Empowered metamagic

[Dirkfreemont]

So I was reading about the feat empower spell, and it says that it increases variable numeric effects. In the Healing domain for clerics there is a power called Healer's Blessing. It says "all of you cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%)." So are the variable numeric effects empowered only or are healing spells special and they just get +50% total (7th level cleric with healing domain casting cure moderate would be ((2d8 + 7) *1.5) or ((2d8 * 1.5) + 7). My interpretation leans towards the latter, but I've had this discusion with a few of my peers and noone seems to agree. My apologies if this question has been covered, I'm new to the messageboards and was hoping to get a quick answer instead of having to search through everything to see if the answer I'm seeking is already here.

[Ringtail]

I'd always considered the variable of a Cure Moderate Wounds cast by a 7th level cleric to be between 9 and 23, so I think the whole spell is multiplied, rather than just the dice. The 3.5 PHB gives a specific example of Magic Missile and the multiplication done there involves not only the d4's but the +1's as well. Assuming nothing was intended to change for that specific metamagic I believe it would multiply the entire result. But I have been wrong before.

[Twowlves]

I'm not sure an official answer has ever been given, but in previous discussions I have shown some math that leans towards "multiplying the bonus" as the most balanced option. The cost of the increased spell level still isn't worth the spell slot when you multiply the bonus, and it certainly isn't worth it if you don't.

[Dire Mongoose]

I flagged this as FAQ candidate because I've seen this basic question come up a number of times (and I swear somewhere one of the Paizofolk say it's dice not bonus, but I can't find it so maybe I hallucinated that). It really is a frequently asked question.

[james maissen]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

I flagged this as FAQ candidate because I've seen this basic question come up a number of times (and I swear somewhere one of the Paizofolk say it's dice not bonus, but I can't find it so maybe I hallucinated that). It really is a frequently asked question.

I, too, heard that someone in Paizo believed it to be dice not number, not that makes any sense to me.

If you are rolling a d6 don't you always get at least a 1? So is it a random number from 1-6 or 0-5+1?

Couple that with the magic missile example in the WotC PhB and it seems clear that originally it was the entire number not just the die.

-James

[Kalyth]

My vote is for Damage Range: (2d8+7)*1.5.

If you do it the other way it screws all those spelsl that have weird damage factors like Magic Missle, the COMPLETE line of Cure spells, etc.... Heck your paying +2 caster levels to cast the spell. If you empower a cure spell and only multiple the dice they math is totally bogus.

Empowered Cure light wounds would be a 3rd level spell. (1d8*1.5)+5: average 6.75+5=11.75 rounded down 11 points

Cure Serious wounds is a 3rd level spell 3d8+5: average 20.5 rounded down 20 points.

Who would ever empower a cure light wounds spell when you could just use the higher level version of the spell. Heck even multiplying the entire amount healed by 1.5 doesnt even compare to just using a higher level Cure spell.

Maximized Spell is even less useful for these types of spells as well. Ggggr.

I have always read variable as the number derived from the entire damage calculation.

[Dosgamer]

I've always run it as multiplying the total amount rolled, not just the variable damage dice. It does, however, mean that the cleric in the group I run for is going to be a healing machine. Good thing for the players, I suppose.

[Mojorat]

I mentioned this in one of the other recent threads. But I don't see how people keep ignoring it. The feat says variable numeric effect . It shouldn't include any other bonus damGe that is static. The 3.5 example supports this view.

However with that example from 3.5 removed it is now not clear if you add 50% of the variable dice or increase the amount of variable dice by 50% and roll that. I'm not even sur math wise for averages if it matters.

[Dire Mongoose]

I will say in defense of the 'only dice' interpretation is the fact that in that case, Maximize Spell is always better than Empower Spell, whereas if you multiply static bonuses, in some cases Empower Spell gives higher average damage etc. despite being a 2 level kick instead of a 3 level kick.

