People like to argue. People like to be right.
I object. I dont like to argue or be right. If you disagree, you are wrong.
|
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?
Ok. Per Lightning. So? You are not even reading what is written. I will help you out and quote it so you don't have to leave this post.
"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."
On a different note. I have never used the word "stupid" So do not try and put words in my mouth about other posters. I don't care about how the "majority" see it, I do not accuse them of being wrong. I do not look down on them for not seeing it my way.
I do not care if the developers come in and write up an FAQ posting to shoot down my version. Just means that I officially know I am house ruling. As of right now I have a reading and it is a reasonable reading by how the spells and the feat are worded.
|
Ooo! Here was a "fun" debate I got into with a former DM. I decided early on that, once I reached the appropriate level, I would take the Leadership feat. The group consisted of only 3 people (myself, my wife, and the DM), so I wanted to help round out our group more. In addition, it was a sea-faring campaign, so I wanted a crew to man a ship I was eventually going to get.
He argued that having a cohort AND followers was overpowered, and that I could have one or the other, but not both. Now, I'm all for allowing a DM to houserule whatever he wants. But, not only did he wait until AFTER we had started playing to mention this, but he argued that his interpretation of the feat was the way it was written, and that I was in the wrong by saying it granted a cohort and followers.
What would you do? And how do you interpret it?
*Edit: I also opted to have a wyrmling Bronze Dragon as a cohort, which is FRIGHTFULLY unoptimized.
I like how James Jacobs is suddenly stupid, too, seeing as how he agrees with us. Always nice to insult the game's developers.
==Aelryinth
Ooo! Here was a "fun" debate I got into with a former DM. I decided early on that, once I reached the appropriate level, I would take the Leadership feat. The group consisted of only 3 people (myself, my wife, and the DM), so I wanted to help round out our group more. In addition, it was a sea-faring campaign, so I wanted a crew to man a ship I was eventually going to get.
He argued that having a cohort AND followers was overpowered, and that I could have one or the other, but not both. Now, I'm all for allowing a DM to houserule whatever he wants. But, not only did he wait until AFTER we had started playing to mention this, but he argued that his interpretation of the feat was the way it was written, and that I was in the wrong by saying it granted a cohort and followers.
What would you do? And how do you interpret it?
*Edit: I also opted to have a wyrmling Bronze Dragon as a cohort, which is FRIGHTFULLY unoptimized.
Tell your GM to read the feat. Under benefits, first line: "This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you."
I don't see this feat as overpowered at all. You have to be 7th level, and the feat states that most followers are NPC classes, so they only get half hit points, and a 5th level wizard could probably wipe half of them out with a single Fireball.
So, long and short, I think it's balanced. Hope this helps! Happy gaming!
Citation needed.I like how James Jacobs is suddenly stupid, too, seeing as how he agrees with us. Always nice to insult the game's developers.
==Aelryinth
I agree, Cos the way I read the one thing he posted was that he agrees with both of us.
|
Call Lightning does 3d6/round. Never changes. Ever. In a million level this will never ever go up.
That isn't quite true RAW, Jadeite is correct. It says you can only use one bolt per round (@3d6, cf MM @d4+1), nothing about a per round damage. You have inferred this 3d6/round, it's not RAW. In fact you DO NOT have to launch a bolt each consecutive round, it can be per what-ever time frame to choose up to 1 min / level. Very different from per round damage. This is exactly the same as if MM had a line saying you could only launch one MM per round. The feat says nothing, as I have said previously, about the damage needing to be dealt in one round.
MM:
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher.
CL:
You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts).
Other than in MM they all fire off in the round cast and in CL they can be released over a 1 min / level time frame where is the difference?
S.
I like how James Jacobs is suddenly stupid, too, seeing as how he agrees with us. Always nice to insult the game's developers.
==Aelryinth
Actually if you'll read what he wrote he said that he'd allow intensify to work with some spells that by RAW it wouldn't.. such as magic missile and scorching ray.
Your position is that it works by the RAW.. so James Jacobs would be disagreeing with you.
So how do you two see an intensified scorching ray working?
You can't have more than 3 rays as that's not altered by intensify and each ray can't do more than 4d6 damage as that's not varying ever in the spell...
So really I don't see how it COULD work with Intensify.
-James
Actually, as I was the one who asked the question, he expressly stated that the feat would work with the spells.
Only if confronted with some highly reactive and pedantic players would he turn around and restrict it. So RAW, he was letting it through. For tight-arsed and unhappy players, he'd restrict. 'Pedantic' is not a complimentary term.
===
And you're AGAIN bringing up the bloody delivery vehicle. Will you kindly get off that train?
Either # of rays is tied directly to the damage, and you get an extra ray, or you get the extra damage without the ray. Ditto for MM. This has been explained three times directly above!
We believe the former, as does JJ. Do you seriously not read any of the posts? I'm beginning to believe it, the way you keep recycling the same stuff again and again that doesn't work.
==Aelryinth
|
|
So how do you two see an intensified scorching ray working?
OilHorse please accept my apology if I'm wrong on this, but James, I don't think that OilHorse thinks that ScR can have the feat applied. I believe that this is Aelryinth's crusade alone.
Again sorry OH, I just seem to remember in one or two of these hundreds of posts you saying ScR was a no for you.
Just thought I'd defend you against being lumped in the "we", "them", "they said" category.
If I'm wrong, sorry dude,
S.
PS: Doesn't mean I think your right about MM however :)
|
|
Actually, as I was the one who asked the question, he expressly stated that the feat would work with the spells.Only if confronted with some highly reactive and pedantic players would he turn around and restrict it. So RAW, he was letting it through. For tight-arsed and unhappy players, he'd restrict. 'Pedantic' is not a complimentary term.
We believe the former, as does JJ. Do you seriously not read any of the posts? I'm beginning to believe it, the way you keep recycling the same stuff again and again that doesn't work.
==Aelryinth
SS or it didn't happen :P
To my knowledge, JJ hasn't taken a side, and I really hope he doesn't. The only thing he's said is "Your DM makes the final call."
|
James Jacobs[/url]]Ah... Yeah. Intensified Spell works fine with magic missile and scorching ray. It's up to the GM, of course, but balance wise I don't see letting it work as being a particular problem at all.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
Since he agrees with both sides, I don't think anyone called him stupid. Unless both sides called the other stupid, which would make everyone call him stupid.
I'm deciding to weigh in on this. First, I don't think MM or ScR qualify for intensify.
Examples from spells that do qualify:
Cone of Cold: "dealing 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)."
Fireball: "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6)"
Lightning Bolt: "deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6)"
Spells that do NOT qualify:
Magic Missile: "dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage" ... "For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher"
Scorching Ray: "deals 4d6 points of fire damage" ... "plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level)"
Acid Arrow: "deals 2d4 points of acid damage with no splash damage" ... "For every three caster levels you possess, the acid, unless neutralized, lasts for another round (to a maximum of 6 additional rounds at 18th level)"
Call lightning: "deals 3d6 points of electricity damage" ... "You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts)."
Do you guys (OilHorse/Aelrynth) notice something in the spells it works on, opposed to the ones it doesn't? Does that happen to be that all of the spells it work on include the very specific "XdY points of Z damage per caster level" language? MM increases missile per level, not dice. Scorching ray increases rays, not dice, acid arrow increases rounds not dice, and call lightning increases number of bolts you can call total during the spells duration, not dice.
|
|
Call Lightning does 3d6/round. Never changes. Ever. In a million level this will never ever go up.That isn't quite true RAW, Jadeite is correct. It says you can only use one bolt per round (@3d6, cf MM @d4+1), nothing about a per round damage. You have inferred this 3d6/round, it's not RAW. In fact you DO NOT have to launch a bolt each consecutive round, it can be per what-ever time frame to choose up to 1 min / level. Very different from per round damage. This is exactly the same as if MM had a line saying you could only launch one MM per round. The feat says nothing, as I have said previously, about the damage needing to be dealt in one round.
MM:
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher.CL:
You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts).Other than in MM they all fire off in the round cast and in CL they can be released over a 1 min / level time frame where is the difference?
S.
I understand what you are saying...after taking some time away to do other things (namely house cleaning).
They "felt" different.
I don't have the time to elaborate further right now...I'll be back when I get a chance.
Kindly note that the 'per-missile' resistance argument for MM and SR have been tried before and shot down.
Yes, Energy Resistance works per attack.
However, SPELL RESISTANCE, which looks at the entire spell, is tested once per MM or SR SPELL...they are all simultaneous, and it's all one package.
So the energy resistance argument doesn't work, either.
And yes, Tarantula, everything you said there has been reposted many times, and JJ was the one who let SR thru, and I'm going along with it because I can see his point...the damage of the spell clearly goes up every 4 levels.
Me, I like to see a straight mechanic, and SR is a little lopsided, but oh well.
