The fact that most people stil think that ALL the values must be multiplied derives (I think) from the example on the Player's Handbook, where magic missile is taken as an example; sadly, this was not the BEST example, because in the case of this spell the whole '1d4+1' IS the variable portion of the spell (every 2 caster levels, you make a missile that deals 1d4+1). Other spells (like produce flame) deal a variable portion (1d6) AND a fixed value (based on caster level).
The wording on this needs to be majorly cleared up.
I'm quoting from another thread, where you can see the problem.Even that explanation seems dubious, since 'fixed' portions (+x) are allegedly variable and non-variable,
even thoug BOTH examples are variable to Caster Level...!?!?
I think basically Pathfidner should specify that "variable" means "dice based variability",
which would make the however many d4's you're shooting with Magic Missile variable, but not the +1's attached to them, since the +1's don't really seem much different than the "fixed" portion of Produce flame (1d6 (variable) + 1 point per Caster Level ("fixed")). Magic Missile is basically: 1d4 per 2 Caster Level + 1 per 2 Caster Level.
You are right, I'm not really convinced on the explanation on Magic Missile myself. I was merely trying to found a justification on the 'why' of the example on the Player's Handbook.
I also made a comment here (asking for a better wording - complete with examples - in the Skills and Feats Errata and Typos thread) and here (the last one on the page) in another thread on the unbalance of Ray of Enfeeblement.
I think however that we have to forget what the 'intended' working of this feat was in 3.x , and instead ask for an answer on how the feat works NOW (it multiplies all the values, or only the random ones?), in order to avoid any further issues...
Adding comment from other thread:
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.
If an effect is numeric, and it is variable, it is increased.
Adding comment from other thread:
Good idea.
" Caster level is not variable when you cast a spell (except maybe for wild mages...) but a die roll still is."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding comment from other thread:
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.
If an effect is numeric, and it is variable, it is increased.
There is another reason why I'm not convicend on this interpretation, and it's game balance with Maximize spell.
If rules are as you suggested:
Maximize Spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, (1d6+5)x1,5: minimum 9, maximum 16, average 12,75
A spell slot less for more damage ? Sorry, but that would be poor game-design...
On the contrary, if it would be as I suggested:
Maximize spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, 1d6x1,5 +5= minimum 6,5, maximum 14, average 10,25
More game balanced, IMHO...
There is another reason why I'm not convicend on this interpretation, and it's game balance with Maximize spell.If rules are as you suggested:
Maximize Spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, (1d6+5)x1,5: minimum 9, maximum 16, average 12,75
A spell slot less for more damage ? Sorry, but that would be poor game-design...On the contrary, if it would be as I suggested:
Maximize spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, 1d6x1,5 +5= minimum 6,5, maximum 14, average 10,25
More game balanced, IMHO...
+1!
There is another reason why I'm not convicend on this interpretation, and it's game balance with Maximize spell.
If rules are as you suggested:
Maximize Spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, (1d6+5)x1,5: minimum 9, maximum 16, average 12,75
A spell slot less for more damage ? Sorry, but that would be poor game-design...On the contrary, if it would be as I suggested:
Maximize spell, 1d6+5 = 11
Empower Spell, 1d6x1,5 +5= minimum 6,5, maximum 14, average 10,25
More game balanced, IMHO...
I actually would call it quite good game design, by providing options that are better some circumstances than others. Maximize and Empower do different things (beyond simply increasing numeric effects), and thus can be used best in different circumstances.
For instance:
Empowered hypnotic pattern: (2d4)X1.5, avg 7.5
Maximized hypnotic pattern: 8 (very very slight increase)
Empowered fireball: avg 5.25 per die
Maximized fireball: 6 per die (nearly perfect ratio of damage increase to spell level increase)
Empowered Searing light: 6.75 per die
Maximized Searing light: 8 per die (much higher ratio of increase)
Empowered false life (for lack of another 1d10 spell): 8.25 + lvl
Maximized false life: 10 +lvl (almost twice the increase as empower)
Maximize is simple, and guaranteed. Empower can be better in some cases, because it affects the "effect", not just the variable of the effect.
