The only clarification I need from empower spell, it when they say that you calculate the damage for each die for magic missile is because each missile is an attack (they can be directed at different targets) of just for reducing the overall damage (because of the rounding down rule). For a fireball, do we add 50% to each die, or the total result ? That's the only thing I'm not sure about.
While I agree this can be seen from either side, I think too much attention is being paid to the word "Variable", which is fairly easy to define. The key word is actually "effect".
Empower Spell: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.
So to rephrase (and again, this is interpretable differently): All effects that are both variable and numeric are increased by one-half.
1d4+1 is the damage effect of a magic missile, thus increased by one-half.
1d6+caster level is the penalty effect of a Ray of Enfeeblement, thus increased by one-half.
And so forth. Perhaps this at least better explains to the "die-only" crowd where the "total-bonus" crowd is coming from.
Edit: added both for clarity.
While I agree this can be seen from either side, I think too much attention is being paid to the word "Variable", which is fairly easy to define. The key word is actually "effect".
Empower Spell: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.So to rephrase (and again, this is interpretable differently): All effects that are variable and numeric are increased by one-half.
1d4+1 is the damage effect of a magic missile, thus increased by one-half.
1d6+caster level is the penalty effect of a Ray of Enfeeblement, thus increased by one-half.
And so forth. Perhaps this at least better explains to the "die-only" crowd where the "total-bonus" crowd is coming from.
Well, but again, why specify 'variable' when the feat could say only 'All numeric effects are increased by one-half' ?
Obviously, we are stuck in a debate where every part could be right, or every part could be wrong. The fact ? The wording ON THE PHB were wrong.
Either
1)the 'variable' part was wrong, or
2)the 'multiply ALL the result'
The two are obviously incompatible.
As I stated before, we have to humbly ask for a clear, PFRPG interpretation of the feat before continuing such discussions; if that was how worked in 3.x or not, we can live easily without it. Otherwise, discussions like this would easily go on forever.
I would gladly accept any answer, I'm not going to complain if this was not how I always did in 3.x; we are trying to fix a system, and if such debate is rising, well, this is obviously a notice of something that had to be fixed (in this case, specifially written without ambiguous wordings and examples).
Again, sorry for derailing from the topic.
So to rephrase (and again, this is interpretable differently): All effects that are variable and numeric are increased by one-half.1d4+1 is the damage effect of a magic missile, thus increased by one-half.
1d6+caster level is the penalty effect of a Ray of Enfeeblement, thus increased by one-half.
And so forth. Perhaps this at least better explains to the "die-only" crowd where the "total-bonus" crowd is coming from.
If your interpretation is right, there is a bunch of spells which can gain more advantage of empower spell (hypnotic pattern, cure, inflict, flame blade...). In that case, there could be a problem with the feat. And why magic missiles damage are not added together before adding 50% for empower ?
Caster level is not variable when you cast a spell (except maybe for wild mages...) but a die roll still is.
1d6+caster level is the penalty effect of a Ray of Enfeeblement, thus increased by one-half.If your interpretation is right, there is a bunch of spells which can gain more advantage of empower spell (hypnotic pattern, cure, inflict, flame blade...). In that case, there could be a problem with the feat. And why magic missiles damage are not added together before adding 50% for empower ?
Caster level is not variable when you cast a spell (except maybe for wild mages...) but a die roll still is.
You're quite right, caster level is not a variable. But it is part of the *effect*, which is both numeric and variable, and thus qualifies to be increased by 50%.
All those spells you mentioned should indeed benefit from empower spell quite well, though its usually not worth memorizing that way.
Magic missiles are each separate effects, so have to be calculated individually (unfortunately). You could after all be targeting 5 different creatures with one spell. If you rolled all 3's, the 50% more would be 7 if you added it together - who would get the 2 leftover after adding 1 to each?
Well, but again, why specify 'variable' when the feat could say only 'All numeric effects are increased by one-half' ?
Because that is entirely not the point of the feat, nor what I said. Effects must be numeric *and* variable to be increased, not simply numeric.
Obviously, we are stuck in a debate where every part could be right, or every part could be wrong. The fact ? The wording ON THE PHB were wrong.
Either
1)the 'variable' part was wrong, or
2)the 'multiply ALL the result'
The two are obviously incompatible.
This is not "fact" at all. Those are only incompatible if you separate the numeric and variable conditions. Since that is, as you say, obviously wrong, that would seem to be the wrong interpretation.
