I would not allow MM to utilize precision damage.
You can't be precise if you don't aim the spell, ie. roll an attack roll.
Magic Missiles just hit, they dont hit specific areas.This.
And every post like it.
.... But the whole point of the class ability, which is what causes this to happen, is to be able to apply your sneak attack on non-roll to hit damage spells. if you replace the 10th level ability of the class that's fine, but until then not allowing MM or any other spell to apply Sneak attack is reducing the effect of the ability. roll to hit spells already get sneak attack, if the situation is right.
Again, this is the point of the class ability.
Please note: I'm not arguing with when the sneak attack is applied. once per spell makes as much sense as once per missile.
What competition? There is no prize for the highest exp, or the highest about of prestige points. Last I heard PFS and rpgs in general was all about cooperative play.
But than again...that mentality....is a problem of organized play which breeds a feel of competion...which would require DMs to rule the same. But all that means is organized play...should just be reoraganized to drop that feeling. But that is another topic completely.
James Jacobs hit the nail on the head. The prize is bragging rights. I think organized play does a lot of good for the hobby. But there is also a very much of a downside to it.
I also agree with him in that PFS is the best organized play out there. But that is not saying...much.
Creative Director
|
Please don't shut down or minimize the FAQ system anymore than it already is minimized please.
Just because you don't want GMs in PFS stopping games to look up FAQ entries doesn't mean your customer base doesn't want those FAQs to look up after the game in question is done, so the GMs can make informed decisions on what they houserule. It's much easier to figure out if you want to house rule something if you see the DEVs ruling and the thought process on it.
That's absolutely not what I was implying, just for the record.
The FAQ system isn't going anywhere. It's in place, and when we get our crap together enough that we can turn our attention to it, we will; in the meantime, the fact that folks are already using it to flag posts and all that is a good thing. The fact that there's not been a lot of visible progress on it from the outside is bad, yeah, but the tools are there, waiting for us to go in and get to work on them.
Thanks for the responses, James. I think magic missile is enough of a corner case to disallow Surprise Spell to affect all missiles as well. That's how I had planned to handle it when the situation arose (which would have been from a high level npc villain my heroes shall some day encounter...oops, I've said too much!) in my campaign.
I've even updated the discussion on my group's message board with a link to this thread. /salute!
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the rays created by this spell don't all fire at the same time. At least, I don't see them as firing all at the same time. They fire in rapid succession, one after the other.
Aren't we talking about Scorching ray here?
The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.3.5 had rules for firing volleys (specifically for the old tome and blood orb spells, but also for scorching ray) that disallowed multiple sneak attacks from spells that fired volleys.
I'd suggest that Pathfinder consider adopting this for similar reasons.
-James
Well then!
The rays DO fire simultaneously, which is not something I knew they did (turns out, I don't have the core rules memorized!).
In light of this development, I probably would let all of those rays do sneak attack damage.
Still... the GM gets to make the final call.
I think...a possible solution to this is...SA and touch spells.
All spells that you SA with if you hit the targets normal AC (rather it is flat footed or not this would include flanking w/ melee touch spells) you get the SA dice on the damage...however if you only hit the touch AC you just do regular damage.
My problem with precision damage thru touch attacks if it is not precise...that is why it is easier. I mean how are you hitting a vulnerable part when hit a shield? Requiring them to hit their normal AC mean you are aiming it more precisy. But they don't loose out on the advantage of touch spells...they will do something.
I think I might use this as a house rule. What do other people think? Hey if Pazio want to steal it...I won't be upset.
Anyone who tries to argue that Magic Missile does not do more damage as you go up in level at a predictable rate is fooling themselves. The fact that the damage manifests as more missiles is a delivery vehicle, like saying 'burst' is the delivery vehicle for a fireball. It's still going up by every 2 levels in damage potential, which is what the spell is looking at. 'extra missile' is irrelevant to what the feat is looking for.
It also raises the damage cap, not the level cap. So an Intensified Magic Missile is a 2nd level spell that is worthless until level 11, when it deals 6 dice of damage, and it maxes out at 10 dice at level 20...always less damage then a Scorching Ray.
Note that Intensify and Spell Mastery would still be useless for Magic Missile...adding another 5 dice to the damage cap means you would have to be level 21 to start adding another missile, and is beyond normal levels of play.
In short, an Intensified Magic Missile is perfectly balanced.
