Level Drain Build?

[waptdragon3]

im wanting to run a level drain build for 3.5, but the only thing i can think of is a Soul Eater who somehow has 9th level arcane spells for energy drain. what classes/feats/spells/monstrous races am i missing?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Enervation is a good spell for metamagic abuse, so a typical mailman will work just fine. I guess that's a bit boring, though.

Warlocks get Utterdark Blast, which is two negative levels at will, but only at level 16. Still, pretty good with Eldritch Claws.

Death Devotion gets you negative levels at level 1, but it's limited to one negative level per four character levels per target (so at level 1, you can bestow one negative level per round, but only up to one per target). In terms of usage limits, it's not too bad, though. You can easily get three to four uses a day from a single turning pool (reliquary holy symbol + 14 Charisma = 3 Death Devotion uses/day).

At ECL 7, you can play a wyrmling shadow dragon breath blaster. Only one negative level per use, but it's a cone. You can play a juvenile shadow dragon (two negative levels per use) at ECL 17.

[Shadowquad]

Fell Drain + Easy Metamagic is a feat combo that works well.
It comes online at level 1, allowing you to cast Fell Drain Sonic Snaps from level 1 spell slots, each one dealing a negative level to the target.

There are several other low level spells for which fell drain does wonders: Magic Missiles, Kelgore's Grave Mist, basically any spell that does damage with no save.

later on, you can add Practical Metamagic to the mix to cast Fell Drain spells with no level adjustment

[Mordante]

The only think you will achieve with a level drain build is a annoyed DM IMHO.

[Gnaeus]

I can do it in pf but not 3.5

[Kazyan]

If you'd like a Soul Eater, focus directly on that. It's nice. Get lots of natural attacks and get good at hitting with them--a Dragonwrought Kobold or a Tibbit will give you three of them out-of-the-box. Dragonwrought Kobolds take a one-feat tax and allow you to play basically a normal character from there, with access to whatever Dragon cheese your DM agrees with. Tibbits are weirder: they have to deal with the Tiny-size reach problem and a normally-crippling -8 strength penalty, but as a Soul Eater, they won't care about raw damage as much. You could do the CE Soulborn trick to negate that -8 penalty on Tibbits, if you do care about raw damage. They also get easy entry into Warshaper, which allows them a pile of secondary natural attacks.

Dipping into Monk (or some other way to get a Monk's version of unarmed attacks) will let you full attack with unarmed strikes in addition to your secondary natural attacks, so that's a low-hanging fruit to grab if you're confident in your to-hit modifier. You might just want to hold out for a Monk's Belt item, though.

Life Drain, from Libris Mortis, is a very nice feat if you have high Charisma. If you make a Charisma build, build it around this.

One problem with Soul Eater is that you have to wait for at least level 6 for your primary tool to turn on, and even then, it's tempting to wait until level 7 for a dip in Warshaper (or if you're going to be a Life Drain charisma build, chances are that you have a 3/4 BAB class like Bard in your early levels). So, plan accordingly. You may want to start with a 1-level Barbarian dip for Lion Spirit Totem and Whirling Frenzy in order to carry you to level 6.

Soul Eater kinda needs a handbook. There's a lot you can do with it.

[Thurbane]

If it helps at all, the lowest level spell I know of that can bestow permanent level drain (without needing metamagic) is Sticks and Stones from Shining South (Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3) - it creates a temporary skeleton that drains levels like a wight does.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Negative level builds can be very, very, very bad in 3e, because anything you kill with them become wights, and all it takes is one to potentially destroy the world. Sure, use them as debuffs to add to your spells (ie, Fell Drain), but don't apply too many to any given enemy, else you could wipe out everyone and everything via wightocalypse.

[waptdragon3]

The only think you will achieve with a level drain build is a annoyed DM IMHO.

tbh, it wasnt going to be something i ran, except in like an arena campaign just to test it out :D

[Asmotherion]

Sorcerer with Arcane Spellsurge, Arcane Fusion (Greater), and Fell Drain Magic Missiles. Loads of negative levels with minimum investment.

If you want something less game breaking, Fell Drain and Persistant (Weapon-like spell of choice).

[Eldonauran]

I once made a character for a ECL 6 PvP Tournament game that used the Death Devotion feat from Complete Champions to inflict negative levels on his opponents. Heirosus (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=420274) was one scary Lawful Good follower of Osiris... let me tell you.

