|
And therein lies the rub, you have NOT shown how the wording is done. You have shown your own paraphrased version of both the feat and the spell, not the actual written versions of both.
Missle=damage dice about as much as burst or cone=damage dice. Are you suggesting that an INtensified firball has 2 20 foot radius spheres?
I have quoted the spells (MM and Fb). Go back and read it. They both create something that deals damage dice. Their wording is exceptionally similar. It is not my paraphrased versions. It is the actual wording.
Edit- I dont get the refreshing absolutes and definites remark. What is it referencing? In this case, we are discussing rules as they are written, so I believe, in this case, "definites and absolutes" are a GOOD thing.
it references how you have shown me how it works...when I do not think you have. So I spoke in the same way. I have shown you how the feat works, how the damage is. I am sorry but you came off as: "I have told you how it is so stop disagreeing with me.".
|
|
Mine's small and green.I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
You should stop coming in cause it is not gonna provide anything new.
Why do you keep coming back? What do you hope to gain from repeating the same points?
This get like a car wreck...you can't just look away.
Ewww...dude get that tings checked by a doctor.
|
|
To those arguing that intensify spell works with MM and SR, should it work with Call Lightning?
Ummm...no I would say no. It is more like AA.
It does a duration of damage but the damage dice does not increase. Every round you deal damage it is the same no matter teh level. Much unlike MM which every round the damage increases depending on the level...
AA: 2d4 each round no increase in damage dice due to level
CL: 3d6 each round no matter teh level
Fb: 5d6 to 10d6 depending on the level each round
MM: 1d4+1 to 5d4+5 depending on the level each round.
Sorry if I come off that way.
That being said, I think we both agree that the "delivery vehicle" does not matter to the feat.
I think we both agree that an Intensified Spell does not give a firball an 20' radius sphere nor does it give a cone of cold an extra cone.
My question is why do you think it gives extra missles?
|
|
Sorry if I come off that way.
That being said, I think we both agree that the "delivery vehicle" does not matter to the feat.
I think we both agree that an Intensified Spell does not give a firball an 20' radius sphere nor does it give a cone of cold an extra cone.
My question is why do you think it gives extra missles?
S'all cool bro. We are runnign in circles after each other and it gets tiresome when we both see that we are not going to convince the "other guy" to see it our way.
I agree...delivery vehicle, as in how the damage is delivered. Either SH or JM have been trying to tie delivery vehicle to the rounds you gain in duration for AA. That I do not agree with. the missiles, the burst, blast, cone, ray, arrow. These are the delivery vehicle I can agree with. Yes?
I do not necessarily see it as giving an extra missile but have no issue with it since it is hardwired in the spell that you can only target up to 5 targets. It does give extra 1d4+1 (with the +1 being a different debate potentially) for 2 levels the feat enhances it.
That is why I do not believe that missiles and damage are different. They are one and the same, as stated in the spell itself, just like the states the basic same thing in Fb and Lb. A spell makes "this" and it does "that".
Fb: creates explosion that deals "damage dice"
Lb: creates bolt that deals "damage dice"
MM: creates missiles that deal "damage dice"
In all these spells the explosion/bolt/missiles == damage dice.
This is why I say it IS RaW. It is written in the rules that this is what they do. Some spells are more simply written so it is a no brainer (Fb, Burning hands, Lb) some are not as much (MM, ScR).
Like I said. The feat is fairly obvious that it wants to affect certain spells with its wording, but it is left open/vague enough that it opens the door to legitimately allow spell the follow the same general format.
So. Should the MM's and ScR like spell work? I dunno. Do they? Yes, as far as I read it. Is there a reason why they should not? No.
i don't mind these discussions no matter how agrees with whom. As long as we are civil and act respectfully. If the development team came in and said in a definitive way that MM and ScR are not to be accepted as legitimate targets for the feat. I would not mind. I would say; "Ok. Thanks for the ruling. Now I know I need to write it in as a houserule."
Sorry if I come off that way.
That being said, I think we both agree that the "delivery vehicle" does not matter to the feat.
I think we both agree that an Intensified Spell does not give a firball an 20' radius sphere nor does it give a cone of cold an extra cone.
My question is why do you think it gives extra missles?S'all cool bro. We are runnign in circles after each other and it gets tiresome when we both see that we are not going to convince the "other guy" to see it our way.
I agree...delivery vehicle, as in how the damage is delivered. Either SH or JM have been trying to tie delivery vehicle to the rounds you gain in duration for AA. That I do not agree with. the missiles, the burst, blast, cone, ray, arrow. These are the delivery vehicle I can agree with. Yes?
I do not necessarily see it as giving an extra missile but have no issue with it since it is hardwired in the spell that you can only target up to 5 targets. It does give extra 1d4+1 (with the +1 being a different debate potentially) for 2 levels the feat enhances it.
That is why I do not believe that missiles and damage are different. They are one and the same, as stated in the spell itself, just like the states the basic same thing in Fb and Lb. A spell makes "this" and it does "that".
Fb: creates explosion that deals "damage dice"
Lb: creates bolt that deals "damage dice"
MM: creates missiles that deal "damage dice"In all these spells the explosion/bolt/missiles == damage dice.
This is why I say it IS RaW. It is written in the rules that this is what they do. Some spells are more simply written so it is a no brainer (Fb, Burning hands, Lb) some are not as much (MM, ScR).
Like I said. The feat is fairly obvious that it wants to affect certain spells with its wording, but it is left open/vague enough that it opens the door to legitimately allow spell the follow the same general format.
So. Should the MM's and ScR like spell work? I dunno. Do they? Yes, as far as I read it. Is there a...
OK. Now this is what is preventing me from seeing it your way. IF intensified spells doesnt give you extra missles (which I believe), then by default MM wouldnt qualify for the feat, to me. As a single magic missle doesnt have a level dependent damage die.
Huh?YHBT. ;)I thought we were talking about car wrecks!Oh. My mistake.
Your heating bill tripled?
|
|
OK. Now this is what is preventing me from seeing it your way. IF intensified spells doesnt give you extra missles (which I believe), then by default MM wouldnt qualify for the feat, to me. As a single magic missle doesnt have a level dependent damage die.
You keep seeing it as "missile" not "spell". The spell has increasing damage dice.
That was just a guess.
That was my 3rd guess. Behind You Hate Big Tim.
Cos that Big Tim is an A-hole.
That was my 3rd guess. Behind You Hate Big Tim.
Cos that Big Tim is an A-hole.
Screw you, buddy.
Cause we're not morons.Ahhhh classy tactics. When you don't agree with people just insult them. Thumbs up JM.
And he wonders why I'm condescending when his best defense is insulting the other side. the first time someone does it, I always consider that they've lost their argument and don't have the logic behind it.
So, basically everything he's said is as irrelevant as his insults, so I can poke at him all I want. He keeps harping on a dead point, confusing damage with duration (I still don't know where he gets that), and wants to add wordage to the feat.
Funny, more then anything.
==Aelryinth
To those arguing that intensify spell works with MM and SR, should it work with Call Lightning?
I wish it would, but Call Lightning is another DoT spell. The damage of the attack never goes up by level.
==Aelryinth
By their argument, I would say yes it should. It would increase the number of bolts that could be called, which is capped, but since the duration is 1 minute/level, the duration is not tied to the number of bolts.
Again, the re-interpreting of our argument into non-sensical territory.
The bolts are fixed damage and do not increase by level. Multi-round delivery is not covered by the spell under any parameters.
===Aelryinth
|
|
You say this, but then say all that has to be done in the same round. If the spell is still going then it's still 'spell'.
No. You just don't get it. I am not saying it has to be done in one round thus AA does not work. AA does not work because the damage it does is static. It is 2d4 FOREVER. If the spell said that the 2d4 increased by 1d4 every 5 levels in addition to everything else it did I wold back it as applicable to the feat. It doesn't though. It is 2d4. That is it, that is all, that is everything. 2d4. the increase is not to the damage dice it is to the duration that the static damage is done.
Acid arrow has as much increased damage dice as magic missile. More so as you can argue against '1d4+1' being 'dice' where you can't with '2d4'.
No. No it doe snot as I just explained above. The only way 2d4 is more arguable than 1d4+1 as damage "dice" is that there is only 1 "die" in 1d4+1. Other than that 1d4+1 is as much a damage dice expression as 2d4.
You admit that magic missile and scorching ray won't by RAW get more missiles/rays via intensify.. correct? Can we agree upon that much?
No again. Let me quote myself:
"I do not necessarily see it as giving an extra missile but have no issue with it since it is hardwired in the spell that you can only target up to 5 targets."I am not saying I do not see it as NOT giving missiles, or rays. I am saying that the idea is that the feat increases the damage, which IS the missiles or rays. I do agree that teh MM spell cast by a 14th level caster cannot use the spell on more than 5 targets.
ScR gets an additional 4d6. Whether this is an additional ray or just one 8d6 ray is open to another discussion. But i would not stop it being an additional ray as there is nothing in the spell variables that limits the spell to only 3 rays, or 3 max targets. the spell gives 1 or more rays in its effect line and this is not being modified by the Intensify feat.
So again. For these spells the feat increases the damage dice. Allowing this extra damage to exist as another ray/missile/etc does not violate the limitations of the feat from effecting of variables since, as I read it, these missiles/rays/etc are just the vehicles of the damage. They are the fluff of the spell. As long as teh rest of the spell is intact adding the extra missile/ray/etc does nothing to change how the spell works.
I keep looking for something new here, and I keep getting disappointed.I apologize. Truly. I am sorry but the topic has reached its apex long ago.
They go from one argument which I defend against, to a second which I also defend against. At that point they return to the first argument which i repeat my defense and they circle which means I circle with them.
You should stop coming in cause it is not gonna provide anything new.
Actually, we defend against one irrelevant attack, and you then go right into another irrelevant attack, at which point you return to the original point, all the while creating straw man extensions of arguments we aren't making in order to discredit us by adding facts to what we are saying that aren't true...none of which hold up under scrutiny, but you keep going back to them, anyway.
And you add insults on top of it, because we won't knuckle under to your lack of restraint. You've lost the argument as soon as you start insulting, and you've been insulting for some time.
===Aelryinth
You say this, but then say all that has to be done in the same round. If the spell is still going then it's still 'spell'.No. You just don't get it. I am not saying it has to be done in one round thus AA does not work. AA does not work because the damage it does is static. It is 2d4 FOREVER. If the spell said that the 2d4 increased by 1d4 every 5 levels in addition to everything else it did I wold back it as applicable to the feat. It doesn't though. It is 2d4. That is it, that is all, that is everything. 2d4. the increase is not to the damage dice it is to the duration that the static damage is done.
Acid arrow has as much increased damage dice as magic missile. More so as you can argue against '1d4+1' being 'dice' where you can't with '2d4'.No. No it doe snot as I just explained above. The only way 2d4 is more arguable than 1d4+1 as damage "dice" is that there is only 1 "die" in 1d4+1. Other than that 1d4+1 is as much a damage dice expression as 2d4.
You admit that magic missile and scorching ray won't by RAW get more missiles/rays via intensify.. correct? Can we agree upon that much?No again. Let me quote myself:
"I do not necessarily see it as giving an extra missile but have no issue with it since it is hardwired in the spell that you can only target up to 5 targets."I am not saying I do not see it as NOT giving missiles, or rays. I am saying that the idea is that the feat increases the damage, which IS the missiles or rays. I do agree that teh MM spell cast by a 14th level caster cannot use the spell on more than 5 targets.
ScR gets an additional 4d6. Whether this is an additional ray or just one 8d6 ray is open to another discussion. But i would not stop it being an additional ray as there is nothing in the spell variables that limits the spell to only 3 rays, or 3 max targets. the spell gives 1 or more rays in its effect line and this is not being modified by the Intensify feat.
So again. For...
Well said.
==Aelryinth
At least we all agree about Big Tim. I don't have to start a thread, now. He's bad news.
Again, the re-interpreting of our argument into non-sensical territory.*shrugs* It's certainly possible I got the argument wrong. I stopped caring about it pages ago.
And that possibility is all that's needed. Absolutist arguments basically fail on their face.
Let me be blunt and say I can see all of the points that have been focused, I just don't see any really defensible logic behind the 'no' crowd.
This hang-up on individual magic missiles I find absolutely hilarious. There's nothing in the feat which says "Single delivery systems", but that's what it comes down to. Because MM doesn't deal variable dmg in one glob, but in a bunch of globs, it doesn't qualify?
this trying to rope in "damage is the same as duration" I find totally wacky...and no, it's got nothing to do with what we are arguing. Damage over time is not variable damage, and we aren't trying to rope the two in, the other side is...it's a straw man argument.
The only really rules-worthy argument 'MIGHT' be the 'no extra missiles because it's a variable and other variables aren't allowed.' This is a 'might' because the damage for those spells manifests as the variable, and hence they are one and the same. The spell specifically permits their damage, and so it would explicitly permit the manner in which they are dealt...they are indeed one and the same. By disallowing the 'variable missiles', you deny 'variable damage', I do indeed follow that logic. The feat, however, is pretty clear on allowing variable damage, which means it would explicitly permit how that damage is dealt.
It's just amusing that this argument would be worthless if magic missile or Scorching Ray damage was dealt in a lump sum, which would make the spells STRONGER...not weaker.
Heh.
===Aelryinth
|
Edit--That and some of the posters are the same people. Including me. I'll give you a free cookie if you can guess which one I am.
Finally was bored enough to try. You made it too easy tho.
This hang-up on individual magic missiles I find absolutely hilarious. There's nothing in the feat which says "Single delivery systems", but that's what it comes down to. Because MM doesn't deal variable dmg in one glob, but in a bunch of globs, it doesn't qualify?
No, it's because Magic Missle's variable is number of missiles, and number of missles is not damage dice per level.
|
I'm gonna chime in real quick, just to see if I can understand what's being said, and maybe clarify some issues with the argument that MM does not benefit from Intensify. I assure you, I have read this thread, and I'm sorry if anything comes across as redundant or pedantic, as that is not my intention.
The argument coming from the "MM = no Intensify" side seems to be that the damage from MM does not go up. Rather the missiles increase per level. This is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The missiles do increase per level, but as the missiles constitute damage, so does the damage.
The argument from the "MM = Intensify" group seems to be that the damage does for MM does go up. The Missiles are all combined into one lump "damage" sum, which increases as the caster goes up. This is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The damage does increase per level, but the damage is not one "lump" sum. It represents several different instances of damage, each equaling 1d4+1.
The Resistance argument seems to have been glossed over, but I'd like to go over it briefly, since I believe it to be one of the stronger defenses for the "MM = no Intensify" group. Let us say, for example, that you encounter a creature with 5 Force Resistance. A non-specialist Wizard casting Magic Missile will always do 0 damage to the target creature, as you all already know. The reason for this is that the variable aspect of the spell is not the effective damage of each missile, but rather the number of missiles.
The argument has been made that more missiles equal more damage. This is correct. More missiles do more damage. However, the argument from the side of "MM = Intensify" seems to be that the missiles, when combined, constitute a lump sum of damage which increases as the spell caster levels. However, the spell clearly indicates that these missiles are separate instances of damage and, consequently, they do not "stack" with each other. There is precedent for this in spells such as Scorching Ray, which deals numerous instances of fixed damage.
The point I'm trying to make? Each instance of a missile or ray represents a fixed amount of damage. This is clearly represented in the rules, and is not the subject of debate. However, in these cases, the dice of damage dealt are invariable. It is the delivery vehicle which is variable. While damage does increase, these spells differ from others in that the vehicle of delivery is unique to them. Spells such as Fireball and Lightning Bolt increase the damage dealt in each instance of delivery as the caster increases in level. Magic Missile and it's counterparts increase the number of instances of delivery, which has the effect of increasing overall damage.
I will emphasize once more that Magic Missile and it's counterparts increase the number of instances of delivery, which has the effect of increasing overall damage. This is the cornerstone of the "MM = no Intensify" group.
Now, I apologize for the wall of text. I think I've summed things up well enough, and I don't want to get too emotionally involved in this topic. I encourage everyone involved to agree to disagree. RAW rulings are nice, but unless you all play at the same game table, it doesn't matter much. And, even then, it's not worth spoiling the game over it :P
I'm gonna chime in real quick, just to see if I can understand what's being said, and maybe clarify some issues with the argument that MM does not benefit from Intensify. I assure you, I have read this thread, and I'm sorry if anything comes across as redundant or pedantic, as that is not my intention.
The argument coming from the "MM = no Intensify" side seems to be that the damage from MM does not go up. Rather the missiles increase per level. This is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The missiles do increase per level, but as the missiles constitute damage, so does the damage.
The argument from the "MM = Intensify" group seems to be that the damage does for MM does go up. The Missiles are all combined into one lump "damage" sum, which increases as the caster goes up. This is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The damage does increase per level, but the damage is not one "lump" sum. It represents several different instances of damage, each equaling 1d4+1.
The Resistance argument seems to have been glossed over, but I'd like to go over it briefly, since I believe it to be one of the stronger defenses for the "MM = no Intensify" group. Let us say, for example, that you encounter a creature with 5 Force Resistance. A non-specialist Wizard casting Magic Missile will always do 0 damage to the target creature, as you all already know. The reason for this is that the variable aspect of the spell is not the effective damage of each missile, but rather the number of missiles.
The argument has been made that more missiles equal more damage. This is correct. More missiles do more damage. However, the argument from the side of "MM = Intensify" seems to be that the missiles, when combined, constitute a lump sum of damage which increases as the spell caster levels. However, the spell clearly indicates that these missiles are separate instances of damage and, consequently, they do not "stack" with each other. There is precedent for this in spells such as Scorching Ray, which deals numerous instances of...
Well put. I too am over this. Ael and Oilhorse, we may disagree on this, but hey we're all gamers here, so that means youre alright with me. So I agree to disagree. Except with Big Tim, because we all know that YHBT.
Edit--That and some of the posters are the same people. Including me. I'll give you a free cookie if you can guess which one I am.Finally was bored enough to try. You made it too easy tho.
Checks cupboard.
Thin Mint, Samoan, or Tagalong?
Always gotta go with the Thin Mints. *nom nom nom*
I gotta admit, I figured that no one would be so bored as to even try, but what gave it away?
Also, I am a Nigerian prince. Due to International customs law, I need your credit card number and your bank account number in order to send you your free cookies.
|
|
The internet is for porn.I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
You should stop coming in cause it is not gonna provide anything new.
Why do you keep coming back? What do you hope to gain from repeating the same points?
This get like a car wreck...you can't just look away.
Finally!!! Someone understands.
|
|
Well put. I too am over this. Ael and Oilhorse, we may disagree on this, but hey we're all gamers here, so that means youre alright with me. So I agree to disagree. Except with Big Tim, because we all know that YHBT.
I said it earlier and hold true to it.
I have no issue with anyone here and am happy to have these discussions as long as it is civil and respectful. It may be hard to do at time, especially when you (the generic :you:) are repeating the same stuff over and over. We all fail at the civility and respect parts now and then. it just happens. But as long as we are "more nice" and "less jerk" then I find that these discussions can be interesting and fun.
There are lots of differing opinions and I may learn from something that someone brings up. there have been a number of times that someone said something off the cuff and it made me re-think my position.
So...yeah. Like you said fellow hater of Big Tim. We are all just playing a game and there Ain't No Wrong, Ain't No Right.
Except for BigTim...Eff Big Tim..Effing Effhole....mmhmm
|
Chain Lightning now that's got me going round in circles. You think Paizo included this 'fuzzy-feat' to cause DM's grief? Id so why?
Chain Lightning, does d6/level upto 20d6 with one target + one secondary target / level upto a maximum of 20 targets.
So Intensify the spell and you get 25d6 with one target + one secondary target / level upto a maximum of 20 targets.
When and where you you apply the extra 5d6? If we ignore RAW then the intent of the spell seems to be to reduce the damage from 25d6 --> 1d6 in "1d6 hops", but again RAW gives us an extra 5d6 to stuff in somewhere. This in someways mirrors the argument of MM getting Intensification.
Just in case it point was lost, I DO NOT think AA can be used with this feat.
If I make a spell called "Stefan's Christmas Cracker". Based on Fireball, it has the same features other than it's cast on a location (which must be a Christmas tree) and total damage is determined 1d6/level (max 10d6) but it ONLY does 1d6/year (explodes in a 20' radius every Christmas morning) until the total dice of damage is reached.
Can Intensify be applied to this spell? It is technically a DoT spell.
This feat appears to come under the heading "not very well thought out, or perhaps not very well explained".
Curious,
S.
|
To those arguing that intensify spell works with MM and SR, should it work with Call Lightning?I wish it would, but Call Lightning is another DoT spell. The damage of the attack never goes up by level.
It's one lightning per level, up to ten.
The damage of MM or SR doesn't go up either, it just gets more missiles or rays.And unlike MM or SR, it gives one lightning per level and not some cryptic formula. And it's not DoT, Extend Spell would not increase its damage.
I'm not arguing that intensify should work on CL, but saying that it's works with MM and SR but not CL seems strange.
|
|
To those arguing that intensify spell works with MM and SR, should it work with Call Lightning?I wish it would, but Call Lightning is another DoT spell. The damage of the attack never goes up by level.It's one lightning per level, up to ten.
The damage of MM or SR doesn't go up either, it just gets more missiles or rays.
And unlike MM or SR, it gives one lightning per level and not some cryptic formula. And it's not DoT, Extend Spell would not increase its damage.
I'm not arguing that intensify should work on CL, but saying that it's works with MM and SR but not CL seems strange.
Guess you missed my post on why it does not work but Ael has it correct in his answer. There in the bold.
If you want a more thorough explanation look for my own reply.
|
|
Chain Lightning now that's got me going round in circles. You think Paizo included this 'fuzzy-feat' to cause DM's grief? Id so why?
Chain Lightning, does d6/level upto 20d6 with one target + one secondary target / level upto a maximum of 20 targets.
So Intensify the spell and you get 25d6 with one target + one secondary target / level upto a maximum of 20 targets.
When and where you you apply the extra 5d6? If we ignore RAW then the intent of the spell seems to be to reduce the damage from 25d6 --> 1d6 in "1d6 hops", but again RAW gives us an extra 5d6 to stuff in somewhere. This in someways mirrors the argument of MM getting Intensification.
Just in case it point was lost, I DO NOT think AA can be used with this feat.
If I make a spell called "Stefan's Christmas Cracker". Based on Fireball, it has the same features other than it's cast on a location (which must be a Christmas tree) and total damage is determined 1d6/level (max 10d6) but it ONLY does 1d6/year (explodes in a 20' radius every Christmas morning) until the total dice of damage is reached.
Can Intensify be applied to this spell? It is technically a DoT spell.
This feat appears to come under the heading "not very well thought out, or perhaps not very well explained".
Curious,
S.
First: I go with "Not very well explained". they can tighten the wording to include (or exclude depending on your current interpretation of the feat)the debatable spells.
Second: We are starting to agree on something. I do not think AA can be used with the feat also.
Third: Chain Lightning has increasing damage dice and gets capped. Yes. There is nothing that should stop it from working with the feat.
Fourth: What to do with the extra 5d6? Well obviously the spell will start with 25d6. Now the spell gives a limit as to how many targets the spell will strike. It is not just a "Deal damage to targets until you run out of dice" type of limit. It is 20. SO @ level 25 your ChL spell will degrade to the point it deals 5d6 to the last target.
|
|
To those arguing that intensify spell works with MM and SR, should it work with Call Lightning?I wish it would, but Call Lightning is another DoT spell. The damage of the attack never goes up by level.It's one lightning per level, up to ten.
The damage of MM or SR doesn't go up either, it just gets more missiles or rays.
And unlike MM or SR, it gives one lightning per level and not some cryptic formula. And it's not DoT, Extend Spell would not increase its damage.
I'm not arguing that intensify should work on CL, but saying that it's works with MM and SR but not CL seems strange.Guess you missed my post on why it does not work but Ael has it correct in his answer. There in the bold.
If you want a more thorough explanation look for my own reply.
The damage of the rays or the missiles never goes up by level, either.
The damage increase of Intensify applies to all targets of the spell. How exactly is that supposed to work with MM or SR?
|
|
The damage of the rays or the missiles never goes up by level, either.The damage increase of Intensify applies to all targets of the spell. How exactly is that supposed to work with MM or SR?
The spell has its damage dice increase.
Read the feat. It does not talk about how the burst/ray/blast/line/etc goes up in damage, just teh spell.
So. Forget about the delivery vehicle (missiles, bolt, line, blast, ray etc...). Concentrate on spell.
Call Lightning does 3d6/round. Never changes. Ever. In a million level this will never ever go up.
MM starts @ a damage and that damage goes up every odd level until level 9 where it gets capped.
Now show me where the bold part is stated in the feat. i am not sure where you are heading with this.
|
|
The damage of the rays or the missiles never goes up by level, either.The damage increase of Intensify applies to all targets of the spell. How exactly is that supposed to work with MM or SR?
The spell has its damage dice increase.
Read the feat. It does not talk about how the burst/ray/blast/line/etc goes up in damage, just teh spell.
So. Forget about the delivery vehicle (missiles, bolt, line, blast, ray etc...). Concentrate on spell.
Call Lightning does 3d6/round. Never changes. Ever. In a million level this will never ever go up.
MM starts @ a damage and that damage goes up every odd level until level 9 where it gets capped.
Now show me where the bold part is stated in the feat. i am not sure where you are heading with this.
The damage of Call Lightning is per lightning, not per round. You can't use more than one lightning per round, but that doesn't change the fact, that you deal damage per lightning.
You might want to reread the spell. And the feat, too. Don't you think it's rather strange that anyone but you and Aelryinth is apparently too stupid to understand how the feat works?