James' arguments are not coherent and following the rules re: Surprise Spell. He's arguing from a tacit DM 'problem spell' standpoint. That's not part of the feat or spell description. In effect, it's a House Rule.
As Written, the spell grants SA dmg to anyone you hit with it during a surprise round...fireball, scorching Rays, magic missiles, evard's tentacles, ICE STORM, Reverse Gravity, telekinesis, whatever. The feat makes no special mention of damage type, hit roll required, saves requested, or anything of the sort. It implicitly is not limited to one target per spell, since it works with AoE's.
I don't have a problem with it. A first level spell doing Sneak Attack damage at that level is little different then a Rogue doing the same with a bow against flat footed opponents for even more damage dice. And Magic missiles DO have to check against SR.
Given that they hit simultaneously and are one spell, I'd note SA dmg once per target, exactly like a fireball, rather then once per missile, because that's the way the feat seems to spread the damage out.
I have no problems with JJ's own rules as they stand, if you think Magic Missile is overpowered as a spell. MM is used because it is reliable, yet crappy damage. At higher levels, it is IRRELEVANT, and at low levels, its a last resort spell, or something to force a COncentration Check, not actually kill anything. Burning Hands advances in damage twice as fast as MM, and is more useful at level 2+. Both are irrelevant past level 5...MM's dmg is too low, and BH just got trumped by Fireball.
and anyone who thinks dealing 14d6 SA dmg at level 20 is broken with an attack..eh. 50 dmg isn't going to kill ANYTHING at that level with a Surprise Attack.
===Aelryinth
Also, per doubling rules...larger items double in weight with a size increase, they don't follow physics.
Plus, Large is x2, Huge is x3, Gargantuan is x4 and Colossal x5, not 2,4, 8, 16 and 32. Look at Giants and Titans.
So a Colossal Arrow is probably about 15 feet long, just about right for a 30' tall creature. Granted, it SHOULD weigh 125 times as much as a normal arrow, but by the rules I believe it only weighs 16 times as much, doubling at each size increase. I guess bigger stuff isn't porportionally thicker, or something.
==Aelryinth
No, I wasn't thinking of you when I posted that. I think you can guess a couple of names that popped into my head, but I won't post them to avoid violating forum rules.
I'd rather see the "hurl a bunch of things at a foe" handled as a simple area effect attack. Basically, a "fireball" that does bludgeoning and piercing and slashing damage, but otherwise just does 1d6/level (max 20d6) in a 20 foot burst.Again... not to nerf damage NEARLY as much as to reduce the ridiculous amount of die rolls this tactic uses.
I'm TriOmegaZero and I approve of this message.
How can you be so thoughtless in posting something like this? Don't you realize there are at least a dozen posters on this forum that are going to go into apoplectic shock that someone advocated not following the rules as written to the painful letter of the rule? And my god, it was a developer on top of that!Did I just blow your mind?
LoL. I think we all know.
LoL. I think we all know.
No, I wasn't thinking of you when I posted that. I think you can guess a couple of names that popped into my head, but I won't post them to avoid violating forum rules.
How can you be so thoughtless in posting something like this? Don't you realize there are at least a dozen posters on this forum that are going to go into apoplectic shock that someone advocated not following the rules as written to the painful letter of the rule? And my god, it was a developer on top of that!Did I just blow your mind?
Shhh, you'll get their attention and awaken the slumbering snorax!
Because the rays created by this spell don't all fire at the same time. At least, I don't see them as firing all at the same time. They fire in rapid succession, one after the other.
Aren't we talking about Scorching ray here?
The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.3.5 had rules for firing volleys (specifically for the old tome and blood orb spells, but also for scorching ray) that disallowed multiple sneak attacks from spells that fired volleys.
I'd suggest that Pathfinder consider adopting this for similar reasons.
-James
Well then!
The rays DO fire simultaneously, which is not something I knew they did (turns out, I don't have the core rules memorized!).
In light of this development, I probably would let all of those rays do sneak attack damage.
Still... the GM gets to make the final call.
JJ I would like to point out that this was ruled several times in 3.5, including the rules compendium, that things like manyshot, scorching ray, meteor swarm etc could not benefit from multiple sneak attacks because they where generated simultaneously. I suppose to the logic was its hard to fit 6 keys into a keyhole at once if you get my drift, where as a full attack you put the key in 6 times one at a time.
bunch of really bad arguments from 'slie.
