multiple different things that can do that, anyway). There's something to stop the penalties from NLs stacking, but because there only ever is one penalty (whose magnitude is determined by the number of NLs you have) that doesn't matter.

NLs are not penalties, they are distinct game objects like hit points or action points, you just get a penalty for having them.

[ShaneMRoth]

Was I wrong all this time, or am I missing something?

You are not wrong.

You are not missing something.

You are a reasonable person, with a firm grasp of the English language, who is trying to reconcile a poorly written rule.

[OldTrees1]

This is a case where two positions conflict with each other, yet don't come into conflict with the Rule As Written. And, as is often the case in these threads, the conflict arises from rules that appear in entirely different publications.

This is an illustrative example of why I don't believe there is one authoritative RAW read of these rules. Referee adjudication is necessary here.

Quite true and if RAW sometimes has ambiguities, then it only gets more diverse when we try to transform it to something useful like Rulings.


By containing precisely none of my original argument? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a very good counter, it's just a counter to an argument I never actually made.

Then would you please clarify some things for me.


Actually, there's an easier way of resolving this. Go into the magic weapons section and check out the Disruption quality, specifically the wording:

Now, there are four ways of resolving this:

1: It is tracked per undead creature for all disruption weapons.
2: It is tracked per undead creature per disruption weapon.
3: It is tracked per undead creature per combat.
4: It works on every hit, regardless of which specific weapon or combat is involved.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone rule any of the first three interpretations. An undead creature must save for each strike against them with that weapon or any other weapon of the same type. The same is true of the application of negative levels from fell drain. A living creature takes a negative level whenever they take damage from a fell drain spell. That is, if you are living creature, and you take damage from a fell drain spell, you gain a negative level. If the spell then hits you again, you're still (probably) a living creature and you've been struck by a fell drain spell again. You therefore take another negative level.

Is this not an analogy between Fell Drain and Disruption based on the ambiguous precise wording as your foundation of the analogy?


Right, but the point is that my interpretation is valid while yours is more than a little odd in the way it resolves. Also, please see every other example of anything in the form "A creature who does X achieves Y". Not a single one of them that I can find refers to a character who does X, however many times they should do so, achieving Y once. Y is a result of X, and I don't see why you think Fell Drain should arbitrarily be excepted.

Is this not where you agreed about the ambiguity and reiterated your use of analogy/comparison as the basis of your argument?


What I am saying is that in all of the other cases in which the exact same wording is used, there is only one interpretation that makes sense, therefore I choose to use that one for all purposes, rather than a different one for Fell Drain for no discernible reason.

Here is the most likely place for my confusion/error to have arisen. However it seems to me that here you reiterate your use of precise wording analogy as the foundation of your argument and then added the criteria "that makes sense". Now either you used "that makes sense" as a universal criteria(that makes sense to everyone) or as a subjective criteria(that makes sense to Jormengand). Since you have seen disagreement I doubt you meant the universal criteria(since such disagreement exists) and thus I labeled it as a subjective criteria.

So I am confused as to how it contained "precisely none of my original argument". If you have time and are not yet bored of my confusion, would you please show me where I am confused?

[Jormengand]

Then would you please clarify some things for me.

For Nerull's sake, all I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe that Wizards would use the exact same wording to mean two different things that are entirely divorced from each other in functionality.

[OldTrees1]

For Nerull's sake, all I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe that Wizards would use the exact same wording to mean two different things that are entirely divorced from each other in functionality.

Ah. Sorry I assumed you would believe that when you noticed the nature of the ambiguity.

Personally seeing 1 instance of this kind of ambiguity makes me less confident in the word choice of Wizards. Seeing a second instance does not leave me with enough confidence in their word choice ability to presume that they are going to be consistent with frequently overlooked ambiguities such as this one. This is especially true if the two sentences were written by different authors(were they?).

Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

[Jormengand]

Ah. Sorry I assumed you would believe that when you noticed the nature of the ambiguity.