[waptdragon3]

If you'd like a Soul Eater, focus directly on that. It's nice. Get lots of natural attacks and get good at hitting with them--a Dragonwrought Kobold or a Tibbit will give you three of them out-of-the-box. Dragonwrought Kobolds take a one-feat tax and allow you to play basically a normal character from there, with access to whatever Dragon cheese your DM agrees with. Tibbits are weirder: they have to deal with the Tiny-size reach problem and a normally-crippling -8 strength penalty, but as a Soul Eater, they won't care about raw damage as much. You could do the CE Soulborn trick to negate that -8 penalty on Tibbits, if you do care about raw damage. They also get easy entry into Warshaper, which allows them a pile of secondary natural attacks.

Dipping into Monk (or some other way to get a Monk's version of unarmed attacks) will let you full attack with unarmed strikes in addition to your secondary natural attacks, so that's a low-hanging fruit to grab if you're confident in your to-hit modifier. You might just want to hold out for a Monk's Belt item, though.

Life Drain, from Libris Mortis, is a very nice feat if you have high Charisma. If you make a Charisma build, build it around this.

One problem with Soul Eater is that you have to wait for at least level 6 for your primary tool to turn on, and even then, it's tempting to wait until level 7 for a dip in Warshaper (or if you're going to be a Life Drain charisma build, chances are that you have a 3/4 BAB class like Bard in your early levels). So, plan accordingly. You may want to start with a 1-level Barbarian dip for Lion Spirit Totem and Whirling Frenzy in order to carry you to level 6.

Soul Eater kinda needs a handbook. There's a lot you can do with it.

I was actually thinking of the natural attack/unarmed strike spam, but my DM said since its a Supernatural ability and doesnt specify that its always on, that it would take a standard action to trigger it. tbh though, i like the fell drain spam better anyways

[sreservoir]

If it helps at all, the lowest level spell I know of that can bestow permanent level drain (without needing metamagic) is Sticks and Stones from Shining South (Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3) - it creates a temporary skeleton that drains levels like a wight does.

Soul charge (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20040818a) is another one, if distinctly less useful in combat. You can hold the charge, I guess.

(I mean sure, the intended use is obviously the part where it powers wands, but with the 24-hour duration it's pretty darn hard to use that way without DM handwaving anyway!)

[bean illus]

If it helps at all, the lowest level spell I know of that can bestow permanent level drain (without needing metamagic) is Sticks and Stones from Shining South (Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3) - it creates a temporary skeleton that drains levels like a wight does.

... can you put Fell Drain on it?


I was actually thinking of the natural attack/unarmed strike spam, but my DM said since its a Supernatural ability and doesnt specify that its always on, that it would take a standard action to trigger it. tbh though, i like the fell drain spam better anyways

Fell drain gets even worse on builds that can spam 3-4 spells per round, without running out of ammo. Chain effects, or mass or area effects, or multi round saves for 1 spell, all add up to draining half a dozen or more levels per round from the opposition party.

[Falontani]

Race/Class/Alignment: Old Daelkyr Halfblood Spellthief 1/Wu Jen 3/Crusader 1/Shaper of Form 2/Master Transmogrifist 10/Warshaper 1/Souleater 1/Wu Jen 1

Starting Stats:




Stat

28 Pt

Stat Mods

Racial

Level Ups



Strength

15 (13)

+1

-2




Dexterity

7 (5)

-3

-2




Constitution

16 (14)

+2

-2




Intelligence

14 (16)

+3

+2

16, 20



Wisdom

11 (13)

+1

+2




Charisma

10 (12)

+1

+2

4, 8, 12











Level

Class

Base Attack Bonus

Fort Save

Ref Save

Will Save

Skills

Feats

Class Features


1

Spellthief

+0

+0

+0

+2

6+Int

Symbiont Mastery(b), Momentary Alteration, Great Fortitude(f), Spell Focus: Transmutation(f), Pathetic: Cha(f), Vulnerable(f)

Sneak Attack +1d6, Steal Spell, Trapfinding, CL 0, SL 0



2

Wu Jen

+0

+0

+0

+4

2+Int

Extend Spell(b)

