Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Somewhere you're not

    Default Reducing an ability below one

    In this thread I argued with Kaelik that a ray of clumsiness/ray of exhaustion would never reduce your dex below one. I'm not quite convinced by Kaelik so I'd like to bring this to the attention of other forum goers.

    My argument is basicly: ray of clumsiness says it can reduce dex below one and thus it can never be reduced to 0 with the assistance of this spell.

    Kaelik arguement: it does work if you cast ray of clumsiness first so that dex=1 and then cast ray of exhaustion it would reduce your dex to 0 because the effects stack.

    Note: you can use Ray of Enfeeblement/ray of exhaustion for a core example of exactly the same thing.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
    JackMage666's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Central Texas

    Default Re: Reducing an ability below one

    Well, it appears to be an untyped penalty, so they would theoretically stack. However, they would be regained after 1/minute CL, since none of it is damage, just a penalty. It seems solid, since Exhaustion can bring you below 1 (and that's what Ray of Exhaustion simulates.) This is using Ray of Enfeeblement, let me check Ray of Clumsiness....

    Which is essentially the same as Enfeeblement...

    It looks solid, provided they are done in that order, since it's untyped.
    If there's a rule, there's someone out there trying to figure out how to get around it just to piss off his DM.

    - The Jack-signal. Thanks Jokes!

    Avatar created by Yeril, who made it look awesome.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
    Demented's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    In search of cheese

    Default Re: Reducing an ability below one

    Potato, potato.
    In DnD, you can't even get DMs to count the same. There is no right answer, only a procession of succeedingly valid proposals.

    Now, you could argue that "The Subject's Dexterity score cannot drop below 1." is an absolute property of the spell... Thus opening up the possibility that you'd want to cast that on someone if it was absolutely essential that they maintain a dexterity score. It's inane, but literal. But more inane than the alternative?
    Belkar's Bad to the Bone.
    Dispossible a fetter hein and bemay kine a sinder's tock.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts