Is this one done?
Wait a minute....is not MM just gets a bunch of missiles? Not Damage dice....and what about SR? Those are just missiles...
And never mind....I can't continbue this debate w/ a straight face.
So, what new argument can we start?
I suppose somebody could bring up alignment....that should get us into the 1000 post counmt easy.
4th edition, Alignment, Star Trek and Magic Missle in a ladder match vs Pathfinder, Star Wars, Prismatic Wall, and Nondetection. Please discuss.
Edit. With special guest referee Ditka
Meteor Swarm. Given the rules of Swarms in the Bestiary, this makes Meteor Swarm immune to Dispel Magic.
Discuss.
What tha...huh?
So, what new argument can we start?Meteor Swarm. Given the rules of Swarms in the Bestiary, this makes Meteor Swarm immune to Dispel Magic.
Discuss.
Does that mean Meteor swarm is especially vulnerable to an area Greater Dispel Magic?
It's a SWARM of METEORS. Surely the rules for SWARMS in the Bestiary apply.What tha...huh?Meteor Swarm. Given the rules of Swarms in the Bestiary, this makes Meteor Swarm immune to Dispel Magic.
Discuss.
Oh. lol. I was never that great at getting jokes.
That explains a lot. ;)
Many of my friends tease me when I don't get their "Family Guy" jokes and references, which they LOVE.
I simply don't watch Family Guy.
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...>
Says the guy promptly resorting to insults to elicit a response?
=+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...>
Says the guy promptly resorting to insults to elicit a response?
=+Aelryinth
In a good natured way I assure you. That aside it worked ;)
Aye, because your 'humor' came across as anything but, and I believe in calling a cad a cad.
Next time, I recommend keeping it neutral and to the discussion. I'm entirely of the opinion that the first person to resort to insults on the Internet has lost whatever argument they were making.
===Aelryinth
Next time, I recommend keeping it neutral and to the discussion. I'm entirely of the opinion that the first person to resort to insults on the Internet has lost whatever argument they were making.
===Aelryinth
I have a similiar opinion...though it is anyone who engages in a arguement at all on the internet has lost the arguement.
|
Shtuff...
Ok I am back from a busy week...Thx to everyone the continued the amazing work to get this thread to 1k posts...always just enough bumps to keep it on the go...;)
Now back to what I was talking about in regards to Call Lightning.
I kept trying to jam it in the AA zone...since they both are based on a duration effect. That is a mistake as it has more in common with MM and ScR. So yes. I would allow it to work with the feat.
On another note...How is this not on a list as one of the most OP spells in the game? By 10th level you are getting 30 die of damage. In previous editions it had a nasty casting time which kept it limited, but now, 1 round..a joke.
If I did not dislike Druids as much as I do I would play the class just for that spell.
|
Shtuff...Ok I am back from a busy week...Thx to everyone the continued the amazing work to get this thread to 1k posts...always just enough bumps to keep it on the go...;)
Now back to what I was talking about in regards to Call Lightning.
I kept trying to jam it in the AA zone...since they both are based on a duration effect. That is a mistake as it has more in common with MM and ScR. So yes. I would allow it to work with the feat.
On another note...How is this not on a list as one of the most OP spells in the game? By 10th level you are getting 30 die of damage. In previous editions it had a nasty casting time which kept it limited, but now, 1 round..a joke.
If I did not dislike Druids as much as I do I would play the class just for that spell.
You have to spend actions calling the 3d6 damage (5d6 in a storm) bolts. While, yes, for 1 spell this is quite a lot of damage, you probably have better things to do per round than use the 3d6 damage. It's mostly there as a ranged damage backup. Trust me, I thought the spell looked really nice too, but that would mean that, at level 10, you were averaging 10.5 damage per round... if they fail a Reflex Save. Not so hot from that perspective. :P
|
|
You are a Druid...With your animal companion and a summon spell or two you do not need those actions to do much else. And that is the beauty of this spell. Cast one when you enter the "dungeon" and it is going for multiple encounters. Need a does of damage, you got it. If not you do not lose it.
and in a storm the damage dice move up to d10s...
The damage is miniscule, and any resistance to lightning basically neuters the effect. It's like shooting a single arrow a round, and a Druid has better things to do. Heck, you can't even smash a stone tower down with it...the Hardness and 1/2 damage will basically take care of the bolt. It might almost be viable....outside, and in a storm...how often is that going to happen?
Basically it's a highly situational spell downtoned from its incredibly powerful 1E origins, where it was indeed the best damage spell in the game...and it delivered 2d8+1d8 dmg/level, AND you could bring down one bolt every 10 rounds, or something. No cap, either.
Don't piss off the druids in 1E, or you'll fear the coming of the storm.
==Aelryinth
|
|
No need to pray..just had to ask...
Get this...
The damage of the SPELL (which is what is under consideration by the feat) gets increased as you increase in level.
A casting of the spell starts @ 15d6 (5 x 3d6)..it then increases by 3d6 every level.
Once again. Stop looking @ teh delivery vehicle. Look at the spell.
So simply put it CAN work.
No need to pray..just had to ask...
Get this...
The damage of the SPELL (which is what is under consideration by the feat) gets increased as you increase in level.
A casting of the spell starts @ 15d6 (5 x 3d6)..it then increases by 3d6 every level.
Once again. Stop looking @ teh delivery vehicle. Look at the spell.
So simply put it CAN work.
Yawn. Duration =/ not damage. next!
==Aelryinth
doing damage across multiple rounds is an increase in the duration of the effect, be they staggered or concurrent.
In short, you've got the converse of the magic missile; the magic missile is considered one instance of damage by the spell, goes up with level, gets delivered in discrete packets; but it's still one spell, effect, and instance of damage.
Your choice of Call Lightning is the same thing as far as discrete packets go, but it relies exclusively on the duration mechanic, doing the exact same damage across time, instead of increasing the damage by level being dealt.
Now, if you could deal all those bolts in one round, and they increased in number by level, you'd have a magic missile/scorching ray argument and I'd agree with you.
DoT mechanic. Nothing else. Next!
==Aelryinth
|
|
doing damage across multiple rounds is an increase in the duration of the effect, be they staggered or concurrent.
In short, you've got the converse of the magic missile; the magic missile is considered one instance of damage by the spell, goes up with level, gets delivered in discrete packets; but it's still one spell, effect, and instance of damage.
Your choice of Call Lightning is the same thing as far as discrete packets go, but it relies exclusively on the duration mechanic, doing the exact same damage across time, instead of increasing the damage by level being dealt.
Now, if you could deal all those bolts in one round, and they increased in number by level, you'd have a magic missile/scorching ray argument and I'd agree with you.
DoT mechanic. Nothing else. Next!
==Aelryinth
Whether or not I agree with your interpretation is irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out that you listed Magic Missile as being "one instance of damage." That's not quite accurate. It is a single spell, and that spell does deal damage, but due to the delivery system (yes I know you hate that phrase, boo-hoo), the spell constitutes multiple instances of damage (see my post about applying theoretical Force Resistance to the spell).
Whether or not I agree with your interpretation is irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out that you listed Magic Missile as being "one instance of damage." That's not quite accurate. It is a single spell, and that spell does deal damage, but due to the delivery system (yes I know you hate that phrase, boo-hoo), the spell constitutes multiple instances of damage (see my post about applying theoretical Force Resistance to the spell).doing damage across multiple rounds is an increase in the duration of the effect, be they staggered or concurrent.
In short, you've got the converse of the magic missile; the magic missile is considered one instance of damage by the spell, goes up with level, gets delivered in discrete packets; but it's still one spell, effect, and instance of damage.
Your choice of Call Lightning is the same thing as far as discrete packets go, but it relies exclusively on the duration mechanic, doing the exact same damage across time, instead of increasing the damage by level being dealt.
Now, if you could deal all those bolts in one round, and they increased in number by level, you'd have a magic missile/scorching ray argument and I'd agree with you.
DoT mechanic. Nothing else. Next!
==Aelryinth
Spell Resistance says it's one spell. That's really all that's important. For extra damage effects, it's considered one spell. For sneak attack, it's considered one spell.
In short, 'force resistance' is a corner case, and actually the 'one spell' definition fits it for all other purposes.
In truth, the only reason I see elemental resistance acting as 'multiple instance' is against Scorching Ray...it's like it's specifically set up to make the spell less powerful. It affects pretty much NOTHING ELSE in the game the way it does Scorching Ray (well, maybe Meteor Swarm).
==Aelryinth
So if I intensify a fireball, do I get two spheres to throw around?
You really meant to ask if you'd get an extra fireball the next round, right?
==Aelryinth
In truth, the only reason I see elemental resistance acting as 'multiple instance' is against Scorching Ray...it's like it's specifically set up to make the spell less powerful. It affects pretty much NOTHING ELSE in the game the way it does Scorching Ray (well, maybe Meteor Swarm).
Actualy they(the people who gaved us 3.5) did it to simplfy the game. It so you don't have to keep track of how much of x elemental damage you take in a round. It was not meant as a 'nerf' vs Scorching ray.
Also I guess you never had a character get caught in two fireballs...then hit by a flaming weapon....then etc all in one round? So I see plenty of reasons other than Scorching Ray.