Watchful Spirit, CL 1, SL 1



3

Wu Jen

+1

+0

+0

+5

2+Int

Assume Supernatural Ability: Energy Drain

CL 2, SL 1



4

Wu Jen

+1

+1

+1

+5

2+Int


Spell Secret: Extend Alter Self, CL 3, SL 2



5

Crusader

+2

+3

+1

+5

4+Int


Furious Counterstrike, Steely Resolve, CL 3, SL 2



6

Shaper of Form

+2

+5

+1

+7

2+Int

Eschew Materials

Like Begets Like, Modify Self: (Toughness or Renaissance), CL 4, SL 2



7

Shaper of Form

+3

+6

+1

+8

2+Int


Fortify Item, Polymorph 1/day, CL 4, SL 2



8

Master Transmogrifist

+3

+6

+1

+10

2+Int


Extended Change, Favored Shape, CL 4, SL 2



9

Master Transmogrifist

+4

+6

+1

+11

2+Int

Master Spellthief

Manifest Senses, CL 8, SL 3



10

Master Transmogrifist

+4

+7

+2

+11

2+Int


Battle Master +2, CL 9, SL 3



11

Master Transmogrifist

+5

+7

+2

+12

2+Int


Effortless Change, CL 10, SL 3



12

Master Transmogrifist

+5

+7

+2

+12

2+Int

Life Drain

Shapechanger, CL 11, SL 4



13

Master Transmogrifist

+6

+8

+3

+13

2+Int


Battle Master +4, CL 12, SL 4



14

Master Transmogrifist

+6

+8

+3

+13

2+Int


Reflexive Change, CL 13, SL 4



15

Master Transmogrifist

+7

+8

+3

+14

2+Int

Weapon Focus: (insert favored weapon)

Manifest Qualities, CL 14, SL 5



16

Master Transmogrifist

+7

+9

+4

+14

2+Int


Battle Master +6, CL 15, SL 5



17

Master Transmogrifist

+8

+9

+4

+15

2+Int


Infinite Variety, CL 16, SL 5



18

Warshaper

+8

+11

+4

+15

2+Int

Obtain Familiar

Morphic Immunities, Morphic Weapons, CL 16, SL 5



19

Soul Eater

+9

+13

+6

+17

4+Int


Energy Drain, CL 16, SL 5



20

Wu Jen

+10

+13

+6

+18

2+Int


CL 17, SL 6




Assume Supernatural Ability: Energy Drain from the Vampiric Ixitxachitl from Monster Manual 2. Your skills don’t matter all that much, meet your prerequisites. It's not really a spellcaster except to polymorph. You Polymorph very well. You can alter self into some really fun aberration forms. I don’t have a lot of time right now, so I hope someone else can explain any choices made here, otherwise I’ll try to respond later on today.

[Zerryzerry]

Fell Drain + Easy Metamagic is a feat combo that works well.
It comes online at level 1, allowing you to cast Fell Drain Sonic Snaps from level 1 spell slots, each one dealing a negative level to the target.

There are several other low level spells for which fell drain does wonders: Magic Missiles, Kelgore's Grave Mist, basically any spell that does damage with no save.



Thunderhead + Twinned, Extended, Chained, Fell Drain. Use Energy Substitution for lightning immune/resistant enemies and Heighten tu prepare it on any spell level. Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic for a +0 lvl adjustment.
Sure, it is a Reflex safe, but it is on every round, failure does not end the spell, and most targets have a low reflex. Enter a room, cast it then run away, and wait for their death

[bean illus]

Thunderhead + Twinned, Extended, Chained, Fell Drain. Use Energy Substitution for lightning immune/resistant enemies and Heighten tu prepare it on any spell level. Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic for a +0 lvl adjustment.
Sure, it is a Reflex safe, but it is on every round, failure does not end the spell, and most targets have a low reflex. Enter a room, cast it then run away, and wait for their death

Well, assuming they don't leave by the other door, ...

I thought fell drain only drained 1 level per casting?

[Asmotherion]

Well, assuming theu don't leave by the other door, ...

I thought fell drain only drained 1 level per casting?

No. It is usual for some DMs to house rule it that way, especially when the Game they are running is of low optimisation, but by RAW Fell Drain triggers on each instance that deals damage to a target. A Fell Drain magic missile would drain a level for each missile that hits the target, wile a fell drain Thunderlance drains a level with each attack.