In the case of 3.0 I just assumed that it was supposed to work that way and that Maximize was situationally one of those "trap options" that Monte Cook wanted in the system on purpose.

[james maissen]

Mojorat wrote:

I mentioned this in one of the other recent threads. But I don't see how people keep ignoring it. The feat says variable numeric effect . It shouldn't include any other bonus damGe that is static. The 3.5 example supports this view.

However with that example from 3.5 removed it is now not clear if you add 50% of the variable dice or increase the amount of variable dice by 50% and roll that. I'm not even sur math wise for averages if it matters.

The example was part of the PhB but all examples were never part of the SRD from which the paizo game can take (as its OGL) which is the reason why the example wasn't ported over as far as I know.

I don't think that anything has expressly changed however, so I don't see why such rulings would. Though it has always been a contested issue between people,

James

[Kalyth]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

I will say in defense of the 'only dice' interpretation is the fact that in that case, Maximize Spell is always better than Empower Spell, whereas if you multiply static bonuses, in some cases Empower Spell gives higher average damage etc. despite being a 2 level kick instead of a 3 level kick.

In the case of 3.0 I just assumed that it was supposed to work that way and that Maximize was situationally one of those "trap options" that Monte Cook wanted in the system on purpose.

Maximize is a "trap option". Generally you will almost always be better of casting a spell 3 levels higher than you will be casting a maximize lower level spell in that slot. The only time Maximize helps is if you happen to not have a higher level spell that can do the effect you want. So the default option is to maximize a lower level spell to get the job done.

lets look at or cure spells say 10th level caster.

Cure Moderate Wounds (2nd lvl) 2d8+10 (12-26 hp, 19 average)
Empowered (dice only) 13-34 hp 23 average(using 4th level slot)
Empowered (full amount) 18-39 hp 28 average (4th level slot)
Maximized 26 hp 5th level slot
Cure Critical Wounds 14-42 28 average(4th level slot)

Breath of Life 15-50 hp 32 average (5th level slot)

These numbers are also where the level modifier +1 per caster is equal as you level above 10th the modifier for the higher level Cure spells continues to clime while the lower level Cure Moderate Wounds sits at +10. Basically when adding Empower or Maximize to a Cure spell you are spending a Feat to heal less damage for the most part. In the best case scenario, applying Empower to the full amount of a cure moderate wounds spell just pretty much breaks you even with a Cure Critical until you get past level 10 and then the Cure Critical wins over an Empowered Cure Mod.

I have never like how metamagic feats were designed nor implemented in D&D or Pathfinder. Basically with the exception of a few very select spells paired with specific metamagic feats the metamagic feats are not worth the feat cost.

Exception: Quicken Spell, is really the only one that I see worth spending on. Really I see it that was because Quicken is the only Metamagic feat that actually allows you to do something you wouldnt be able to do otherwise. Cast a spell and take another action. In most cases your better off filling your higher level spell slots with spells of their level rather than metamagiced lower level spells.

Note: Spontaneous Casters with limited spell list do gain some versatility through the use of Metamagic feats.

[Ravingdork]

It's obvious that the original game designers intent was that you include the dice as well as the static bonuses, provided it's all part of the variable.

I strongly discourage the Paizo game designers from changing this for the reasons shown above.

[Dire Mongoose]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's obvious that the original game designers intent was that you include the dice as well as the static bonuses, provided it's all part of the variable.

Well, sure. But it was also obvious that the original game designers wanted you to suffer for being dumb enough to play straight fighter -- something that I'd argue is not only bad game design but may make them bad human beings.

A game predicated on fixing mistakes the 3.0/3.5 designers made probably doesn't make its balance decisions based on what the 3.0/3.5 designers thought was a good idea.

[Mojorat]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's obvious that the original game designers intent was that you include the dice as well as the static bonuses, provided it's all part of the variable.

I strongly discourage the Paizo game designers from changing this for the reasons shown above.

If this is the case then why did the example in the 3.5 phb notbinclude thevstatic numbers? I mean if the "obviously" wanted to include them they would have in the example would they not?

[udalrich]

Cure X Wounds is a poor choice to use when considering empower, since it scales so poorly with level. With spells that scale by d6/level, Empower is usually better than the higher level spell when you first get it. Consider an Empowered Fireball and Cone of Cone cast by a 9th level caster.

Empowered Fireball: 9d6*1.5 = 47.25 damage before save
Cone of Cold: 9d6 = 31.5 damage before save

The only advantage Cone of Cold has is that the save DC is two higher so 10% of the time you do full damage with Cone of Cold and only half damage with Empowered Fireball. If you do the math, Empowered Fireball is always better at this level unless the targets have Evasion and can save on about a natural 7.

This advantage fades as the level increases, so that by level 15, Empowered Fireball is pure lose, doing 10d6*1.5 damage instead of 15d6 (same average damage) with -2 to the DC. However, at that point, Empowered Cone of Cold is better than Delayed Blast Fireball.

Empower is useful if you are casting d6/level evocations, especially if you don't have access the 3.5 non-core feats that do things like add negative levels. Otherwise, it's generally a subpar feat.

[Ravingdork]

Mojorat wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's obvious that the original game designers intent was that you include the dice as well as the static bonuses, provided it's all part of the variable.

I strongly discourage the Paizo game designers from changing this for the reasons shown above.

If this is the case then why did the example in the 3.5 phb notbinclude thevstatic numbers? I mean if the "obviously" wanted to include them they would have in the example would they not?

Um...the v3.5 PH specifically gave magic missile as an example where it showed that you DID include the static number. It was (1d4 + 1) x 1.5 rather than (1d4 x 1.5) + 1.

[Ringtail]

udalrich wrote:

Empower is useful if you are casting d6/level evocations, especially if you don't have access the 3.5 non-core feats that do things like add negative levels. Otherwise, it's generally a subpar feat.

I always saw Empower Spell as a way of freeing up several future slots in your spelllist as a Sorcerer. There is no need for Ray of Exhaustion when a Ray of Enfeeblement Empowered at the same level will do an average of 12.75 in penalty to an opponents strength score (sure you don't get the "cannot run or charge" or the penalty to Dex, but -6 Str modifer and not eating up one of your higher level spells known makes it a pretty friendly and effective debuff. Of course Ray of Enfeeblement was coincidently weakened in PF.

Likewise with your Fireball to Cone of Cold example, up until CL 14 an Empowered Fireball is better as far as average damage output. You get a lot of more milage out of it and once level 15 rolls around the sorcerer can forget Fireball in favor of a different 3rd level spell and pick up Cone of Cold with his new 5th level spell slot.

An Empowered Mirror image is arguably just as good as Greater Invisibility. While they can pinpoint your location the extra images will make the spell last longer through repeated attacks, with a better miss chance and isn't negated due to See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge, along with not eating up your 4th level spell known as an 8th level Sorcerer.

The list goes on.

[Mojorat]

Ravingdork wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's obvious that the original game designers intent was that you include the dice as well as the static bonuses, provided it's all part of the variable.

I strongly discourage the Paizo game designers from changing this for the reasons shown above.

If this is the case then why did the example in the 3.5 phb notbinclude thevstatic numbers? I mean if the "obviously" wanted to include them they would have in the example would they not?

Um...the v3.5 PH specifically gave magic missile as an example where it showed that you DID include the static number. It was (1d4 + 1) x 1.5 rather than (1d4 x 1.5) + 1.

Really? If that is the case my appologies. my 3.5 phb has been gathering dust at the communal gaming location for a year and a half so was not in a position to consult.

I guess the +1's etc when attatched on top of dice are considerd variables.

[Kalyth]

udalrich wrote:

Cure X Wounds is a poor choice to use when considering empower, since it scales so poorly with level. With spells that scale by d6/level, Empower is usually better than the higher level spell when you first get it. Consider an Empowered Fireball and Cone of Cone cast by a 9th level caster.

Empowered Fireball: 9d6*1.5 = 47.25 damage before save
Cone of Cold: 9d6 = 31.5 damage before save

The only advantage Cone of Cold has is that the save DC is two higher so 10% of the time you do full damage with Cone of Cold and only half damage with Empowered Fireball. If you do the math, Empowered Fireball is always better at this level unless the targets have Evasion and can save on about a natural 7.

This advantage fades as the level increases, so that by level 15, Empowered Fireball is pure lose, doing 10d6*1.5 damage instead of 15d6 (same average damage) with -2 to the DC. However, at that point, Empowered Cone of Cold is better than Delayed Blast Fireball.

Empower is useful if you are casting d6/level evocations, especially if you don't have access the 3.5 non-core feats that do things like add negative levels. Otherwise, it's generally a subpar feat.

I see your point and agree on the 1d6/level spells

So what metamagic feat can we use to increase the effects of healing? Empower doesn't do it. Maximize doesnt either. Any spell that is not based of 1d6/level really shows no benefit from Maximize or Empower.

[Ravingdork]

I've heard that spells with big static bonuses in their variables get a lot of mileage out of Empower.

Take fire shield, for example. It could do 1d6+15 damage to an enemy multiple times in a round. Empower that sucker and the enemy is averaging 27 damage to themselves each time they strike you. Maximizing it on the other hand only nets you 21 damage.

[Father Dale]

Ravingdork wrote:

I've heard that spells with big static bonuses in their variables get a lot of mileage out of Empower.

Take fire shield, for example. It could do 1d6+15 damage to an enemy multiple times in a round. Empower that sucker and the enemy is averaging 27 damage to themselves each time they strike you. Maximizing it on the other hand only nets you 21 damage.

Yes this is an excellent spell to use Empower with.

I was playing a dragonlance game and had a Mystic character (think cleric who casts spontaneously), and dragonlance had a spell that mimicked fire shield, except that it did electric damage and was castable by divine casters as well. Due to a prestige class benefit I was able to have this spell automatically empowered every time I cast it. It had some brutal effects when an enemy is taking more damage every time it hits you than it deals to you. (That, plus spontaneous heal spells equals very demoralilzed opponents!)

And count me in on the variable EFFECT includes the entire effect, not just the variable portion of it.

[concerro]

Dirkfreemont wrote:

So I was reading about the feat empower spell, and it says that it increases variable numeric effects. In the Healing domain for clerics there is a power called Healer's Blessing. It says "all of you cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%)." So are the variable numeric effects empowered only or are healing spells special and they just get +50% total (7th level cleric with healing domain casting cure moderate would be ((2d8 + 7) *1.5) or ((2d8 * 1.5) + 7). My interpretation leans towards the latter, but I've had this discusion with a few of my peers and noone seems to agree. My apologies if this question has been covered, I'm new to the messageboards and was hoping to get a quick answer instead of having to search through everything to see if the answer I'm seeking is already here.

In Pathfinder only the dice are multiplied. Jason answerered this one a while back and I was not happy about it.

from Jason wrote:

It would be (1d6x1.5) +5

1d6 is the variable potion, and it is the only part that gets increased. The bonus from 1/2 your level is not increased by Empower Spell. Same goes for Magic Missile.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Here is the link-->Click me

edit:I sent the info over to PFSRD also so they can put it in their FAQ.

[Ravingdork]

I hope that never makes it into official print.

I'm sticking to the v3.5 method on this one, else Empower be practically worthless.

[james maissen]

concerro wrote:

In Pathfinder only the dice are multiplied. Jason answerered this one a while back and I was not happy about it.

There was a lot of variation on this in 3.5 despite the obvious magic missile example showing that the variable range for each missile was 2-5 not 1-4 (or 0-3 for that matter).

A good number of players were stubborn about ignoring this, and perhaps Jason falls into this group. Its a shame, but honestly if they meant this as a change (which in all honesty you have to accept that it is) then it should have been highlighted as such along with all the other balance changes that they made.

If its rather the case of making an assumption based on the group around which that you play then it needs more looking at, and in either case deserves a FAQ entry.

There's a world of a difference between the damage of a magic missile having a variable amount of 2-5 and a bull's strength spell always giving a 4. Do you claim that 2-5 always has a 1? Why not claim it always has a 2 with 0-3 more (or if you want to be especially snarky that it has a 3.5 +-/ 0-1.5). To do what this new ruling is saying empower needs to talk about dice rather than variable amount, which would be a change to it.

Frankly what I'd like to see if they ever decide to go to a PFv2 is that each spell would have detailed out what effects metamagic does to it. For example a magic missile could do 2-5 per missile cap of 5 missile at medium range with a somatic component and one shot at penetrating SR, and then metamagic could augment that to say 3-10 per missile cap of 7 missiles at long range without a somatic component and two shots at penetrating SR for a sufficient investment, etc. The individual spell would detail out how much of a boost would augment the cost by how much. Perhaps similar to their words of power system, but less alien.

-James

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

I hope that never makes it into official print.

I'm sticking to the v3.5 method on this one, else Empower be practically worthless.

The board was used for official answers before the FAQ so it seems official. I just won't be using that version. Since Jason is the rules person I don't think you can do much better than that.

[Ravingdork]

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I hope that never makes it into official print.

I'm sticking to the v3.5 method on this one, else Empower be practically worthless.

The board was used for official answers before the FAQ so it seems official. I just won't be using that version. Since Jason is the rules person I don't think you can do much better than that.

Doens't matter who said it if it was said on the boards. The developers have made it absolutely clear that any ruling made on these boards is just unofficial opinion on their part. It's not until it makes it into a (1) book, (2) errata, or (3) FAQ that it becomes truly official.

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I hope that never makes it into official print.

I'm sticking to the v3.5 method on this one, else Empower be practically worthless.

The board was used for official answers before the FAQ so it seems official. I just won't be using that version. Since Jason is the rules person I don't think you can do much better than that.

Doens't matter who said it if it was said on the boards. The developers have made it absolutely clear that any ruling made on these boards is just unofficial opinion on their part. It's not until it makes it into a (1) book, (2) errata, or (3) FAQ that it becomes truly official.

They never said previous official answers now become unofficial. They were actually calling the previous answers errata at one point. I don't think they are going to go back and redo every question answered just because they finally made an FAQ tab, but I do think they should go back, and add the previous answers to the FAQ so we have to hunt them down.

Now that I think about it that is a fine request.

[Ravingdork]

wraithstrike wrote:

I do think they should go back, and add the previous answers to the FAQ so we have to hunt them down.

Now that I think about it that is a fine request.

Agreed.

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I do think they should go back, and add the previous answers to the FAQ so we have to hunt them down.

Now that I think about it that is a fine request.

Agreed.

I meant to say so we don't have to hunt them down, and I made the thread in the website section. I just need people to FAQ to get their attention if they don't respond in a few days.

[Sean K Reynolds]

FAQ!

[Nexo]

Can I cast empowered heal?

I think so

http://prntscr.com/jb8ro1

[Kayerloth]

No, there is no variable quantity to allow it to be empowered. It's a fixed amount of 10 per caster level far as I understand it. On the other hand I'm thinking if you wanted it to work for 15/lvl as an 8th spell slot (or 9th for Druids) I'm thinking that's hardly going to break the game as a house ruling.

[Nexo]

I agree with you and your reasoning.

However, how do you explain that "empowered heal"?

[Grom Kranock]

Plus the heal spell heals a variable amount of HP. It varies by caster level. 10 HP per caster level.

[Azothath]

*sigh* thread ghouls are at it again.

When you post a quote - do it to standard reference with source material or state the reference, page, and then the text (you can use the Quote, Spoiler, or OOC function). Quotes are used to verify and read source material not look at a pretty picture.