I actually would call it quite good game design, by providing options that are better some circumstances than others. Maximize and Empower do different things (beyond simply increasing numeric effects), and thus can be used best in different circumstances.
For instance:
Empowered hypnotic pattern: (2d4)X1.5, avg 7.5
Maximized hypnotic pattern: 8 (very very slight increase)Empowered fireball: avg 5.25 per die
Maximized fireball: 6 per die (nearly perfect ratio of damage increase to spell level increase)Empowered Searing light: 6.75 per die
Maximized Searing light: 8 per die (much higher ratio of increase)Empowered false life (for lack of another 1d10 spell): 8.25 + lvl
Maximized false life: 10 +lvl (almost twice the increase as empower)Maximize is simple, and guaranteed. Empower can be better in some cases, because it affects the "effect", not just the variable of the effect.
Don't forget that you always round down...
Also maximize is useless when you add caster level to "an effect". Why empower could do better on that too ?
|
Empowered false life (for lack of another 1d10 spell): 8.25 + lvl
Maximized false life: 10 +lvl (almost twice the increase as empower)
According to your definition of empower, this calculation is wrong, it should be:
Empowered false life (for lack of another 1d10 spell): (5.5 + lvl)x1.5 which at its max is (5,5+10)x1.5 = 23,25
Maximized false life: 10 +lvl (at its max 3,25 lower than average empower and 10 points lower than max. empower)
I think the designers did not intend like this...
Yes, I always figured, for something like 1d6 + caster level, the 1d6 is variable AND numeric, but the caster level is numeric but not variable. Therefore, Empower would give (1d6 * 1.5) + caster level, not (1d6 + caster level) * 1.5.
Basic rules of algebra say that (A+B) * C = A*C + B*C. If C = 1.5 if multiplied by a variable (and C = 1.0 otherwise), and if A is variable and B isn't, well, then, there you go.
A case could theoretically be made for caster level to be considered a variable, since all casters are not equal. But in that case, Empower would also have to increase range and duration and possibly area of effect as well, and if it did all that, then it would be vastly undervalued at +2 spell levels.
At last !!
Don't forget that you always round down...
Also maximize is useless when you add caster level to "an effect". Why empower could do better on that too ?
Rounding down rarely affects the average much, except with very few dice per rounding (such as 1 per magic missile).
You make a very good point here, one I was about to make. Maximize *is* useless for most spells that add caster level. 4th level spell for maximized ray of enfeeblement doing 2.5 more strength penalty? 7th level for Maximized fireshield doing 3.5 more points of damage (out of at least 17.5 average)? Cure spells are slightly in between with multiple (large) dice and a caster level bonus.
But essentially maximize is virtually useless, other than to be *sure* to do a certain minimum (for instance a maximized fireshield would do 21 points at minimum caster level - enough to get past resist 20).
So, in very good design manner, there is another option that actually does something useful and worth the cost: Empower.
Seriously - in the cases where empower is nearly as good as maximize or better, would you even bother maximizing those spells 90% of the time? If not, doesn't that make the comparison rather moot?
According to your definition of empower, this calculation is wrong, it should be:Empowered false life (for lack of another 1d10 spell): 8.25 + lvl
Maximized false life: 10 +lvl (almost twice the increase as empower)
Quite correct, I was using the calculation from the "dice-only" side. Basically I was just trying to show that d10's are even more extremely skewed to benefit maximize over empower.
I think it's totally clear what the designers intended.
Dice=variable=multiplied.
Flat number=(not dice)=not variable=not multiplied.
Same as the definition for multiplying weapon damage on a critical hit.
I love you Snorter :)
At last !!
At last what?
Rounding down rarely affects the average much, except with very few dice per rounding (such as 1 per magic missile).
When you round down a result in D&D, it's still the same difference.
You make a very good point here, one I was about to make. Maximize *is* useless for most spells that add caster level. 4th level spell for maximized ray of enfeeblement doing 2.5 more strength penalty? 7th level for Maximized fireshield doing 3.5 more points of damage (out of at least 17.5 average)? Cure spells are slightly in between with multiple (large) dice and a caster level bonus.
I think to the contrary, that your post shows perfectly how empower was supposed to work, and that the designers didn't want it to affect caster level "variable-flat" bonus...
The only two viable solutions I see to make Empower and Maximize balanced against each other:
1)Empower Spell multiplies by 1,5 only the DICE portion of a damaging formula; so, a spell that deals 10d6 would be (10d6x1,5), a spell that deals 1d6+5 would be (1d6x1,5)+5, a spell that deals 1d4+1 would deal (1d4x1,5)+1, and so on. Empower Spell is two spell-levels higher, Maximize Spell is three spell-levels higher.
2)Empower Spell multiplies by 1,5 ALL the damaging formula; a spell that deals 10d6 would be (10d6x1,5), a spell that deals 1d6+5 would be (1d6+5)x1,5, a spell that deals 1d4+1 would be (1d4+1)x1,5.
Empower Spell is THREE spell-levels higher, and Maximize Spell is only TWO spell-levels higher. Otherwise, they are not balanced against each other.
Let's face it: a Cure Serious Wounds cast by a 15th-level Cleric (3d8+15) is a 3rd level spell.
A Maximized Cure Serious Wounds heals 41 hp, and is a 6th level spell.
Would you cast that, or an Empowered Cure Serious Wounds as a 5th level spell that heals a minimum of 27 hp [(3+15)x1,5], a maximum of 61 hp [(24+15)x1,5 - rounded down], and an average of 42 hp [(13,5+15)x1,5 - rounded down] !?!
Sure, if the formulas above are for a Maximized spell as a 5th level, and an Empowered spell as a 6th, now that would be a balanced choice, IMHO.
Again, I don't really care if the formula above was the intended one from WoTC, or not. If the former, I think we have found another bug (among the Polymorph and some others); if the latter, good, let's not make an error with PFRPG then.
Just my 2c.
One thing that has me wondering though is this. There is no other random generator in the game other than dice. You dont flip coins, you dont pull numbers out of a hat. If the intent was that the dice roll was increase but no other part of the variable amount was effected then why did it not just say "Dice rolled". It uses the word "variable".
What is the variable of Fireball...its damage which is a variable number determined by rolling 1d6 x cl. Say 5th level so 5d6 generating a variable number from 5-30. 5-30 is the variable amount. Even if we throw in the word random it could still apply to the entire 5-30 points of damage as that entire value is randomly determined variable amount.
What is the variable of Cure Moderate Wounds Spell...the amount it heals. 2d8+Caster level. If you are a 5th level caster then 2d8+5. CMW heals a variable amount of damage ranging from 7-21 when cast by a 5th level caster. The variable in this case is the amount healed which is 7-21. This amount is also random.
I think if they want to state that it only effects the dice rolled they need to say..."This feat increase the amount rolled on any dice involved by 1.5...." any thing else will still leave it open to debate.
I agree completely. WotC's description is ambiguous, particularly when you consider the magic missile example which seems to imply that the flat additions to dice rolls (possibly including caster level flat additions) are subject to the multiplier.
Pathfinder has the power to resolve the debate by being more unambiguous and should take it.
Pathfinder has the power to resolve the debate by being more unambiguous and should take it.
Well, except that most of the language in the Beta is even MORE ambiguous than the language in the Player's Handbook (see "class level" vs. "caster level" debates elsewhere re: school and domain powers). Short of a direct statement posted on the boards from Jason, I don't see this one ever getting cleared up.
Again, though, for people treating caster level as a variable for Empower, then are those people also multiplying range, duration, and area of effect by 1.5 (as "variable, numeric effects")? If not, why not?
There are two ways to continue this debate:
1: Jason writes the intended meaning of emower
2: We discuss how we would like empower to work, and not how we think it works
I prefer number two, unless Jason suddenly steps in.
Agreed agreed. Regardless of what is variable, or whether the total effect should be increased or just part of it, we should ask what we want them to do - this is a design forum after all.
The only two viable solutions I see to make Empower and Maximize balanced against each other:
1)Empower Spell, Dice only, +2 levels
Maximize Spell, +3 levels.2)Empower Spell, all affected, +3 levels
Maximize, +2 levels.
First, I want to say that it's important to note that Empower does not need to be balanced against Maximize, specifically. It simply needs to be balanced in usefulness. These are the two most similar metamagic feats, but they still do different things, just as quicken and silent spell do different things.
Maximize is a fairly good measuring stick I'll agree. While there are many who find it somewhat overpriced at +3 levels, most would agree that +2 levels would be underpriced - so it's about right.
For spells that deal Xd6 damage, these feats are almost perfect equally useful. Empower adds a straight 50% for +2 levels. Maximize adds an average of 71% for +3 levels. You can use empower on a spell a little earlier, and maximize is convenient and reliable.
For Xd4 spells, empower is a bit better (still +50%, while maximize is only 60%). For Xd8 spells maximize improves (+77% average).
For spells that do 1dX + Caster Level (CL), Empower (if only affecting dice) and maximize are horrible. Consider 1d8 + 10 (10th level fire shield): Maximize does 24%, Empower 16%. Empower remains "balanced" by the Maximize measuring stick, but is the stick any good in this case? I would say no, Maximize isn't meant for these spells at all.
So we need a new measuring stick for those spells. Unfortunately there isn't one nearly as handy. Best comparison is spells of the enhance level, which should be slightly weaker (why else use the feat?). So.. examples then:
Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement: 1d6 * 1.5 + 5 = 10 avg OR (1d6+5)*1.5 = 12.5 avg
So, with a roll to hit, it gives either a -5 to hit and damage, or a -6. Ray of Exhaustion, also 3rd level, gives -3 hnd and -3 AC/reflex saves and hinders movement. I don't think the -6 would be going too far here.
Emp. Fire Shield (CL 11): 17.5 avg (+13%) vs. 23 avg (+48%)
This is harder to compare, but: Chain Lightning 38.5 dmg to primary, 19 to side targets (up to 11). So if every side target hit you once, and primary hit you twice, it'd be roughly equal. Dice only would be lower, all dmg would be a bit higher (appropriate for using the feat). And if I think that's probably about all a mage could take on being hit. Actually this spell is mostly a deterrent. Another comparison could be Antimagic Field - don't come within 10 ft of me - or even Repulsion. I think the 23 avg better approximates that deterrent, since it bypasses Resistance 20, but the differences are fairly small.
Emp. Spell Turning: 9.5 avg (+12%) vs. 12.5 avg (+47%)
9th level spell slot. I think guaranteeing 9 levels of turning is reasonable (die-only has a 25% of only having 7 spell levels to turn). As useful as this can be, I think it pales next to most 9th level spells. Probably *also* not a good measuring stick.
Can you think of examples where the dice-only empower creates a reasonable effect for the spell slot, and the total-amount empower is out of bounds? Can you think of a better measuring stick?
Side issue:
Again, if Empower makes 1d6+CL into (1d6+CL)x1.5, then the entire feat needs to be thrown out and redesigned from the ground up, because "variable, numeric" effects would also therefore include duration, range, and area of effect unless those are specifically excluded. In other words, instead of "all variable, numeric effects," we'd have to come up with some sort of complex language like "damage and/or ability penalties that include a variable component" -- which of course opens up the feat to all kinds of further ambiguity unless the wording is very specific and carefully phrased indeed.
Again, if Empower makes 1d6+CL into (1d6+CL)x1.5, then the entire feat needs to be thrown out and redesigned from the ground up, because "variable, numeric" effects would also therefore include duration, range, and area of effect unless those are specifically excluded. In other words, instead of "all variable, numeric effects," we'd have to come up with some sort of complex language like "damage and/or ability penalties that include a variable component" -- which of course opens up the feat to all kinds of further ambiguity unless the wording is very specific and carefully phrased indeed.