Personally seeing 1 instance of this kind of ambiguity makes me less confident in the word choice of Wizards. Seeing a second instance does not leave me with enough confidence in their word choice ability to presume that they are going to be consistent with frequently overlooked ambiguities such as this one. This is especially true if the two sentences were written by different authors(were they?).

Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, "A character meeting X criteria suffers Y" can mean two things, but only one at once. Either it means they suffer Y whenever they meet X, or it means that they only suffer Y once if they ever meet X. Given that the latter interpretation would break pretty much everything that used that wording, I'm inclined to believe the former.


Multiple negative levels can be bestowed on a creature, as in the Enervation and Energy Drain examples I provided. They can't be bestowed by repeated applications of the same effect absent a stacking override.

Why not?

[Segev]

Frankly? It's two separate instances in unrelated text and different books, likely written and edited by different people.

And when you start arguing "surely they meant..." you're into RAI, which, while helpful, is not actually relevant when discussing literal meaning.

If you want to play RAI games, however, it is also highly unlikely that the INTENT was for magic missile, chain missile, acid arrow and similar "damage multiple times" spells to be significantly more powerful with that feat than, say, fireball or burning hands.

Which means that, if you're relying on RAI for the justification that it must be read the way you advocate and no other, you are then countered by RAI based on the notion that they probably didn't, in fact, mean for it to work that way after all.

[Jormengand]

And when you start arguing "surely they meant..." you're into RAI, which, while helpful, is not actually relevant when discussing literal meaning.

Uhm... yes, it is. Entirely helpful. There are two possible literal meanings, one was intended and one was not.

[OldTrees1]

Uhm... yes, it is. Entirely helpful. There are two possible literal meanings, one was intended and one was not.

Technically you are still ignoring the "Each creature once per casting" interpretation which is the other literal meaning. Segev is right about the RAI counterargument.

[ShaneMRoth]

The only thing that I am willing to conclude with any certainty is that the Fell Drain feat is supposed to inflict level drain in some way that is somehow related to the spell modified by the feat.

The language of the feat is written such that interpretation is mandatory to bring the feat into play at all. This feat was written without accounting for any of the complexity that is already baked into the spell system of the game, so the individual referee at the table must adjudicate the rule.

The only intent on the part of the author that I can sort out is an intent to meet a looming publication deadline.

A house rule seems like an affirmative necessity in this case.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, they can. There's nothing to stop you getting negative levels from multiple sources any more than there is to stop you getting action points from multiple sources
Except we're not talking about getting negative levels from multiple sources; we're talking about getting negative levels from the same source: Fell Drain. The stacking rule applies.

[Troacctid]

Except we're not talking about getting negative levels from multiple sources; we're talking about getting negative levels from the same source: Fell Drain. The stacking rule applies.

The stacking rule applies to bonuses and penalties. Negative levels aren't a bonus or penalty.

[Curmudgeon]

The stacking rule applies to bonuses and penalties. Negative levels aren't a bonus or penalty.
On the contrary, each negative level is a collection of penalties.
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).

The stacking rule applies to modifiers (bonuses and penalties). It doesn't provide exceptions when there are multiple penalties applied simultaneously.

[Troacctid]

On the contrary, each negative level is a collection of penalties.
The stacking rule applies to modifiers (bonuses and penalties). It doesn't provide exceptions when there are multiple penalties applied simultaneously.

No, each negative level gives you penalties, among other things. Where does it say a negative level is a penalty? That makes no sense. That's like saying a Cloak of Resistance is a bonus.

[The_Snark]

Despite adopting that position myself, I must point out that SR affecting the spell once does not support or diminish either position.

Yeah, the SR thing is not directly analogous to this issue.

The feat's wording seems nonspecific to me; it can be interpreted more than one way without directly contradicting it. That said... good luck finding a DM who will allow the 1-level-per-missile interpretation. A 3rd-level spell that inflicts 3-5 negative levels - no save, no attack roll, just SR - at mid-level is sort of crazy, and Arcane Thesis renders it even more absurd.

[Curmudgeon]

No, each negative level gives you penalties, among other things. Where does it say a negative level is a penalty? That makes no sense.
A negative level (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N) has multiple properties. Among those properties are penalties. Penalties from the same source do not stack. You can perhaps stack other aspects of negative levels (the arguments most others in this thread have been focusing on), but you cannot stack those penalties. Excepting those nonstacking penalties, negative levels can (1) slay you instantly if there are enough of them; and (2) give you 24 hours to clean up the annoyance with Restoration or similar magics. That's it. Because the penalties do not stack, even if the negative levels themselves do stack the impact is generally minor.

[Crake]

A negative level (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_negativelevel&alpha=N) has multiple properties. Among those properties are penalties. Penalties from the same source do not stack. You can perhaps stack other aspects of negative levels (the arguments most others in this thread have been focusing on), but you cannot stack those penalties. Excepting those nonstacking penalties, negative levels can (1) slay you instantly if there are enough of them; and (2) give you 24 hours to clean up the annoyance with Restoration or similar magics. That's it. Because the penalties do not stack, even if the negative levels themselves do stack the impact is generally minor.

Curmudgeon, you aren't seriously trying to imply that 10 negative levels still only gives you a -1 penalty on all the things mentioned, even when it very plainly states "A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained." It does not say "If a creature has at least 1 negative level, it gains the following penalties", it's FOR EACH negative level it has gained.

Please move that discussion to another thread if you sincerely believe your argument holds and want to argue it, because it's not the topic of this thread.

[Segev]

Ultimately, if you want to really get into the weeds, you can find a RAW interpretation to support both Jormengand's interpretation and that of most of the people in this thread. Arguing RAI comes to a standstill because evidence can be found either way. The trouble is, even for TO, that we usually assume that the DM is present and making judgment calls within the bounds of the RAW. Given that there are two interpretations possible, and one is grotesquely out of line with the power balance of other things of similar level and investment while the other is merely potent, even in TO one is forced to acknowledge that the one that is more in line with theoretical balance points is likely the correct interpretation.

One can, of course, stipulate that one is assuming the other. But in so doing, it's stepped into areas of TO that are actually more permissive than those which allow Pun-Pun. (Not necessarily more broken, but more permissive.) A TO, theoretical DM is more likely to allow Pun-Pun than he is the version of Fell Drain which lets Fell Drained Magic Missiles deal up to 5 negative levels to a single creature with a single 3rd level spell slot, even with two feats invested towards it (Fell Drain + Arcane Thesis: magic missile).

That said, you CAN interpret it to allow that. But it's just one of the more shakey TO builds at that point.

[Jormengand]

On the contrary, each negative level is a collection of penalties.
The stacking rule applies to modifiers (bonuses and penalties). It doesn't provide exceptions when there are multiple penalties applied simultaneously.

No, a negative level is not any penalty.


A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

A negative level gives you penalties. Among these are a -1 to all skill checks and ability checks. Do these -1s to skill checks stack? Well, no. They don't stack, because they were never a different penalty in the first place.


A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

That means that it's only a single penalty to each of those five categories, whose magnitude is determined by the number of negative levels on a creature. You could rearrange:


A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

-1 on all skill checks and ability checks.

To read:


A creature takes -1 on all skill checks and ability checks for each negative level it has gained
That is one, single penalty whose magnitude is the number of negative levels a creature has gained. It doesn't stack because it doesn't need to stack; it doesn't have anything to stack with.

[Renen]

I also disagree with Curm.

A negative level isnt a penalty. Thus they can stack. Sure, possessing negative levels gives you penalties, but negative levels arent penalties as such. And the penalties bestowed by negative levels dont care where the negative level came from.

I view negative levels as a type of "tokens" you get. Per each token you get -1 for saves and other stuff. Nothing says you cant get these tokens from one source. And once you do get them, the penalty is calculated based on amount of tokens. Just because the tokens came from the same effect, doesnt mean the penalties come from that effect. The penalties come from the amount of tokens possessed.