[Gnaeus]

No. It is usual for some DMs to house rule it that way, especially when the Game they are running is of low optimisation, but by RAW Fell Drain triggers on each instance that deals damage to a target. A Fell Drain magic missile would drain a level for each missile that hits the target, wile a fell drain Thunderlance drains a level with each attack.

“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. ....”

No. RAW is that any creature who takes damage from the spell gains a negative level. That isn’t a houserule. It is reading the feat. Any use that allows more than a single negative level per fell drained spell is a house rule. You might be able to be hit a second time if you had previously healed the negative level. But regardless you only ever get a negative level.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Imagine a spell that hits once per round, say, flaming sphere.

Round 1: Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from a Fell Drain flaming sphere. Is Tordek "a living creature that is dealt damage"? Yes. Okay, he takes a negative level.
Round 2: Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from a Fell Drain flaming sphere. Is Tordek "a living creature that is dealt damage"? Yes. Okay, he takes a negative level.

Etcetera.

There's nothing in the feat description that suggests Fell Drain spells have any memory of previous creatures they've hit. Tordek will be a living creature that is dealt damage every single round, and you apply the feat's rule every single round, regardless of how many negative levels Tordek has when the spell damages him.

Of course, the same thing applies if you replace flaming sphere with scorching ray, you just have to replace "round" with "attack". Each attack is resolved separately, and Tordek is affected by Fell Drain each time it might come up. Unless there's a rule somewhere that limits rider effects to the first attack of a given spell, similar to the bonus damage rule for spells (RC 136).

[Thurbane]

Personally I'd call the RAW somewhat murky, and put this in "ask your DM" territory.

[Asmotherion]

“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. ....”

No. RAW is that any creature who takes damage from the spell gains a negative level. That isn’t a houserule. It is reading the feat. Any use that allows more than a single negative level per fell drained spell is a house rule. You might be able to be hit a second time if you had previously healed the negative level. But regardless you only ever get a negative level.

Yeah, no you're wrong. RAW says quite clearly that "the moment you get damaged by a Fell Drain spell you get a negative level".

No reading of it even remotelly suggests it is once per creature or once per spell or whatever. Those are house rules.

If you could provide me a single instance in the text that suggests the effect is "once per casting" (you can't, cause, really, it's a veeery specific text) we could have a discussion over potential RAI vs RAW. There is no such instance, no matter how you read the text.

PS: I don't want to turn this into a 6 pages of useless arguing to prove the obvious. You're just plain wrong.

[bean illus]

Imagine a spell that hits once per round, say, flaming sphere.

Round 1: Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from a Fell Drain flaming sphere. Is Tordek "a living creature that is dealt damage"? Yes. Okay, he takes a negative level.
Round 2: Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from a Fell Drain flaming sphere. Is Tordek "a living creature that is dealt damage"? Yes. Okay, he takes a negative level.



Nah.
There was a spell, there was damage, there was a level drain. Done.

Fell drain is already crazy, and it already only cost 2 spell levels.

But more to the RAW, it says "is dealt damage also gains a negative level". Yes, or no. Nothing about plural damages/etc.
If a living creature has taken damage then the binary is complete.

[Thurbane]

If it helps at all, the lowest level spell I know of that can bestow permanent level drain (without needing metamagic) is Sticks and Stones from Shining South (Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3) - it creates a temporary skeleton that drains levels like a wight does.

Just weighing this up against, say, Summon Undead, you need a 5th level spell (SU V) to get a wight. Admittedly, your Sticks to Stones skeleton is more fragile, but it gets 2 claw attacks, so may be able to inflict 2 negative levels/round.

Pretty great value spell, but I'd expect nothing less from a FR splat. :smalltongue:

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nah.
There was a spell, there was damage, there was a level drain. Done.
That first thing you say isn't part of the feat at all. It doesn't say "at the completion of the spell, any living creature affected [by the spell]". It says "any living creature that is dealt damage [by the spell]". There's no mention of the spell as a whole at all, only the sub-division of the spell into instances of damage. That rather suggests there is a per-damage limit, not per-spell.

It doesn't really help to involve balance in the RAW debate. Whether Fell Drain is balanced or not is a separate discussion.

[bean illus]

That first thing you say isn't part of the feat at all. It doesn't say "at the completion of the spell, any living creature affected [by the spell]". It says "any living creature that is dealt damage [by the spell]". There's no mention of the spell as a whole at all, only the sub-division of the spell into instances of damage. That rather suggests there is a per-damage limit, not per-spell.