In truth, the only reason I see elemental resistance acting as 'multiple instance' is against Scorching Ray...it's like it's specifically set up to make the spell less powerful. It affects pretty much NOTHING ELSE in the game the way it does Scorching Ray (well, maybe Meteor Swarm).
Actualy they(the people who gaved us 3.5) did it to simplfy the game. It so you don't have to keep track of how much of x elemental damage you take in a round. It was not meant as a 'nerf' vs Scorching ray.
Also I guess you never had a character get caught in two fireballs...than hit by a flaming weapon....than etc all in one round? So I see plenty of reasons other than Scorching Ray.
hunh?
hunh?In truth, the only reason I see elemental resistance acting as 'multiple instance' is against Scorching Ray...it's like it's specifically set up to make the spell less powerful. It affects pretty much NOTHING ELSE in the game the way it does Scorching Ray (well, maybe Meteor Swarm).
Actualy they(the people who gaved us 3.5) did it to simplfy the game. It so you don't have to keep track of how much of x elemental damage you take in a round. It was not meant as a 'nerf' vs Scorching ray.
Also I guess you never had a character get caught in two fireballs...than hit by a flaming weapon....than etc all in one round? So I see plenty of reasons other than Scorching Ray.
What did you not understand?
The whole thing. Not saying youre wrong or anything, I just dont get what youre trying to say. The people who gave us 3.5 did what exactly dto simplify the game. Made Scorching Ray multiple-instance? You have to keep track of how much x energy damage you take in a round, any way, no matter what. (x energy immunity, notwithstanding)
Second paragraph I understand a little better on second reading when I realized you probably meant "then" instead of than. It just threw me off.
But I actually agree with A here (I think), in that I think the reason Scorching ray is multi-instance is to limit its power, as fire resist would apply to each ray.
The whole thing. Not saying youre wrong or anything, I just dont get what youre trying to say. The people who gave us 3.5 did what exactly dto simplify the game. Made Scorching Ray multiple-instance? You have to keep track of how much x energy damage you take in a round, any way, no matter what. (x energy immunity, notwithstanding)
Second paragraph I understand a little better on second reading when I realized you probably meant "then" instead of than. It just threw me off.
But I actually agree with A here (I think), in that I think the reason Scorching ray is multi-instance is to limit its power, as fire resist would apply to each ray.
Ok. I'll go back in history.
In 3.0 Resist Energy gaved you 10...or 20...or 30...amount of Temp HP per round. So if you had cast it and got Fire resit 10. Let say evil mage spprentice A hit you with a fireball and you make the save and take 9...you would have 1 point left for Fire resistance for that round...so when evil mage cast fireball...only one point of damage is negated and you have no protection left vs fire till the start of your next action in which your fire resistance would renew.
This is much more more complex than just getting the full Energy Resistance per attack. And made Energy Resistance actualy useful...as to before when most people did not bother with it.
Scorching Ray was always a multi-instance spell...it was just the change to Energy Resistance(which was needed imo) that limited it's use. But I don't think it was the 'only reason' they changed how Energy Resistance worked.
The second paragraph you are correct...I was thinking too fast when typing again. I'll edit it.
ahhh ok didnt know Energy Resist worked like that in 3.0. I went right from 2nd to 3.5, pretty much.
ahhh ok didnt know Energy Resist worked like that in 3.0. I went right from 2nd to 3.5, pretty much.
No problem. Should have explained it better the first time and not assume everybody here played 3.0.
|
|
And HOW does this work?
'You get another say 15d6 damage at 15th CL' great.
Does that mean that you can make the first bolt deal 18d6 damage? I don't think so, nor could you make some of them 6d6 or 4d6 for that matter. The damage for a given bolt doesn't scale.
@ bold: Sure. Why not. That is a way it could work. It is not how I would have it but if a DM ruled it that way I would not call him an idiot.
@ italics: I can see 6d6 but not 4d6. The damage instances are dealt in 3d6 lumps, so an "intensified" bolt would deal damage in multiples of 3d6. But I would not do it that way either.
See the spell deals its damage in 3d6 lumps during a round. So to me the simplest way is to allow up to 5 more 3d6 lumps of damage available to call down as normal during the duration.
Does this mean that you can call down 15 bolts instead of 10? Again no.
Yeah. Forget "bolts. But yes. I think it is the most reasonable way to do it.
So, again, you have no way to deal this extra damage. And again other than just saying 'no it works' you have nothing to say on it.
-James
Hmmm. I do have a way. So I guess I also had something to say on it.
But seriously. Look in the mirror when you make many of your statements. Just saying "No, It does not work" does not make it true.
All according to how the feat is written these spells work. Simply put.