I'd suggest rereading my original post (no, not trying to be snarky) - I think I said it clearly, if perhaps too briefly.
|
(stops singing and eating toffee)
Should we consider moving the discussion about the semantics of Empower Spell to the feats section? We were supposed to be discussing ROE in this thread, and I don't want either discussion to loose their relevance (and then be ignored by the developement team) because we got sidetracked.
(new toffee, new song...)
You're quite right, caster level is not a variable. But it is part of the *effect*, which is both numeric and variable, and thus qualifies to be increased by 50%.
I could say that caster level is a non variable effect added to a variable effect. I have never rule the feat the way you you do, it seems illogical for me to include caster level which can't be empowered in any spell just because you add a variable value to it. If not, why all spells couldn't be empowered ?
|
|
Caster level is not variable when you cast a spell (except maybe for wild mages...) but a die roll still is.
Divine Spellcasting feat (complete Divine).
So by your logic, Cure Moderate Wounds would benefit from Empower Spell feat only for the D8s that you roll, but not the "per level", unless your cleric had the Divine Spellcasting feat and used a channeling to increase his caster level - then suddenly, the caster level is qualified for your definition of variable and would be added.
On the other hand, you and many others indicate that including the caster level as a 'variable' that includes in the 50% increase of Empower Spell is a way that you've never done it - the very example listed with Magic Missle indicates to add the bonus to the random amount of the die; so the +1 to each missle is not "variable" but it is numeric. The +1/2 levels of RoE is "numeric" and it is "variable" in that it changes from level to level.
Bull's Strength which provides a "+4 to Strength" is NOT variable. That is an example of a spell that is never variable, always provides the same bonus, and is not aided by Empower Spell at all.
It's worth mentioning that in 3.0 it could be aided by Empower as it increased ones strength by 1d4+1 (same a magic missile), and you would add the +1 before increasing by 50%.
Mage Armor is another example of non-variable. It never varies. +4 all the time every time.
+X / Caster level is "variable"
If the feat said, "....increases the random generated numeric effects of a spell....." then I would concede that +X / level is not random.
Robert
|
|
I have never rule the feat the way you you do, it seems illogical for me to include caster level which can't be empowered in any spell just because you add a variable value to it. If not, why all spells couldn't be empowered ?
Because as I posted in the my previous post: many spells are not variable at all and simply give a flat bonus:
Mage Armor, Shield, Color Spray, Bull's Strength, True Strike, Enlarge Person, magic weapon, Expeditious Retreat, Web, Glitterdust, Darkness, magic mouth, Blindness, Alter self, Levitate, Spider Climb, Stinking Cloud, Deep Slumber, Suggestion, haste, and many others.
Dont confuse "variable and numeric effects of the spell" with the "per level" of a duration etc - that's what Extend Spell does.
EDIT: Furthermore, the feat's caveat includes: spells without a random component are not affected by the feat: which would include spells like Heal/Harm that HAVE a variable "10 pts / level" but not a random factor.
Robert
Due to the wording, both sides of the argument have merit.
This is why we need PAIZO to clarify the intention of the Empower feat, to re-word it so that there is no confusion on how the feat should affect spells.
Personally, I fall into the (1d6*1.5)+ caster level (max +10) camp.
I usually explain it as, the 1.5 multiplication applies to anything that you can roll on the table.
|
|
Due to the wording, both sides of the argument have merit.
Perhaps. But I've always interpreted the 'wording' as pretty straight forward. "All variable, numeric effects..."
All meaning....well.....all. Variable meaning....not a given (such as +4 to strength - period). Numeric effects meaning - effects dependant on numbers - as opposed to Blindness that has no numeric effect.
Personally, I fall into the (1d6*1.5)+ caster level (max +10) camp.I usually explain it as, the 1.5 multiplication applies to anything that you can roll on the table.
So by your example:
A 10th level cleric casting a Cure Serious Wounds spell (empowered) would heal ((3d8)x 1.5)+10 ?
I have only ever seen it applied as ((3d8) +10)x 1.5
The plus 10 is still a variable. In order to do a mathematical equation, on any program, it requires the knowledge of the caster level in order to define the integer to be added. Thus it is a variable. It's not 'random' but it is a variable.
The feat furthermore has verbage that indicates spells that have no random factor are not affected; so the spells like Magic Missle, RoE, and Cure Wounds including their variables and random effects are affected, but Heal which gives a flat 10/level is not affected because although it has a variable, it has no random effect.
Robert
This is the way i see it working.
Cure Light Wounds cast by a 5th level cleric heals a variable amount of damage. 6-13 points. I consider this the variable. 1d8+5, the +5 is still part of the variable amount of damage healed.
Agreed, 6-13 points of healing is the variable, numeric effect. And would be increased by 50%.
Total sidetrack:
Divine Spellcasting feat (complete Divine).So by your logic, Cure Moderate Wounds would benefit from Empower Spell feat only for the D8s that you roll, but not the "per level", unless your cleric had the Divine Spellcasting feat and used a channeling to increase his caster level - then suddenly, the caster level is qualified for your definition of variable and would be added.
I don't know the feat, but by my logic, yes only D8 benefit from the spell. And no, I will not include caster level, since it's still not variable, it's not a die roll.
On the other hand, you and many others indicate that including the caster level as a 'variable' that includes in the 50% increase of Empower Spell is a way that you've never done it - the very example listed with Magic Missle indicates to add the bonus to the random amount of the die; so the +1 to each missle is not "variable" but it is numeric. The +1/2 levels of RoE is "numeric" and it is "variable" in that it changes from level to level.
The +1 from magic missile is not dependant of your caster level, it's part of the roll. The +1/2 levels is not variable, it's still the same at each level. You can cast thousand RoE when you're level 4, you will still add 2 to the roll. But the D6 will not always be the same.
Bull's Strength which provides a "+4 to Strength" is NOT variable. That is an example of a spell that is never variable, always provides the same bonus, and is not aided by Empower Spell at all.
I have never say that +4 to strength was a variable. I have just say that only die roll is variable.
It's worth mentioning that in 3.0 it could be aided by Empower as it increased ones strength by 1d4+1 (same a magic missile), and you would add the +1 before increasing by 50%.
Which I fully agree.
Mage Armor is another example of non-variable. It never varies. +4 all the time every time.
Again, I never told the contrary.
+X / Caster level is "variable"
It is not. Certainly not at the time of casting, you can at least agree with that.
Do you add one half magic missiles by empowering the spell ? By your logic, the number of missiles, is variable. Same for evocation spell. Will you add half many dice of damage ? I don't think so. So why add half the value of what is based on caster level ?
Because as I posted in the my previous post: many spells are not variable at all and simply give a flat bonus:Mage Armor, Shield, Color Spray, Bull's Strength, True Strike, Enlarge Person, magic weapon, Expeditious Retreat, Web, Glitterdust, Darkness, magic mouth, Blindness, Alter self, Levitate, Spider Climb, Stinking Cloud, Deep Slumber, Suggestion, haste, and many others.
Dont confuse "variable and numeric effects of the spell" with the "per level" of a duration etc - that's what Extend Spell does.
I don't confuse "variable and numeric effects of the spell" with the "per level" with duration, range or other. Thanks.
EDIT: Furthermore, the feat's caveat includes: spells without a random component are not affected by the feat: which would include spells like Heal/Harm that HAVE a variable "10 pts / level" but not a random factor.
Robert
It's not variable because the value is the same, how many times you cast the spell, not because of caster level.
|
Divine Spellcasting feat (complete Divine).
So by your logic, Cure Moderate Wounds would benefit from Empower Spell feat only for the D8s that you roll, but not the "per level"
That's right.
unless your cleric had the Divine Spellcasting feat and used a channeling to increase his caster level - then suddenly, the caster level is qualified for your definition of variable and would be added.
Not at all.
Increasing your effective caster level, in no way affects it qualifying for Empowerment.Your caster level is 'higher' than normal, this does not make it a 'variable' component of the spell, despite the fact that you may have used some mechanic to change your caster level before casting.
It is a flat number.
Same thing applies to other means of increasing caster level, such as ioun stones.
An Empowered Cure Critical from a Cleric 11, with a (+1 caster level) effect, would cure (4d8*1.5)+12, you would not qualify for an extra 6 on the grounds that the 'caster level' part of the equation suddenly became multipliable, because that didn't happen. It becomes a '12' instead of an '11', then gets added as a flat bonus.
(Yes, I know, you'd be better using a Heal, but maybe it's an emergency spontaneous casting, and you have a metamagic rod handy. I'm just using the example given.)
A 10th level cleric casting a Cure Serious Wounds spell (empowered) would heal ((3d8)x 1.5)+10 ?I have only ever seen it applied as ((3d8) +10)x 1.5
And I never seen it applied as (3d8+10)*1.5.
The plus 10 is still a variable. In order to do a mathematical equation, on any program, it requires the knowledge of the caster level in order to define the integer to be added. Thus it is a variable. It's not 'random' but it is a variable.The feat furthermore has verbage that indicates spells that have no random factor are not affected; so the spells like Magic Missle, RoE, and Cure Wounds including their variables and random effects are affected, but Heal which gives a flat 10/level is not affected because although it has a variable, it has no random effect.
Robert
The empower spell states variable, not random, so by your logic, since the HP gained depend on caster level, it should be eligible to empower.
Well...|
|
I don't know the feat, but by my logic, yes only D8 benefit from the spell. And no, I will not include caster level, since it's still not variable, it's not a die roll.
It is variable. A quick look in the dictionary finds the definitions as:
1. apt or liable to vary or change; changeable: variable weather; variable moods.
2. capable of being varied or changed; alterable: a variable time limit for completion of a book.
The +1 from magic missile is not dependant of your caster level, it's part of the roll. The +1/2 levels is not variable, it's still the same at each level. You can cast thousand RoE when you're level 4, you will still add 2 to the roll. But the D6 will not always be the same.
But this then would go against your own arguement. The +1 on magic missiles is not variable at all - its a constant always +1. as you said above "it's not a die roll" Instead, it's something you ADD to a die roll. So which is it?
I have never say that +4 to strength was a variable. I have just say that only die roll is variable.
True, but you also asked as to why couldn't we just Empower ALL spells if it worked the way I'm professing. To which I responded by providing examples that fall outside the parameters of the feat.
+X / Caster level is "variable"
It is not. Certainly not at the time of casting, you can at least agree with that.
Fine I'll agree with that. And your admission to there being a distinction of "at the time of casting" or not, is also an admission that it IS indeed a variable. But the feat doesn't stipulate
"....all variable effects - unless it's a variable that is not variable at the time you cast it"
It simply states "All variable." which you are now agreeing that at least sometimes, the X / Level IS a variable that does change.
And there are effects throughout the gameplay that could potentially raise or lower your caster level. thus it is potentially variable combat to combat and even round to round.
Robert
It is variable. A quick look in the dictionary finds the definitions as:1. apt or liable to vary or change; changeable: variable weather; variable moods.
2. capable of being varied or changed; alterable: a variable time limit for completion of a book.
Thank you, I know what variable means.
The +1 from magic missile is not dependant of your caster level, it's part of the roll. The +1/2 levels is not variable, it's still the same at each level. You can cast thousand RoE when you're level 4, you will still add 2 to the roll. But the D6 will not always be the same.
But this then would go against your own arguement. The +1 on magic missiles is not variable at all - its a constant always +1. as you said above "it's not a die roll" Instead, it's something you ADD to a die roll. So which is it?
Exactly what I said above and that you quote. The +1 from magic missile is not dependent of your caster level, it's part of the roll. The variable is 2-5.
True, but you also asked as to why couldn't we just Empower ALL spells if it worked the way I'm professing. To which I responded by providing examples that fall outside the parameters of the feat.
So I suppose being ironic is not part of an argument...
Fine I'll agree with that. And your admission to there being a distinction of "at the time of casting" or not, is also an admission that it IS indeed a variable. But the feat doesn't stipulate"....all variable effects - unless it's a variable that is not variable at the time you cast it"
It simply states "All variable." which you are now agreeing that at least sometimes, the X / Level IS a variable that does change.
So do you add half many magic missiles, half many dice damage ?
By the same logic, you will agree that the number of magic missiles is variable since based on caster level, so since empower spell affects all variables, at 5th, you could empower a magic missile to have 4 magic missiles doing each (1d4+1)x1.5, of a cone of cold doing 15D6*1.5 at caster level 13 with empower, etc...If you consider caster level as a variable you should rule that way. But I will certainly rule another way (or raise the slot of empower spell to +4 since it is obviously better than maximize, since it can affects spells with caster levels added in). To get back on topic, RoE is not the problem, it should be (maybe for some) empower spell.
|
This is a very strange debate. Until I read this thread, I'd never even heard of anyone only empowering the di roles instead of the result of the di roles and modifiers.
Maybe the problem with this is the inclusion of magic missile as the example. Magic missile is a bad example because it's always 1d4+1 per missile at any level. Ray of enfeeblement would make a better example for the Pathfinder version, since the role modifier is variable based on CL.
My group, and all the 3.x groups I've ever played with, interpret an empowered spell as (xdy + z)*1.5.
-Skeld
|
|
If you consider caster level as a variable you should rule that way. But I will certainly rule another way (or raise the slot of empower spell to +4 since it is obviously better than maximize, since it can affects spells with caster levels added in). To get back on topic, RoE is not the problem, it should be (maybe for some) empower spell.
Fair enough - and I have no problem with us each admitting we have a different interpretation and utilization of the feat.
Which is why I'll concede to Mistwalker's suggestion to get PAIZO to clarify.
I was only debating with you to defend the point you contested when you tried to imply that I interpret the definition of "variable" - based on my misusing the word in it's implementation to this feat - which I have illustrated clearly that I have not.
What WotC meant as their intent as to the word "variable" is means to individual interpretation; but I didn't and don't misunderstand the meaning of the word in its usual use.
As for being more powerful than maximize - sure the potential is there to do better than a maximized spell, but the difference between the two with Max it's a given that you'll do excellent in the spell's adjudication, and Empower it's a chance of doing better; but only a chance.
For example: If you take the average of a 10d fireball (36 points of damage) and apply empower x 1.5, you wind up with 36 + 18 = 54. Maximized is a sure 60. You could potentially do significantly worse thatn avg on your 10d6 - say you roll only 26. With empower that would still only be 39. Far less than maximized. But potential for rolling 46 does exist - allowing you to do 69 damage (more than a maximized). Even with a 10th level Cure Serious with Empower having the ability to roll (3d8+10)*1.5 say you roll a respectable 16 on the dice +10 = 26 x 1.5 = 39 whereas Maximized is 34. But just as likely to roll only 9 on your 3d8 + 10 = 19 x 1.5 is only 27 (less than maximized.)
My opinion is the Maximize increases too many spell levels. IMO, they should both be +2 levels - and one decides to GAMBLE for a bit more, or take the sure route and simply take the maximized amount.
But that's for a different debate, place, and time.
Robert
I was only debating with you to defend the point you contested when you tried to imply that I interpret the definition of "variable" - based on my misusing the word in it's implementation to this feat - which I have illustrated clearly that I have not.What WotC meant as their intent as to the word "variable" is means to individual interpretation; but I didn't and don't misunderstand the meaning of the word in its usual use.
It's fun because, it's exactly how about I felt about you too.
As for being more powerful than maximize - sure the potential is there to do better than a maximized spell, but the difference between the two with Max it's a given that you'll do excellent in the spell's adjudication, and Empower it's a chance of doing better; but only a chance.If you add 50% to the caster level bonus, it's better than maximize, because by definition maximize don't affect it.
For example: If you take the average of a 10d fireball (36 points of damage) and apply empower x 1.5, you wind up with 36 + 18 = 54. Maximized is a sure 60. You could potentially do significantly worse thatn avg on your 10d6 - say you roll only 26. With empower that would still only be 39. Far less than maximized. But potential for rolling 46 does exist - allowing you to do 69 damage (more than a maximized). Even with a 10th level Cure Serious with Empower having the ability to roll (3d8+10)*1.5 say you roll a respectable 16 on the dice +10 = 26 x 1.5 = 39 whereas Maximized is 34. But just as likely to roll only 9 on your 3d8 + 10 = 19 x 1.5 is only 27 (less than maximized.)
If you add 50% to the caster level bonus, it's better than maximize, because by definition maximize don't affect it.
|
Alot of talk aout the word variable now. I think perhaps the word "random" is a better way to go.
A dice roll is a randomly determinmed value, and is therefore written as a random variable in the equations for spells. Things such as plus caster level are predetermined variables and therefore written as a fixed variable in an equation.
If the feat were written as "All random variable numeric effects are increased by half" then it would bring the feat back to affecting only the dice rolled.
eg. Magic missile is d4 + 1 damage. A caster able to create three of these can't create more due to empower because the number of missiles created is determined by a fixed variable calculator (your level is predetermined not randomly assigned). So they'd create 3 bolts, each doing between (d4 x 1.5)+1 damage.
Fireball now would do a maximum of 10d6 x 1.5 damage, its area wouldn't be bigger becasue its not a random variable, its a fixed value of 30feet.
This single word in the featdescrition would go a oing way towards clarifying its use.
All of which is off topic to the power of ray of enfeeblement but relevent to the way the topic has currently swung.
Cheers
|
|
If the feat were written as "All random variable numeric effects are increased by half" then it would bring the feat back to affecting only the dice rolled.
This is exactly what I said - that it would at least indicate the intent - if indeed it was originally only intended to be the random aspect. I'm inclined to believe it meant both - which is why it didn't say "only the random"
Regardless, I had indicated that it would be nice to be worded as either "Only the random" or "the random AND variable in the case of spells that have a random element."
That would destroy and and all confusion once and for all.
Robert
Ugh, Post Monster the one time I don't copy it... *sigh*
If you add 50% to the caster level bonus, it's better than maximize, because by definition maximize don't affect it.
Basically, this isn't true. Maximize would do just fine with spells that scale dice and add caster level (10d6 + 10 for example).
But D&D doesn't really have any of those, it has two basic types that are affected by these feats:
CLdX (caster level or half dice of some size)
and
1dX + CL (one or two dice of some size, plus caster level or half).
Maximize is better with the former than empower. For d6's better at a ratio equal to the spell level increase. For d8's *much* better. With the latter it is basically useless for the level cost.
Empower is decent with the former, and much better with the latter.
Comparing them on the 1dX + CL is a bit silly - Maximize just isn't built to use that. Using that comparison to prove a theory on how Empower works? Why its silly squared.
Cure Light Wounds cast by a 5th level cleric heals a variable amount of damage. 6-13 points. I consider this the variable. 1d8+5, the +5 is still part of the variable amount of damage healed.
And that perception - whether you ultimately see it as 6-13 or 1d8+5 - is the crux of the empower debate. I see it as the former so that the empowered cure spell heals 9-19 points of damage once the 1.5x modifier is applied. In the end, it's not all that different from the 6-17 you get if you just apply the 1.5x to the die roll. Certainly not enough to get particularly worked up about. Higher modifiers to the dice rolls will skew the difference a bit wider, but, again, I still see little reason to make much of a fuss about it.
Basically, this isn't true. Maximize would do just fine with spells that scale dice and add caster level (10d6 + 10 for example).
It won't do anything since it doesn't affect it !
Maximize is better with the former than empower. For d6's better at a ratio equal to the spell level increase. For d8's *much* better. With the latter it is basically useless for the level cost.Empower is decent with the former, and much better with the latter.
Comparing them on the 1dX + CL is a bit silly - Maximize just isn't built to use that. Using that comparison to prove a theory on how Empower works? Why its silly squared.
Yes it's certainly more silly than a flat bonus being a variable. Well since it's a silly argument, I'm just off to work.
(stops singing and eating toffee)
Should we consider moving the discussion about the semantics of Empower Spell to the feats section? We were supposed to be discussing ROE in this thread, and I don't want either discussion to loose their relevance (and then be ignored by the developement team) because we got sidetracked.
(new toffee, new song...)
I'm really sorry if the discussion has taken this route, but as you see the real deal with Ray of Enfeeblement is revolving around this problem: how does Empower Spell works ?...
I suggest however that we discuss this same topic on a more specific post, like this, and leave all the discussions not related to Empower Spell here, instead.
This is merely a humble suggestion, and I wil be the first to follow it, of course.
Thank you, and sorry for derailing this topic too much.
|
|
Here's what we've come up with in our games:
Ray of Enfeeblement:
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min.
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A corruscating ray springs from your hand.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a -2 penalty to melee attacks and damage, STR based checks and skills, and CMB. The penalty increases by 1 for every five caster levels you have (to -3 at 5th level and -4 at 10th, which is the cap). A target protected from negative energy effects -- such as by death ward -- is not affected by this spell.
Ray of Clumsiness:
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min.
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A sickly green ray springs from your hand.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, DEX based checks and skills, and Reflex saves. The penalty increases by 1 for every five caster levels you have (to -3 at 5th level and -4 at 10th, which is the cap). A target protected from negative energy effects -- such as by death ward -- is not affected by this spell.
Touch of Idiocy:
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
With a touch, you reduce the target's mental faculties.
Your successful melee touch attack applies a -3 penalty to the saving throw DC of spells and spell-like abilities of the target, INT/WIS/CHA based checks and skills, and Will saves.
Touch of Idiocy:
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: YesWith a touch, you reduce the target's mental faculties.
Your successful melee touch attack applies a -3 penalty to the saving throw DC of spells and spell-like abilities of the target, INT/WIS/CHA based checks and skills, and Will saves.
*This* I could live with. It's actually stronger in its effects than the original, *other* than the fact that it doesn't potentially utterly destroy a casters ability to cast at all. I've all but banned the original version.
Basically, this isn't true. Maximize would do just fine with spells that scale dice and add caster level (10d6 + 10 for example).It won't do anything since it doesn't affect it!
It would maximize it to 70 points of damage. Do you see this differently?
Yes it's certainly more silly than a flat bonus being a variable. Well since it's a silly argument, I'm just off to work.
Maximize is better with the former than empower. For d6's better at a ratio equal to the spell level increase. For d8's *much* better. With the latter it is basically useless for the level cost.Empower is decent with the former, and much better with the latter.
Comparing them on the 1dX + CL is a bit silly - Maximize just isn't built to use that. Using that comparison to prove a theory on how Empower works? Why its silly squared.
Please pardon my poor attempt at injecting some humor, I did not intend to be derisive.
On Empower - agree with Wraith, let's let it die here and go to the other thread for anything further. It's an interesting debate at least.
|
|
*This* I could live with. It's actually stronger in its effects than the original, *other* than the fact that it doesn't potentially utterly destroy a casters ability to cast at all. I've all but banned the original version.
I'm glad you like it, and that's what the changes are meant to accomplish. (With minor edits by me, this was actually suggested by one of my players. Given that he's a pretty accomplished power-gamer, you can imagine how bad touch of idiocy must be that he wants to change it ... )
Out of curiosity, what about this version do you see as stronger than the original?
-- Jeff
|
|
*This* I could live with. It's actually stronger in its effects than the original, *other* than the fact that it doesn't potentially utterly destroy a casters ability to cast at all. I've all but banned the original version.I'm glad you like it, and that's what the changes are meant to accomplish. (With minor edits by me, this was actually suggested by one of my players. Given that he's a pretty accomplished power-gamer, you can imagine how bad touch of idiocy must be that he wants to change it ... )
Out of curiosity, what about this version do you see as stronger than the original?
-- Jeff
The main debilitating factor of Touch Of Idiocy isn't that a lowered casting stat lowered the DCs of their spells being cast, it could potentially lower the level of spell a caster can cast.
In my Shackled city game, a wizard cast touch of idiocy (empowered) on the party's cleric and I asked her to roll a d6 for each of the stats; she rolled a 6 (making it a 9) points of Wisdom damage. The party was screwed; her usual 21 Wis was instantly reduced to 12! Lesser Restor and Restoration spells require 3 rounds to cast, so she was screwed.
Two characters died that combat because the cleric could not cast her spells.
Regardless, the Touch of Idiocy is a spell specifically is a great spell for taking away the ability to cast the highest level of spells.
Your version reduces the DC of spells that can be cast, but doesn't stop the caster from casting his spells.
It definitely nerfs the spell - not sure if it's too much.
Your other two version (Ray of Enfeeble and Ray of clumsiness) stipulate that a "Death Ward" protects against this, but Touch of Idiocy has no such caveat. Does Death Ward prevent your Touch of Idiocy or not?
Correct me if I'm wrong, as it is in the Players Handbook, Death Ward does NOT protect against RoE, since it's a "penalty" to the stat, not a negative-energy stat 'damage' drain.
Robert
True points, Wraith; this spell is not "overpowered", as even empowered the maximum amount of Strength penalty is 14: 1d6(max:6) * 1.5 =9, + 5 =14. Plus, the PF Beta description puts a mininum Strength score of 1, so it won't even leave an opponent helpless (though greatly diminished). Compare that with a CR11 Cloud Giant, who has a Strength of 35 ... even with a net Strength of 21, it's still a big bruiser in combat with your fighter/barbarian ally.
At STR 2 his maximum load is 20lb, and his armor and weapons will be about double that. While that doesn't duplicate the official d20 "helpless" condition, it is essentially helpless. He'll lose Dex AC and only be able to stagger a maximum of 5' per round. He attacks at -4, plus any other penalties (I would apply a use penalty unless STR > weapon weight). If his armor and weapons are more than double maximum load, he can only drag that amount of weight. I believe that would translate to no movement except crawling.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ooh, I can answer that, Robert.
Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Clumsiness (I always loved the Sword and Sorcery version 'Bull's Grace') Are necromancy spells, he's just modifying them to allow an additional line of defense.
Touch of Idocy is an enchantment spell. As [Mind effecting] it already has a defense, Mind Blank.
|
|
Ooh, I can answer that, Robert.
Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Clumsiness (I always loved the Sword and Sorcery version 'Bull's Grace') Are necromancy spells, he's just modifying them to allow an additional line of defense.
Touch of Idocy is an enchantment spell. As [Mind effecting] it already has a defense, Mind Blank.
So althought the RoE is a necromancy spell all along - it still wasn't prevented by Death Ward correct (as written in the 3.5 rules)?
Robert
|
|
Right. It slipped through.
Thats one of the factors that IMO made RoE too powerful. It was impossible to protect against, a ranged touch attack to hit (which is usually quite easy for wizards - especially against the likely targets of such a spell "the large hulking tank or giant-types",) Restoration spells take 3 rounds to cast to remove it, Dispel Magic is always a crap-shoot to be successful, and DeathWard, a potent spell that would protect you from a vampire or spectre draining your levels, cant even prevent the strength penalty of that first level spell.