Only, it isn't a "subdivision of the spell". It never say, suggest, or implies any such thing. No subdivision of energy types, or damage types, or rounds, or any subdivision whatsoever.

It's just biniary. Did it cause damage? Yes = negatve level. Done.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Only, it isn't a "subdivision of the spell". It never say, suggest, or implies any such thing. No subdivision of energy types, or damage types, or rounds, or any subdivision whatsoever.
Fell Drain refers to "a living creature that is dealt damage", which is an event that may happen many times as a result of a given spell. That spell is "subdivided" into the separate damage dealt-events, each of which is resolved separately.


It's just biniary. Did it cause damage? Yes = negatve level. Done.
...that's not useful at all. We're not disputing that damage leads to negative levels. We're disputing what "it" refers to. Does it refer to a damage event, or to the spell as a whole?

As I just wrote, the only interpretation that's slightly supported is "damage events trigger negative levels" (because the feat directly ties the negative level to damage), not "being subject to the spell triggers negative levels" (because the feat directly ties the negative level to damage, and doesn't further qualify or limit that).


The feat doesn't directly lead to one interpretation only. It is compatible with (i.e. doesn't contradict) at least two interpretations. However, when a feat is compatible with multiple interpretations, the more permissive interpretation prevails, since the player is free to apply it. It may be easier to understand this when it's presented in a concrete player-DM interaction (a more elaborate version of what I posted above).


Player Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from flaming sphere, and a negative level.
DM Why does Tordek take a negative level? (i.e. Can you justify this with an ability?)
Player I cast the flaming sphere with Fell Drain applied.
DM Okay, forgot about that, one negative level duly noted.

(time passes)

Player Tordek takes 2d6 fire damage from flaming sphere, and a negative level.
DM Can Fell Drain apply more than one negative level per casting? (i.e. Can you justify this with an ability?)
Player Tordek meets all the conditions laid out in the feat: he's living, and he's taking damage from a spell enhanced by Fell Drain. No limit is mentioned.
DM Alrighty then.

Note that this is not a matter of DM interpretation. The player is at the time of the action able to justify the outcome to the DM, and the DM must accept that the ability text is consistent with the outcome the player has provided. That there is also a narrower interpretation consistent with the feat's text does not matter--the player hasn't requested it. The DM can, as always, reject the outcome, but not because it's not by the rules.

Incidentally, this line of reasoning leads directly to standard order-of-application rules. That is, when the rules are ambiguous, you get to apply different rules in any order that is consistent with the text (usually you pick the most advantageous order), which you then present to the DM.

[Gnaeus]

The feat doesn't directly lead to one interpretation only. It is compatible with (i.e. doesn't contradict) at least two interpretations. However, when a feat is compatible with multiple interpretations, the more permissive interpretation prevails, since the player is free to apply it. It may be easier to understand this when it's presented in a concrete player-DM interaction (a more elaborate version of what I posted above)..

Hardly. The player generally gets to choose the order in which rules are applied. And the DM determines what the final rules are always. Order of operations rules have no bearing on this.

DM Planar Binding can’t make an outsider do that.
Player: Nuh Uh! Whether my demand is unreasonable is subject to multiple interpretations. So my interpretation goes and I say it’s reasonable. So RAW I can make him do anything I want as long as I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

That’s not at all how it works. The more permissive rule prevails in ambiguous rules cases is nowhere among the questions we ask in rules analysis. It has less weight (0 being less) in a rules debate than winners like “what do I think RAI was”, “It’s balanced in this instance” or “I read a stat block that did it this way”.

The player can apply the rules however they most benefit him doesn’t even make sense.
P1. Oh it’s like that is it? Fine. DM I fire fell drained magic missiles at Steve, that’s 15 damage and 5 negative levels.
P2. No, I’m a player and I can apply the interpretation that’s better for me. I take 1 negative level like the spell text says.
DM 😡😡😡


Only, it isn't a "subdivision of the spell". It never say, suggest, or implies any such thing. No subdivision of energy types, or damage types, or rounds, or any subdivision whatsoever.

It's just biniary. Did it cause damage? Yes = negatve level. Done.

This is proper analysis and RAW.

[bean illus]

...

As I just wrote, the only interpretation that's slightly supported is "damage events trigger negative levels" (because the feat directly ties the negative level to damage), not "being subject to the spell triggers negative levels" (because the feat directly ties the negative level to damage, and doesn't further qualify or limit that).


Except it never says that, either. It doesn't say "events", or any plural at all.



Hardly.

... fire fell drained magic missiles at Steve, that’s 15 damage and 5 negative levels.

...



Only, it isn't a "subdivision of the spell". It never say, suggest, or implies any such thing. No subdivision of energy types, or damage types, or rounds, or any subdivision whatsoever.

It's just biniary. Did it cause damage? Yes = negatve level. Done.

This is proper analysis and RAW.

Twinned repeating magic missile?

Seriously though. Fell drain on AoE spells is epic size battle shifting power. Like turning an entire army into over equipped commoners in 2-3 rounds type of power.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That’s not at all how it works. The more permissive rule prevails in ambiguous rules cases is nowhere among the questions we ask in rules analysis.
It is, actually. The basic assumption is that you can do anything, with the rules providing exceptions. The permissive interpretation taking precedence is a direct result of the fact that rules are exceptions (and have wide scope, which is more a linguistic default than anything).

You can rephrase it to something that may sound more appealing: "Don't interpret the rules to be more restrictive than required by the text".


Except it never says that, either. It doesn't say "events", or any plural at all.
The full interpretation of the feat isn't completely spelled out, you're right. How unusual--it's nothing like WotC to leave assumptions implicit.

But seriously: Of course the feat isn't phrased in clear, unambigious terms. This is WotC we're talking about. These are the same people who think "caster level" and "class level" are the same thing (part of the time, anyway), and then write up consumptive field. If you look at the chill touch thread we had recently, you'll see that spells that incorporate multiple attacks are particularly difficult to untangle. One thing that is certain, however, is that some spells damage multiple targets, and each instance of potential damage-dealing checks for energy resistance, SR, saves, and applies its effects separately. I call these "damage events" because it's easier to say than "instance of a spell potentially dealing damage resolved separately", and because it's not clear whether they constitute separate attacks--I'd call them "attack" if it was. You could also call them "hit", but that's already used for successful attack rolls. So as a practical matter, I'm using "damage event".


I'm done arguing about this, by the way. It's not going to get better from here.

[Asmotherion]

It is, actually. The basic assumption is that you can do anything, with the rules providing exceptions. The permissive interpretation taking precedence is a direct result of the fact that rules are exceptions (and have wide scope, which is more a linguistic default than anything).

You can rephrase it to something that may sound more appealing: "Don't interpret the rules to be more restrictive than required by the text".


The full interpretation of the feat isn't completely spelled out, you're right. How unusual--it's nothing like WotC to leave assumptions implicit.

But seriously: Of course the feat isn't phrased in clear, unambigious terms. This is WotC we're talking about. These are the same people who think "caster level" and "class level" are the same thing (part of the time, anyway), and then write up consumptive field. If you look at the chill touch thread we had recently, you'll see that spells that incorporate multiple attacks are particularly difficult to untangle. One thing that is certain, however, is that some spells damage multiple targets, and each instance of potential damage-dealing checks for energy resistance, SR, saves, and applies its effects separately. I call these "damage events" because it's easier to say than "instance of a spell potentially dealing damage resolved separately", and because it's not clear whether they constitute separate attacks--I'd call them "attack" if it was. You could also call them "hit", but that's already used for successful attack rolls. So as a practical matter, I'm using "damage event".


I'm done arguing about this, by the way. It's not going to get better from here.

Wise choice, given the other side has given 0 text to back their claim, {scrubbed} :smallamused:.

Either way, to anyone who's not coming at it with a confirmation bias, it's pretty clear that the text has no specific clause preventing application on multiple instances in the duration of the spell (which is always considered the default when reading an effect), as opposed to anything considered a RAW limitation, aka NON-Dm rulling, nor are there any rules in the extended 3.5 that even remotelly suggest that it works the way they claim.

If anything, many effects that have limitations already applicable because of the rules, usually include non-permissive clauses about limitations in their description, in order to avoid confussion by newer players.

Thus the only logical conclusion is, as I said earlier, by pure RAW, it is deffinitelly how it works, and anyone that disagrees is free to house rule it however they want at their table (or, even those that agree; It's no big seccret that 3.5 RAW is insanelly inballanced). But, they are deeply wrong in not admiting it is a House Rule.