1) The feat doesn't look for missiles, it looks for damage by level.
at level 1, the spell does d4+1.at level 3, it does 2d4+2...it goes up by dice/level.
at level 9, it caps at 5d4+5.
If you can find anywhere in the spell that says "If this damage is inflicted by seperate missiles instead of a single attack, this feat doesn't apply" then you are correct.
The fact that the damage is inflicted by missiles is IRRELEVANT. It goes up by level and has a cap.
2)10 force damage at level 20 is about as irrelevant as 12 fire damage at level 20. 4 fire dmg vs 2 force at level 3, 8 fire dmg vs 4 force at 7, and 12 fire dmg vs 6 force at 11 is considerably better all the way around for Scorching Rays. And there's tons more ways to up dmg with fire spells then with Force Spells.
Oh, and it does extra dmg against cold critters, you can crit with it, and you can deliver SA dmg WITHOUT A FEAT with it. It MAXIMIZES much more nicely, and it EMPOWERS more nicely, if you follow the odd rule that only the d4 of the MM gets +50%, not the +1.
3) Intensify works perfectly fine with MM. "NO YOUR WRONG" is not a valid argument, and your other ones don't satisfy the feat.
4) Not sure what you are talking about for SA and dmg type of spell. The Feat is not looking for spells that do force, fire, blunt, cold or any other kind of damage to NOT function, which seems to be what JJ wants to have happen (against Force). Your comment is irrelevant.
5) I'm not at all sure where your comment on volleys comes from, either. The discussion was on whether MM's could deal SA damage to multiple targets, whereas the OP was using it 'per missile/per attack'. Since it's all one spell, the targets take SA dmg once per spell, but multiple creatures can take SA dmg. Throwing all the missiles at one character gets you 5d4+5 + SA dmg, not SA dmg x5. In short, the best use of the MM in this situation is to spread out the damage among multiple targets and soften them up. At an average of 50 dmg, like, wahoo.
===Aelryinth
Also, per doubling rules...larger items double in weight with a size increase, they don't follow physics.
Plus, Large is x2, Huge is x3, Gargantuan is x4 and Colossal x5, not 2,4, 8, 16 and 32. Look at Giants and Titans.
So a Colossal Arrow is probably about 15 feet long, just about right for a 30' tall creature. Granted, it SHOULD weigh 125 times as much as a normal arrow, but by the rules I believe it only weighs 16 times as much, doubling at each size increase. I guess bigger stuff isn't porportionally thicker, or something.
==Aelryinth
I don't think arrows in PF will be half the body length of someone. It can be if this was arrows for an English Longbow, but PF doesn't distinguish between short bow arrows or long bow arrows. To fit a shortbow, arrows would be about 2 feet or 1/3 the body length.
For a Colossal creature 30' tall perhaps 10' arrows, which would let it fit in a portable hole.
I agree with you about 100 times in weight but the weapon weight rules in PF defy physics.
PF doesn't distinguish between the COST of arrows. A shortbow arrow does not work in a longbow...this is common sense.
A longbow arrow is ~3 foot long. The phrase 'clothyard shaft' comes from the measure of a longbow arrow. Shortbow arrows might be only 30 inches. But if length is a problem, they should just be using crossbow bolts, no?
==Aelryinth
|
You add the sneak attack damage to only one missile. There's multiple missiles, yeah, but only one spell.Just out of curiosity, but how is this different than a fireball or ray? There's still only one spell, but theoretically the fireball adds sneak attack damage to every flat footed target in the area.
Or is it your intention that ANY spell using this ability can only do sneak attack damage to one target?
This is not as complicated as you are making it to be. Like James mentioned one spell ONE sneak attack damage. So therefor with the case of the Fireball, say it targets 7 creatures, of which 4 are flat footed, you can apply fireball damage to each of the 7 but only sneak attack damage to ONE of the flat footed creatures.
This is not as complicated as you are making it to be. Like James mentioned one spell ONE sneak attack damage. So therefor with the case of the Fireball, say it targets 7 creatures, of which 4 are flat footed, you can apply fireball damage to each of the 7 but only sneak attack damage to ONE of the flat footed creatures.You add the sneak attack damage to only one missile. There's multiple missiles, yeah, but only one spell.Just out of curiosity, but how is this different than a fireball or ray? There's still only one spell, but theoretically the fireball adds sneak attack damage to every flat footed target in the area.
Or is it your intention that ANY spell using this ability can only do sneak attack damage to one target?