Robert
True points, Wraith; this spell is not "overpowered", as even empowered the maximum amount of Strength penalty is 14: 1d6(max:6) * 1.5 =9, + 5 =14. Plus, the PF Beta description puts a mininum Strength score of 1, so it won't even leave an opponent helpless (though greatly diminished). Compare that with a CR11 Cloud Giant, who has a Strength of 35 ... even with a net Strength of 21, it's still a big bruiser in combat with your fighter/barbarian ally.At STR 2 his maximum load is 20lb, and his armor and weapons will be about double that. While that doesn't duplicate the official d20 "helpless" condition, it is essentially helpless. He'll lose Dex AC and only be able to stagger a maximum of 5' per round. He attacks at -4, plus any other penalties (I would apply a use penalty unless STR > weapon weight). If his armor and weapons are more than double maximum load, he can only drag that amount of weight. I believe that would translate to no movement except crawling.
Is Str 2 effectively helpless in most respects, yes.
Can Ray of Enfeeblement ever reduce a cloud giant to Str 2 - no, not even if intensified and empowered. (max 27 penalty with that - 10th level spell slot, minimum 27th level).
[...] It was impossible to protect against[...]
Ring of Counterspells - I always use one.
....and I would rule: death ward protects against RoE
Restoration spells take 3 rounds to cast to remove it
Potion of Lesser Restoration - one round to use. I always bring one or two.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Right. It slipped through.Thats one of the factors that IMO made RoE too powerful. It was impossible to protect against, a ranged touch attack to hit (which is usually quite easy for wizards - especially against the likely targets of such a spell "the large hulking tank or giant-types",)
Robert
There are other ways to protect yourself from them, but admittedly not 100% effective. Taking cover improves your touch AC, and any form of miss chance is quite effective, blur, invisibility, fog and mist, etc.
|
|
There are other ways to protect yourself from them, but admittedly not 100% effective. Taking cover improves your touch AC, and any form of miss chance is quite effective, blur, invisibility, fog and mist, etc.Right. It slipped through.Thats one of the factors that IMO made RoE too powerful. It was impossible to protect against, a ranged touch attack to hit (which is usually quite easy for wizards - especially against the likely targets of such a spell "the large hulking tank or giant-types",)
Robert
I'm talking about fighters/warriors or ugh type monsters. They typically don't have access to a lot of these spells and interventions. A potion of Lesser Restor is nice, but it usually takes 3 such potions just to counter one Ray of Enfeeblement spell. Empowered, it would take 5!
Robert
|
|
Just to be clear, ray of clumsiness wasn't originally a Necromancy spell ... it was Transmutation, and I changed it to Necromancy. One, I couldn't figure out why enfeeblement would be Necromancy, but clumsiness not, and two, I specifically wanted death ward to work against both spells.
(No, death ward doesn't work against touch of idiocy. There are a few other defenses against "Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]" spells, and adding in another defense fet like too much.)
From PFRPG: "Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered
spell are increased by one-half."That's a comma, not an "and".
What, you expect them to actually read? To understand the difference between a comma and a conjunction? But they both start with C!
I'm talking about fighters/warriors or ugh type monsters. They typically don't have access to a lot of these spells and interventions. A potion of Lesser Restor is nice, but it usually takes 3 such potions just to counter one Ray of Enfeeblement spell. Empowered, it would take 5!
Robert
No, one is enough.
Lesser restoration dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject’s ability scores or cures 1d4 points of temporary ability damage to one of the subject’s ability scores.
RoE does not do ability damage. It is dispelled by one application of lesser restoration.
I'm talking about fighters/warriors or ugh type monsters. They typically don't have access to a lot of these spells and interventions. A potion of Lesser Restor is nice, but it usually takes 3 such potions just to counter one Ray of Enfeeblement spell. Empowered, it would take 5!
Robert
No, one is enough.
Lesser restoration dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject’s ability scores or cures 1d4 points of temporary ability damage to one of the subject’s ability scores.RoE does not do ability damage. It is dispelled by one application of lesser restoration.
Plus, a single Dispel Magic wipes off the penalties granted by Ray of Enfeeblement (with a Dispel check, of course). And granted, there are a lot of creatures with Dispel Magic as a spell-like ability.
Oh by the way, I just realized. RoE does a max penalty of 1D6+5. Should it be assumed that you can't add more than +5 even with an empowered spell (assuming the caster level is a variable of course)...
It seems more obvious like this.