Fell Drain Metamagic Feat and Multiple Damage Instances

[Hannibhaal]

In the course of designing a character, I came across the Fell Drain feat in Libris Mortis. My question is: what happens when a spell deals damage multiple times? My group bounced the question around but failed to reach an answer. Our discussion and questions are summarized below, and I would appreciate any insights and answers.

Fell Drain says "any living creature dealt damage also gains a negative level." So, what if a spell deals damage multiple times? What happens with a spell like Melf's Acid Arrow, Wall of Fire, Spiritual Weapon, or Moon Blade (from the Spell Compendium, also the original spell that kicked off this discussion).
Clearly spells like Fireball apply the negative level to all affected creatures. Magic Missile has precedent that it is considered a single damage source per target, regardless of the number of missiles, so no exploit there. Thunderhead (Spell Compendium) would be amazing with Fell Drain if it gave a negative level with every instance of damage, but these are balance issues, not Rules, we're interested in finding out what the Rules seem to say, and then house-ruling to balance later.
One could parse the rules text to imply that it is a single occurrence. A creature is either dealt damage by the spell or it is not. A creature that walks through a Fell Drain Wall of Fire multiple times is still "a creature that is dealt damage." effectively, the flag of "is dealt damage" is switched on when they first take damage, and is unaffected by further damage instances.
My personal view is that that parsing is wrong, but I can clearly see how one could read it that way, and a member of my group clearly does. Energy drain always has this passive voice phrasing. A "creature hit by a vampire's slam attack gains a negative level" and so forth. There clearly isn't supposed to be a flag for "hit by slam" so shouldn't we not take that analysis for a Fell Drain spell? However, in that case each slam is a separate attack, so that complicates matters greatly. No one is arguing that two Fell Drain spells don't both apply a negative level.

So that's a brief summary of our lengthy debate. Thoughts, insights? This seems very ambiguous to me, but maybe there is precedent or rules elsewhere we were missing.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm looking for how you personally interpret the text. It is abundantly clear that the feat is ambiguous.

[Sahleb]

I'm assured that it does indeed work like that. Hello Fell Drain Magic Missile(CL 5).

That's 3 negative levels for a third level slot, No Save, No to Hit, Force Damage.

SR does apply, so there's that.

And Negative Energy Levels are something that low-level stuff, mostly undead, might be immune to.

That said, a houserule to the contrary makes a lot of sense, from a certain point of view.

[Gallowglass]

You are not going to find a useful answer here.

Oh you will find many answers and they will fall onto two sides of the obvious argument that you have already elaborated in your post.

If you do a forum search you will find many many threads debating that argument. All the people who post religiously in those threads believe, whole-heartedly, that they are right and that the answer is obvious, regardless of what side they are on. Watch. There will be three replies to this post disputing my assertion that there is ANY disconnect beyond "the other side" being pigheadedly and willfully wrong. Its like politics. None of them will ever change their mind barring an official FAQ (and even then some won't).

I think its safe to say that Fell Drain is a poorly worded feat, from a source book full of poorly worded (but some fun) feats. That there has been no official update or FAQ tweak to most of them including Fell drain. So the RAW can be parsed two ways and you should go with your gut and whatever your table is comfortable with rather than keep looking for some official edict or elaboration.

Now, if you want to ask what our OPINIONS are on how you should run the feat, I'd be happy to give you my reasoning for why I run it the way I run it. But your question seems to be specifically looking for if there is an official and undisputed answer to which way to parse the language.

There isn't.

Now some people will come in and tell you that there is. Its obvious. And its indisputable.

[Hannibhaal]

Thanks Gallowglass. I was primarily just looking for other people's opinions and reasoning before forming my own decision. I left the opening for if anyone knew any precedent I had missed, but you're right that I shouldn't have left in the request for a possible answer. I should know better by now.

[Gallowglass]

Oh, well in THAT case:


One could parse the rules text to imply that it is a single occurrence. A creature is either dealt damage by the spell or it is not. A creature that walks through a Fell Drain Wall of Fire multiple times is still "a creature that is dealt damage." effectively, the flag of "is dealt damage" is switched on when they first take damage, and is unaffected by further damage instances.

Although torturous and unwieldy to wrap the syntax around itself to reach this parsing of the language, this CERTAINLY represents the most obvious way of limiting the power of the feat to within reasonable levels without rendering it sub-par to other feats of the same metamagic capacity. That doesn't mean I believe this to be the INTENT of the author, but I do believe this is the quickest way to make the feat fun and worthwhile without letting it be game-breaking and abuse-able.

Now make sure you don't let them use those ridiculous and inintended -1 level metamagic reducers to go full RAWarrior ridonkulous on you.

[Campbellk8105]

In my games we've always ruled it as 1 negative level per spell. So even if it has multiple instances, the same target can only lose one level from that particular spell. Especially at lower levels, this feat can be very, very powerful. Armies will be decimated.

Fell Drain Sonic Snap. Almost -any- level 1 anything is dead outright.

And as already stated, yes be wary of meta magic reducers also

[Troacctid]

The language in the feat is ambiguous, and there are no general rules that would provide any guidance—the only relevant source is the feat itself. So you already have access to all the citations we could give you. Your interpretation is as good as ours.

[Garktz]

I would say that each time the creature suffers hp dmg....
My logic behind it is as you said with the wall of fire so let me explain myself.

Round 1: Creature A gets close to it, takes damage and a negative level. Creature B is far away, so doesnt take damage so no negative level.

Round 2: Creature A is still close, so takes damage anda a second negative level. Creature B moves closer to the wall so takes damage and a negative level.

How wod you explain creature B taking the 1 negative level and not creature Ataking another?

to me fell drain, as its name says, drains, so as long as you take damage, it drains you....

I know its open to cheese and if up to me, i would houserule it in case i get thefeeling of abuse to 1 negative level only but, to me that would be a balance decision contrary to the intention of the feat

[Nifft]

In my games, I use the interpretation that you can deal up to one level per target per spell, no matter how many times that spell damages one target.