MM definitely works off a caster level mechanic. The fact it's HALF as fast as a fireball in no way disqualifies it.
==Aelryinth
Intensified spell is great on burning hands and shocking grasp.
The developers are crazy for allowing this (that is, for it to work on magic missile, scorching ray, et al).
And yes, Tarantula, everything you said there has been reposted many times, and JJ was the one who let SR thru, and I'm going along with it because I can see his point...the damage of the spell clearly goes up every 4 levels.
Me, I like to see a straight mechanic, and SR is a little lopsided, but oh well.
MM definitely works off a caster level mechanic. The fact it's HALF as fast as a fireball in no way disqualifies it.
==Aelryinth
Show me where it says XdY per Z caster levels. If MM said "This spell does 1d4+1 points of Force damage per every 2 caster levels (max 5d4+5)" I'd give you it. It doesn't. Therefore, it doesn't work.
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.
I'm not sure what the question is here.
The bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 20d6) to the primary target. After it strikes, lightning can arc to a number of secondary targets equal to your caster level (maximum 20). The secondary bolts each strike one target and deal as much damage as the primary bolt.
If intensified it goes up to 25d6, and it does an equal amount to up to 20 targets (it'd be 25 targets at that caster level) in 30'. Were you thinking of a different spell?
WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL HERE??
because you didn't find my phylactery.
I`m afraid of the internet after skimming this thread.. Can someone please put it out of it's misery?
I`m afraid of the internet after skimming this thread.. Can someone please put it out of it's misery?
Yeah right... People in general love to argue. Constant back and forth rehashing the same points on both sides over and over and over again.
You should do it this way!
No no no, good sir! It should be done this way!
Over and over again. Happens pretty often around here. If you're a GM and want to make things work a certain way then just do it and see for yourself how it plays out IN A GAME! Just do it. Arguing on here isn't doing anyone any good. Play the game.
I`m afraid of the internet after skimming this thread.. Can someone please put it out of it's misery?
Yeah right... People in general love to argue. Constant back and forth rehashing the same points on both sides over and over and over again.
You should do it this way!
No no no, good sir! It should be done this way!
Over and over again. Happens pretty often around here. If you're a GM and want to make things work a certain way then just do it and see for yourself how it plays out IN A GAME! Just do it. Arguing on here isn't doing anyone any good. Play the game.
|
|
Arguing on here isn't doing anyone any good. Play the game.
This thread is mainly a debate, not an argument as such, which is healthy and can spawn new ideas. The main protagonists are on the whole polite.
I can see the 'other sides' view and reasons for their views. Just in case I disagree and wouldn't implement them, but that doesn't mean I don't understand their stance. If this came up in game I feel in a much better position to quickly make a ruling on this feat and back it up with a wealth of opinions.
As such I don't feel this thread has been a waste of internet bandwidth.
S.
Show me where it says XdY per Z caster levels. If MM said "This spell does 1d4+1 points of Force damage per every 2 caster levels (max 5d4+5)" I'd give you it. It doesn't. Therefore, it doesn't work.And yes, Tarantula, everything you said there has been reposted many times, and JJ was the one who let SR thru, and I'm going along with it because I can see his point...the damage of the spell clearly goes up every 4 levels.
Me, I like to see a straight mechanic, and SR is a little lopsided, but oh well.
MM definitely works off a caster level mechanic. The fact it's HALF as fast as a fireball in no way disqualifies it.
==Aelryinth
Um, it does dmg equal to (Level +1)/2. Or level/2, round up, as you prefer. Does it really need to spell out mathematically what you can determine by doing simple arithmetic?
==Aelryinth
|
|
Um, it does dmg equal to (Level +1)/2. Or level/2, round up, as you prefer. Does it really need to spell out mathematically what you can determine by doing simple arithmetic?==Aelryinth
Actually, dude I would like to forward my vote that you won the thread with this comment.
It now appears you have been arguing RAW without actually knowing what RAW is!
+1
:)
To be RAW, yes.OH SNAP!!!
This made laugh so hard, I nearly peed myself.
To be RAW, yes.
Riiiight.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I wondered how long it would take you. Kinda thought the thread would die.
That won't do. 1000 posts here we come! Problem is everyone, with the notable exception of Aelryinth, started getting all hug-a-tree and having a calm sensible adult debate.
Drat, derailed by civilized behavior, what are these boards coming too?! Still I have faith that Aelryinth can buck that trend.
<bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...>