Negative level builds can be very, very,
very bad in 3e, because anything you kill with them become wights, and all it takes is one to potentially destroy the world. Sure, use them as debuffs to add to your spells (ie, Fell Drain), but don't apply too many to any given enemy, else you could wipe out everyone and everything via wightocalypse.

Honestly, for 99% of casters who use Negative Levels offten, that's less of a warning and more a Career Goal...

[bean illus]

... <snip opinion> ... .

... , it's pretty clear that the text has no specific clause preventing application on multiple instances in the duration of the spell (which is always considered the default when reading an effect), ...

... <snip opinion> ... .

No such specific clause is needed or provided, because no such specific claim is made. Each living creature that takes damage takes a negative level. If spell duration harms multiple living creatures, they all take a negative level.



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

... " ... a spell" ... "foes" ... " a negative level" ... .

[Asmotherion]

No such specific clause is needed or provided, because no such specific claim is made. Each living creature that takes damage takes a negative level. If spell duration harms multiple living creatures, they all take a negative level.




... " ... a spell" ... "foes" ... " a negative level" ... .

Interesting how you frame your oppinion/way of reading an effect as facts.


You can alter a spell (generic 3e language used in metamagic effects; Never seen a Metamagic effect able to alter Multiple spells) that deals damage (as opposed to a spell that does not deal damage aka more than half the spells in the game. Also, "that deals damages" is not exactly proper english, no matter what the internet tells you) to foes (plural, agreed, which is also key) so that any living creature that is dealt damage (Aka, the moment it is dealt damage by a spell modified by this metamagic, not once limited by the spell to a single instance) also gains a negative level (singular yes. Nobody is arguing they get more than 1 negative level per instance of taking damage, so not sure why you'd mention it, but ok).



Let's take a pretty usual spell with a duration, Flaming Sphere. 1st round it hits enemy A; Enemy A takes a Negative level. Next turn it hits Enemy B, B takes a Negative level.

-What exactly in the text or extended 3.5 rules tells us that if next round we hit A again, he won't take a negative level? Nothing.
-Where does the metamagic tell us that it remembers who it gave a negative level already, and, since it's a good sport it will not give the same enemy an other one? Nowere.
-Any rules that tell us that being targeted by a fell drain spell makes you imune to taking negative levels by the same spell? Nada.

Thus, the only logical interpretation is, it delivers a negative level every instance it damages, and the only way to contradict that is the DM ruling otherwise.

[Darg]

What about Fiery Spell? Nothing says it can't combine all the damage die per target either:


A fiery spell deals an extra 1 point of fire damage for each die of damage the spell deals. This feat can be applied only to spells with the fi re descriptor. For example, if a 9th-level wizard with this feat casts a fi ery fi reball, the fi reball deals 9d6+9 points of damage. A fiery spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

So hitting 10 targets means that fireball does +90 damage because it is dealing 90 die of damage.


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

It doesn't say "when any living creature is dealt damage." It only says that a creature dealt damage by the spell gains a single negative level.

[bean illus]

You keep saying "only", and "logical", as if the use of the words preclude others from reaching different conclusions; or as if it adds value to your opinion that other opinions don't possess.

I see no proof in your verbosity.

I read "damage" to mean "damage", as in 'any or all'. As in, 'if your opponent took damage in the last round', or "Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0". In either case, i interpret "damage" to mean any and all damage (as opposed to 'each case of', or 'each instance of', which are two of the common ways wotc indicates 'each case of', or 'each instance of'.)

That's how it reads to me, and some others.

On a side note, without trying to tangent off of fell drain, i wonder if ocular spell satisfies your trivia question about metamagic feat altering 2 spells.

[Gnaeus]

Wise choice, given the other side has given 0 text to back their claim, {scrub the post, scrub the quote} :smallamused:.

On the contrary, your side was the one claiming the other interpretation is a houserule. So the burden of proof is on you. In the unlikely event you ever prove that, we will rebut.


Either way, to anyone who's not coming at it with a confirmation bias, it's pretty clear that the text has no specific clause PERMITTING application on multiple instances in the duration of the spell as opposed to anything considered a RAW limitation, aka NON-Dm rulling, nor are there any rules in the extended 3.5 that even remotelly suggest that it works the way WE claim.

Corrected for truth.

[SangoProduction]

The logic is pretty simple both ways, but it's just not explicit what the intent was. As such, both readings are "Valid." Not "house rules."

if (DamageDone){
____ Inflict NegativeLevel;
}

vs

For:Each (DamageDone){
____Inflict NegativeLevel;
}


There is nothing to really suggest that to me that it's the latter, especially given the low level adjustment.
I mean, we can diss WotC all we want, and with good reason, but I'm pretty sure they knew what Magic Missile was, at least.

[Asmotherion]

On the contrary, your side was the one claiming the other interpretation is a houserule. So the burden of proof is on you. In the unlikely event you ever prove that, we will rebut.



Corrected for truth.

Framing it this way, it is your Side that claims your interpretation is RAW, and claims the effect has a lot more limitations that are implied through a very selective reading, thus Burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove your own claims, then they are totally invalid.

I provided all the evidence needed. You have provided nothing, other than a very odd way to read things.

Also, don't misquote me. Ever. Reported. I have no sence of humor about this things. Put your own interpretation of the rules in your post, but NEVER put words in my mouth. It is rude, and honestly, the unfunny sence of humor of a 15 year old.

I'm also assuming that if you had ANY valid arguement to raise, you'd have done so by now, instead of just playing the "no, you" game, and repeating your selective way of misreading as "evidence".

Anyway, this thread is getting toxic, and I'm done with it. Read things however you guys want, just don't confuse people searching for RAW rules.

[Falontani]

Is there a way to make a good level drain build without fell drain? Echoing chained split ray repeating enervation?

[bean illus]

The logic is pretty simple both ways, but it's just not explicit what the intent was. As such, both readings are "Valid." Not "house rules."

if (DamageDone){
____ Inflict NegativeLevel;
}

vs

For:Each (DamageDone){
____Inflict NegativeLevel;
}


There is nothing to really suggest that to me that it's the latter, especially given the low level adjustment.
I mean, we can diss WotC all we want, and with good reason, but I'm pretty sure they knew what Magic Missile was, at least.

I note the balance issue, and the intent aspect. But back to the wording, it seems necessary to add a word (each) to the wording just to be able to create the question. That's not a good indicator of a strong raw argument.


...

... , this thread is getting toxic, ...

I'm sorry you feel this way. It wasn't my intent, nor did i notice a disproportionate propensity towards rude behavior.

[Asmotherion]

I note the balance issue, and the intent aspect. But back to the wording, it seems necessary to add a word (each) to the wording just to be able to create the question. That's not a good indicator of a strong raw argument.



I'm sorry you feel this way. It wasn't my intent, nor did i notice a disproportionate propensity towards rude behavior.

It was not targeted towards you, I just have a thing were getting misquoted really gets under my skin. Bad experiance with media and stuff.

Honestly, I'd quallify the rest of the convo as a witty banter other than this one instance.

[Thurbane]

Is there a way to make a good level drain build without fell drain? Echoing chained split ray repeating enervation?

To continue the OP of this thread a try to move past the derail - I believe it is perfectly viable to make an energy drain build without needing Fell Drain. There's enough spell options out there, which can be enhanced with other metamagics: your example above being one.

[Asmotherion]

To continue the OP of this thread a try to move past the derail - I believe it is perfectly viable to make an energy drain build without needing Fell Drain. There's enough spell options out there, which can be enhanced with other metamagics: your example above being one.

Best way to go for it I believe is to go full minionmancer.

A) Summon Undead V for Vampire Spawn (it does also provide some great undead for extra support).

B) (Lesser/Greater) Planar Binding and support spells. Succubi make a great asset for any minionmancer, not only for their energy drain, but also their Change Shape ability.

C) Create (greater) undead. Pretty straightforward. Many Great Options. Also, works great with Black Sand.

D) One of my favorite spells, Kiss of The Vampire would be pretty great for this build. Gives you temporarilly Undead Traits and a bunsh of SLAs, on of which is a Melee Touch Attack version of Enervation. While it does have a somewhat expensive component (50gp), it can also be persisted if you build for metamagic reducers, which is not Mutually Exclusive to Minionmancy, and if anything, complements it well.

The downsides? It's a pretty high level build that won't come online before level 11 at least, except for very specific builds.