How is this helpful Kirth?
Duration, range, and area are not "effects" of the spell, they are qualities of it. But lets not get into yet another semantic debate. We're trying to see what it *should* be, and we all know that we are not talking about any of those qualities of spells.
The only way this can be cleared up or settled is to reword the feat's description and provide specific examples. Due to the number of people that are debating this I would hope that they will indeed rewrite the feat's description
Agreed to a degree. The language can never be perfect. What's needed is a decent example - that was left out mostly for space reasons I believe.
Also there's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity - it lets people play how they want to. I know that I've been dismayed at times to see language clarified to exclude the way I've played.
How is this helpful Kirth? Duration, range, and area are not "effects" of the spell, they are qualities of it. But lets not get into yet another semantic debate. We're trying to see what it *should* be, and we all know that we are not talking about any of those qualities of spells.
It's helpful because a semantic debate is exactly what we're moving away from, and trying to avoid, and exactly what we walk into again with the attitude that the language used in the feat is unimportant because "everyone knows what we mean." If, under the rules for spells, range, duration, etc. are specifically defined as spell qualities, and if that term appears in the index and glossary, then there's no confusion. Otherwise, as soon as you release your "new, improved" feat, arguments begin as to whether range is affected -- and then it's too late to say, "everyone is supposed to know it's not, because we said so on the boards."
Personally, I disagree that game rules should be as ambiguous as possible, but if that's a design goal, then the feat as written would seem to provide adequate ambiguity to keep everyone amused.
It's helpful because a semantic debate is exactly what we're moving away from, and trying to avoid, and exactly what we walk into again with the attitude that the language used in the feat is unimportant because "everyone knows what we mean." If, under the rules for spells, range, duration, etc. are specifically defined as spell qualities, and if that term appears in the index and glossary, then there's no confusion. Otherwise, as soon as you release your "new, improved" feat, arguments begin as to whether range is affected -- and then it's too late to say, "everyone is supposed to know it's not, because we said so on the boards."
This might have been helpful if we were discussing possible wordings of the feat, but we're not, we're discussing what it *should* be doing, in our collective opinions, and not a single person here has expressed the opinion that it should include those qualities. So everyone here knows what we mean. There was no discussion of semantics going on.
Personally, I disagree that game rules should be as ambiguous as possible, but if that's a design goal, then the feat as written would seem to provide adequate ambiguity to keep everyone amused.
=/=
Also there's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity - it lets people play how they want to. I know that I've been dismayed at times to see language clarified to exclude the way I've played.
Can you please put that steel trap of a brain to use actually analyzing the feat, as you've agreed we should?
Sorry, I misunderstood -- I'd thought we were at the point of trying to write a new feat for it, thus the focus on language.
In any event, I always saw Empower as a way to make the "1d6 per level" evocations (and conjurations, although that's the subject for another debate) a bit more relevant. It works great for things like fireball, and especially for orb of fire. In the former case, you can even Empower and Quicken the sucker for a 9th level slot, whereas that's impossible to do with a Maximized fireball (unless you pull some sort of metamagic shenanigans). So, honestly, I never had a problem with Empower being fairly cheap (+2 levels instead of +3) and also being less effective than Maximize in most cases.
In other words, I'd leave Empower as I'd interpreted it (Empowered 3d6 + CL = (3d6)x1.5 + CL), and make a new feat, Greater Empower Spell (+4 levels) that makes (3d6+CL) into (3d6+CL) x 1.5.
In other words, I'd leave Empower as I'd interpreted it (Empowered 3d6 + CL = (3d6)x1.5 + CL), and make a new feat, Greater Empower Spell (+4 levels) that makes (3d6+CL) into (3d6+CL) x 1.5.
Okay - what situations is it worth adding 4 levels to a spell to increase the caster level bonus to a roll by 50%?