It is as complicated as I'm making it out to be. You have obviously not read the thread. Quoted from in this thread.
A surprise spell fireball WOULD inflict its extra sneak attack damage to everyone caught in the area, because everyone's taking the same damage.-------------------------------------------------------------
Well then!
The rays DO fire simultaneously, which is not something I knew they did (turns out, I don't have the core rules memorized!).
In light of this development, I probably would let all of those rays do sneak attack damage.
Still... the GM gets to make the final call.
As you can see from the two above quotes, you do get the SA on both everyone in the fireball that's flatfooted, and on everyone you hit with a ray that's flat footed (in other words, everyone you beat initiative on in the surprise round, if you can cast the spell as a standard action).
Magic Missile is the odd man out. Per RAW right now, there's nothing stopping MM from getting the same effect. James is stating how he would houserule it with regards to magic missile, because it's an oddball spell. However, per RAW right now, it should get the SA to every missile if the target is flat footed. In my own games, I'll be adjusting the language of the special ability to read '...on any spell that is either area of effect, or requires an attack roll per target.'. That effectively gets rid of spells that auto-hit.
this is NOT 3.5 I would like to point out.
It is however based on 3.5 and completely backwards compatible...which means rules in 3.5 can be ported over...as I feel this rule should have been.
Pathfinder is far from perfect...and if the designers want to errata something to limit this...they can...or he is right it is up to the GM.
So you can perfect well have your Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster surprise spell SA with every missile from Magic missile...you can. Or can launch 30 garunton arrows in a round...whatever.
Or not.
We still are both playing Pathfinder...that is what a RPG is all about after all.
I do not see how magic missile will give multiple sneak attacks, they are not attacks as per the definition of sneak attack usually.
The surprise spell class ability gives the ability to apply sneak attack to a spell that wouldnt otherwise deal sneak attack damage, but not MULTIPLE times per round. That the spell fires multiple bolts is of no consequence it is one spell.
I do not see how magic missile will give multiple sneak attacks, they are not attacks as per the definition of sneak attack usually.
The surprise spell class ability gives the ability to apply sneak attack to a spell that wouldnt otherwise deal sneak attack damage, but not MULTIPLE times per round. That the spell fires multiple bolts is of no consequence it is one spell.
*sigh*
Please read the entire thread.
A) Surprise Spell grants SA to any spell that does HP damage if the target is flat-footed.
B) Ray's gain SA on each ray that hits, if the target is flat-footed.
C) AoE spells gain SA against each target in range that is flat-footed.
D) James Jacobs himself said B & C were true (try reading the thread above, looking for his posts, or look 2-3 posts up where I quoted him).
A to C means that, by RAW, MM get's the SA per missile as well.
1) Is this broken? Probably.
2) Should it be houseruled not to work? Probably.
3) Should the spell be errated to remove this intermix? Probably.
4) Does it work per RAW? Yes, unfortunately.
The bolded bit in the quote above is demonstratably false. That's sort of the whole point of the entire thread.
*sighs* I think you understood, I meant multiple times against one target.
Fact that it allows a spell to deal SA damage, doesnt mean it allows it per MM that would not normally allow SA damage, you do not deal damage per arrow with 'arrow swarm' either (reflex for half), magic missile should not be any different. You are deluded by the cosmetic similarity to a ray spell.
this is NOT 3.5 I would like to point out.
Not a very good attitude. Pathfinder sold itself on being 3.5 compatible, I'm beginning to get a little upset with people that are becoming "paizo-snobs", not allowing 3.5 or dismissing the decade of good work 3.5 put in. It works both ways too, as I actively encourage every 3.5 gamer I encounter to switch to pathfinder, as I think it is a straight upgrade over 3.5. But throwing out all the balancing and testing they did just because it wasn't created by Paizo is, quite frankly, stupid.
1) The feat doesn't look for missiles, it looks for damage by level.bunch of really bad arguments from 'slie.Which MM doesn't do. Magic missiles all do 1d4+1 points of damage. Period. Intensify doesn't help here as the damage is NOT level dependent, rather the number of missiles are.
There is a difference here, and I think you might take some time to rectify to the two in your mind.
An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels.There is not a maximum number of damage dice for magic missile like there is for fireball, cone of cold, burning hands and the like. Rather the cap is based upon the number of missiles.