I ask you again. What is you big problem with my reading of the feat? Other than it is not your reading. What do you see about how the two interact that screams "NO!!!" to you?
|
|
Let's make a spell that mirrors the old shooting stars ability of the ring of shooting stars: Have it be able to fire 1 star for every 4 caster levels (max 3 stars) that deal 4d6 damage each, you can fire them all at once or over time. Does intensify work with this spell? Only when you fire all at once? How does intensify deal more damage with this spell, exactly by RAW?-James
This just sounds like ScR except you can hold the charge for a duration.
Seems like you will get 1 more set of 4d6 damage...just like ScR.
And how many spells is acid arrow or call lightning or create pit for that matter?
They are all one, yet only CL is legitimate for use with the feat. It is the only one with Increased Damage Dice.
AA has Increased Spell Duration.
CP does not deal damage at all. The fall into the pit deals the damage.
And where, exactly, in the feat wording does it exclude spells for dealing damage over time?
If you are trying to link this back to AA then there is your failure. The feat is NOT looking at DoT. It is ONLY looking at Increased Damage Dice. Does AA have that? No. You initiate the damage on your target and that damage perpetuates itself again and again. It is not a NEW damage set. It is the initial, original damage set.
|
|
Spell Resistance says it's one spell. That's really all that's important. For extra damage effects, it's considered one spell. For sneak attack, it's considered one spell.
In short, 'force resistance' is a corner case, and actually the 'one spell' definition fits it for all other purposes.
In truth, the only reason I see elemental resistance acting as 'multiple instance' is against Scorching Ray...it's like it's specifically set up to make the spell less powerful. It affects pretty much NOTHING ELSE in the game the way it does Scorching Ray (well, maybe Meteor Swarm).
==Aelryinth
Yes, Spell Resistance does say it is one "spell", and for the purposes of determining whether or not a spell affects a target, you only make the spell penetration check once per spellcasting.
And actually, elemental resistance affects several more spells. You mentioned Meteor Swarm, but there's also:
Call Lightning
Acid Arrow
Flaming Sphere
Chill Touch
Acid Fog
And several other spells which all deal severely reduced damage when faced with elemental resistances. And those are just a few examples.
Additionally, James Jacobs mentioned earlier in this thread that you would, in fact, get Sneak Attack damage on every ray of a Scorching Ray, provided the conditions for adding Sneak Attack damage were met (Flat-footed, or otherwise denied Dexterity bonus to AC).
The reason Magic Missile could only benefit once from Sneak Attack is because it doesn't require an attack roll, and as such the only way to do so is to have 10 levels of Arcane Trickster, in which case it is only applied once.
While Magic Missile may be one spell, it functions very much like Scorching Ray in that it has multiple instances of damage. They may all be fired at once, just as Scorching Ray is, but they are still handled as separate instances, again, just like Scorching Ray.
|
|
stuff
With all due respect, James, you're making arguments that have been made already. Many, many times. The difference between the two main interpretations of the feat is that one group believes that the method of delivery is an important part of the spell, while the other does not. We should focus on proving that the method of delivery is important, rather than simply saying it just matters.
|
|
Yawn. Duration =/ not damage. next!
==Aelryinth
Aye, because your 'humor' came across as anything but, and I believe in calling a cad a cad.
Next time, I recommend keeping it neutral and to the discussion. I'm entirely of the opinion that the first person to resort to insults on the Internet has lost whatever argument they were making.
===Aelryinth
Right because dismissive derision is far more acceptable than humor on the internet. So just so I'm clear, mocking = no, airing feelings of superiority = yes. Check.
Yes, I do find it difficult to take all this too seriously, arguing the semantics of Elves and Fairies any other way seems, well, silly.
Feel free to mock my posts if you choose, I hope I can sort out well meaning ribbing from a personal attack. That aside my ego isn't so fragile to not be able to accept a little direct criticism or lampooning of any of my idioms that come across in my posts.
Still you have requested that you not be included in any digital rough-housing and I'll respect that. Of course OilHorse my good friend... :)
S.
|
|
stuffWith all due respect, James, you're making arguments that have been made already. Many, many times. The difference between the two main interpretations of the feat is that one group believes that the method of delivery is an important part of the spell, while the other does not. We should focus on proving that the method of delivery is important, rather than simply saying it just matters.
Actually, and correct me James et al if I'm wrong, it's simpler than that. We believe that spells which have in their description (RAW);
"dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)"
count only.
MM, for example, has a second step required to jump to the same conclusion as above, something like.
MM's do damage --> caster level = more MM's --> MM does damage/caster level, Q.E.D. feat can be applied.
This becomes a logic argument rather than simply reading RAW, again, we are now talking consequence rather than RAW.
Our stance means no grey areas, simply the feat functions as written (RAW), without any further consideration such as delivery.
S.