Immonhiel Balm Bringer, Celestial Obedience.
Boons and special powers are different than classic use of metamagics. They just used that to easily define the effect (and rather poorly as several statements clash with RAW). No, it doesn't mean that empowered heal is a legal use of the empower metamagic.
No die roll means empower metamagic feat doesn't affect it. Specific RAW text may get around that general rule but it's a specific variance.

Claiming that caster level is a variable effect will give people a wide grin.
Gaining a bonus to a die roll FROM caster level IS affected by the empower metamagic feat as per the 2011 FAQ. That's different than straight out caster level and has already been stated.

so what would the empowered heal effect from Swamp Healer(Sp) do?

heal:

Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, poisoned, sickened, and stunned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level.

Heal does not remove negative levels or restore permanently drained ability score points.

If used against an undead creature, heal instead acts like harm.

I can't see 1.5 times the effect of a removed condition making sense in game terms. Hit points will get a 1.5 times bump as that seems to be the intent of the power (GM interpretation required as otherwise it doesn't do a thing by RAW, see GM's are nice guys we want to have it make sense).

no published errata on the product page (not unusual). There are lists of errata requests; ISG errata reqs and Chron o/t Righteous errata reqs(this item is called out){18 errata reqs in first 22 of 64 pgs?!}.

[blahpers]

Empowered heal is not a thing. The obedience text is in error.

[Agodeshalf]

The follow on question is if you empower and maximize a fireball at 10th level, do you get
a) 60*1.5 or 90
b) 60 + (10d6*0.5) - have to actually roll and take half + 60
c) 60 since the maximzed removed all variable numeric effects from the spell

[MrCharisma]

Agodeshalf wrote:

The follow on question is if you empower and maximize a fireball at 10th level, do you get

a) 60*1.5 or 90
b) 60 + (10d6*0.5) - have to actually roll and take half + 60
c) 60 since the maximzed removed all variable numeric effects from the spell

B

The Maximized and empowered both interact with the base spell but not each other.

Likewise if you had an empowered/intensified/maximized fireball at 20th level you'd roll: (15d6*0.5)+(5d6)+(90)

[Ravingdork]

Unlike Empower and Maximize, Intensified has no such exclusionary text.

In short, your extra intensified dice would be empowered as well.

[Agodeshalf]

MrCharisma wrote:

The Maximized and empowered both interact with the base spell but not each other.

Likewise if you had an empowered/intensified/maximized fireball at 20th level you'd roll: (15d6*0.5)+(5d6)+(90)

If that is the case, then wouldn't it be (10d6*0.5) + (5d6) + 60. As maximize is on the base spell that is capped at 10d6, empower is also only effecting the 10d6 base, and you get an extra 5d6.

In maximize it has an explicit text for how it interacts with empowered, but there is no text about other metamagic feats, I'm not sure you can generalize it that all metamagic feats are applied only to the original base spell.

I would expect that our intensified/maximized/empowered fireball would be (15d6*0.5) from empower + 90 from maximized 15d6

[MrCharisma]

Agodeshalf wrote:

MrCharisma wrote:

The Maximized and empowered both interact with the base spell but not each other.

Likewise if you had an empowered/intensified/maximized fireball at 20th level you'd roll: (15d6*0.5)+(5d6)+(90)

If that is the case, then wouldn't it be (10d6*0.5) + (5d6) + 60. As maximize is on the base spell that is capped at 10d6, empower is also only effecting the 10d6 base, and you get an extra 5d6.

For some reason I was remembering Fireball as maxing out at 15d6 =P

Agodeshalf wrote:

In maximize it has an explicit text for how it interacts with empowered, but there is no text about other metamagic feats, I'm not sure you can generalize it that all metamagic feats are applied only to the original base spell.

Are you guys sure about this? I could have sworn there was something about this for all metamagics ... although maybe I've just been spending too much time reading the forums and I've forgotten what's rules and what's opinion ...