For example, if you are being exacting about the rules an empowered magic missile is getting that 50% on each missile, rather than the total damage should all the missiles be fired at the same target. (We can ignore the Paizo vs 3.5 variation on whether or not the 2-5 missile damage is variable).
As to the question of volleys. There was a 3.5 rule that persisted in many places outside of the SRD. It dealt originally with the Tome & Blood Orb spells but still applied to scorching ray. Spells (and things like Manyshot) that fired attacks all at the same time did not get to all apply their precision based damage such as sneak attack.
It's a good rule, and the first time you witness a rogue TKing a ton of thrown weapons all for sneak dice you will believe that it is a very reasonable rule. Or at least you should. If you don't I encourage your DM to subject your party to the receiving end of it until the point that you do, or make sure the entire party has uncanny dodge if they want to live.
-James
Again, you are arguing for 'missiles'. Irrelevant. The feat doesn't look for missiles, it looks for damage. And the damage the spell inflicts follows ALL the rules the spell looks for.
The spell looks only for damage. Quit arguing for the delivery vehicle. Your argument would only have merit if the missiles did not do damage...they do, they do it by level, and there's a cap. Period and end of story.
Really, test it and see:
1) Does Magic Missile do Damage? Yes.
2) Does that damage increase by caster level? Yep, /2 levels.
3) Is there a maximum amount of damage the spell can do? Yes, 5d4+5.
4) Does this satisfy everything Intensify Spell Looks for? Yes.
Quit throwing 'missiles' into the mix. The feat doesn't see them. It sees only the damage, how it goes up, and if it caps. Trying to argue otherwise is pure sophistry of English.
======
And it is far from unbalanced letting the Surprise Spell SA work with MM. It does less dmg to everyone it affects then a Fireball spell, and to a max of five targets.
The SA dmg off a volley is per target per spell, NOT per missile/ray/bolt. That's already been cleared up. You don't get 5 attacks on one character with MM. You get one, regardless of how many missiles target it. You would get SA on five different targets, exactly like a fireball going off. Given the amount of SA dmg, meh. Not going to kill anything at the level you can use it, it just makes a decent AoE spell out of an irrelevant level 1 spell if you meet the conditions.
==Aelryinth
Surprise Spells
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
Normally one would think to apply this too higher level AOE spells but if you apply it to a quickened intensified magic missile things get pretty crazy. In a past thread I created everyone agreed that an intensified magic missile probably allows the caster to create two more magic missiles than the regular version. So since surprise spells gets around the restriction that only spells that require attack rolls can get sneak attack damage we can get in about 14 attacks per round that cannot miss. So assuming our target has no spell resistance or that we pass every spell penetration check a 1oth level arcane trickster can very easily deal 14d4 + 98d6 force damage. I'm not aware of anything that can top that.
You got an official ruling already and the fact is, it's very unclear how to handle it, therefore you're going to get many different replies.
My personal houserule would be to say you can't even use it with magic missile. Why? Because in the spell description it says:
"Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out"
Sneak Attack damage is precision damage, and with precision damage you need to damage vital areas, which means you need to attack specific spots. This is why Magic Missile can't crit and it's also why Sneak Attack should never apply to MM.
Surprise Spells
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
Normally one would think to apply this too higher level AOE spells but if you apply it to a quickened intensified magic missile things get pretty crazy. In a past thread I created everyone agreed that an intensified magic missile probably allows the caster to create two more magic missiles than the regular version. So since surprise spells gets around the restriction that only spells that require attack rolls can get sneak attack damage we can get in about 14 attacks per round that cannot miss. So assuming our target has no spell resistance or that we pass every spell penetration check a 1oth level arcane trickster can very easily deal 14d4 + 98d6 force damage. I'm not aware of anything that can top that.
You got an official ruling already and the fact is, it's very unclear how to handle it, therefore you're going to get many different replies.
My personal houserule would be to say you can't even use it with magic missile. Why? Because in the spell description it says:
"Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out"
Sneak Attack damage is precision damage, and with precision damage you need to damage vital areas, which means you need to attack specific spots. This is why Magic Missile can't crit and it's also why Sneak Attack should never apply to MM.
Neither can a fireball single out specific parts, the point of the ability is to add it to spells that normally cant get sneak attack damage, obviously many people go to the other extreme and suggest it should apply to each missile.
In my opinion it is just that every creature that gets damaged by the spell gets an ammount of sneak attack damage on top of the damage they receive, taking the spell as a single 'attack'.
+1.
This is not precision damage, it's magic. Fireballs don't target things, either.
Magic Missile does damage. It delivers that with Missiles.
Fireball does damage. It delivers it with Bursts.
Lightning BOlt does damage. It delivers it with Bolts.
Scorching Ray does damage. It delivers it with Rays.
Ice Storm does damage. It delivers it with a Storm.
Cone of Cold does damage. It delivers it with a Cone.
Orbs do damage. They are delivered with Orbs.
INTENSIFY DOES NOT LOOK FOR THE DELIVERY VEHICLE.
Do you do damage with the magic missile spell? If you say no, I suggest you read the spell again.
Does the amount of damage you do vary directly by level? If you say no, I suggest you read the spell again.
Is there a maximum amount of damage the magic missile spell can deal? If you say no, I suggest you read the spell again.
Eesh. If you can find something in Intensify Spell that mentions the delivery vehicle for the damage, you have a point. There is nothing in the feat that does so. The 'missile' argument is IRRELEVANT. Intensify Spell looks for the arguments above, and MM satisfies all of them.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Does the amount of damage you do vary directly by level? If you say no, I suggest you read the spell again.
The amount of damage varies indirectly by level. The actual variable part of the spell is 'For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile', which is not a 'maximum number of damage dice' as stated in Intensify Spell. Intensify Spells states 'spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.' The damage is not modified by caster level, the number of missiles is.
No, Toz. You are looking at the delivery vehicle again. the missile conveys the damage.
By that argument, all spells do indirect damage. Fireball creates a burst. CoC creates a Cone. None of them do damage.
All the feat looks for is the damage. The spell delivers it, and it varies by caster level. The feat does not care how it gets there, which is what is being argued. It only looks at the end result.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Fireball does 1d6 per caster level.
Magic Missile does 1 missile per two caster levels.
In the first spell the damage is modified by caster level.
In the second the number of missiles is modified by caster levels.
Intensify Spell does not affect spells that do not modify damage by caster level.
Magic Missile does not modify damage by caster level.
Magic Missile modifies number of missiles by caster level.
Thus Magic Missile is not affected by the feat.
Scorching Ray is similarly not affected by the feat, as caster level determines the number of rays, not the number of damage dice.
Inflict X Wounds would be affected by Intensify Spell, because you are adding your caster level to the damage. If Inflict Wounds dealt only 1d8 damage, but gained multiple iterative touch attacks based on caster level, Intensify Spell would not affect it, because it would be increasing attacks and not damage.
|
I would allow MM to benefit from Intensify Spell...It is not over powering since at best you gain 2 extra missiles by 13th level...Oooo 7d4+7 damage....Gotta use those 1st level spell for something...In previous editions MM was the ultimate "had to have" spell, every wiz filled their 1st level slots with it as they got higher in level, this gives a bit of "Oomph" back to the spell.
Scorching Ray does not do a linear increase in damage potential, and hence is unaffected by the feat. 3rd for 4dice + 4dice/4 levels does not satisfy the level increase requirement of the feat, and THAT is why it is unaffected by Intensify Spell.
The feat doesn't 'count missiles.' It looks for damage, and that is what the spell deals. It looks for a linear increase, and MM does that. It looks for a cap, and MM has it. Missile creation is as irrelevant as burst, ray or cone creation.
The only way you could shoot down MM is using caster level/2 vs caster level, and that won't bear up mathematically. But the final line of 'increasing dmg by 5 levels' is marginal support at best. It just means that MM gets half the benefit of levels, just like normal.
===Aelryinth
|
|
Linear or non-linear damage increase has nothing to do with why or why not a spell is affected. You're saying that Scorching Ray's damage is not increased by caster level but that Magic Missile's damage is. I'm saying that neither of them are increased by caster level.
Neither spell has a 'maximum damage dice' cap. They have 'maximum missle/ray' cap. And thus are not affected by the feat.
|
|
but the damage is increased by level...per 2 levels for MM, per 4 levels for SC...just saying
Damage is increased by the number of missiles, which is increased by caster level. The feat requires the damage be increased by caster level. A very nitpicky distinction, but that's how it is written.
He's saying that one should be increased while the other should not. That's inconsistant. If anything, he should be saying that both are affected.
It doesn't look for linear progression, it doesn't look for damage, it doesn't look for a cap. It looks for damage modified by caster level, and increases the cap to that.