|
Missiles == Damage...
I am not really arguing. i really don't care about the RaW.
MM is limited by a damage cap and it does damage.
Like I said Missiles, Hula-Hoops or Rainbows. It is not important as to "how" the damage is arrived at. It is done and it gets capped. The feat works...IMO...YMMV.
It is a DM call really since a strict reading says it does not work, but a more than reasonable case is made as to having it work.
Anything that lets people roll more dice is all good in my books.
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Intensify Spell is very obviously meant for spells that deal damage in number of dice per caster level, such as Fireball.
If you want to have it apply to Magic Missile somehow through a houserule, that's fine, but it's certainly not how the feat actually works.
Neither can a fireball single out specific parts, the point of the ability is to add it to spells that normally cant get sneak attack damage, obviously many people go to the other extreme and suggest it should apply to each missile.
In my opinion it is just that every creature that...
Sneak Attack does extra damage because it hits enemies in vital areas. Doesn't matter what your weapon of choice happens to be, whether it's a bolt, a ray, or a sword. If you want to call it magical sneak attack damage, go ahead. That's the spirit of the ability, it's not a brute force attack.
I disagree that a fireball can't crit, after all someone can roll a "1" on their saving throw and have gear destroyed. That happens to be the result of a fireball "crit". A magic missile can't do that, it can never crit.
If you guys want to play with broken rules where people sneak attack people with Magic Missile, a spell that can't even specifically target vital areas, be my guest, it's not my game.
|
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Now your 13th level Wiz can toss a couple of more d4s down with his spell making him a little happier. Life is good
Er no, with all respect. The number of missiles goes up, NOT the damage of A magic missile. I think this is the point you are missing.
S.
I think most players would want to at least get the average damage from the spell effect -- which is easy enough to calculate. The good news is that strategies like this are often trivial to counter -- like contingency wind wall. Also, stoneskin/protection from arrows can be a passable counter. . .I don't think you can contigency windwall
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).
While the spell doesn't have the range "personal", the spell description of contingency doesn't mention the personal spell range. It just says "affects your person". Surrounding yourself with a square wind wall around your person also affects your person -- that is, your person becomes encased in a square wind wall effect.
If the wind wall effect particularly bothers you, you can always use resilient sphere instead. . . they're pretty similar for this purpose.
|
|
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Now your 13th level Wiz can toss a couple of more d4s down with his spell making him a little happier. Life is good
Er no, with all respect. The number of missiles goes up, NOT the damage of A magic missile. I think this is the point you are missing.
S.
The missiles are the damage. That is the point. It is about the spell, not the delivery mechanic of the damage.
The feat wants a spell (MM) that deals damage (1d4+1/2levels) that increases by level(maxed @ 9th level). MM does technically fit that description.
|
|
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Intensify Spell is very obviously meant for spells that deal damage in number of dice per caster level, such as Fireball.
If you want to have it apply to Magic Missile somehow through a houserule, that's fine, but it's certainly not how the feat actually works.
That is A reading of the feat. It is the most direct and limiting reading of the feat, and quite possibly the true intention of the feat, but since none of the developers (that I have seen, and I have not read this whole thread)have said the actual intentions of the spell, trying to say that your reading is the "real slim shady" is skewed.
Only the rule makers know the RaI until they inform the rest of us.
I take the spell to include more than simply personal spells, but those that could be targeted on others, but aren't.
Spells that does not like in the case of windwall the effect is on creatures or objects flying at the caster not on the caster.
Unfortunately, we'll just have to house rule whatever choice we make because it's not clear. Unless it says personal range spells or spell that can include you as a target, you're on your own to interpret what "affect your person" means.
Resilient Sphere isn't personal range nor does it target you. It's an effect that is centered on you (as per the description). Because you are a part of the spell, effectively it "affects your person" by including you inside the spell effect.
Remember, just because a spell affects you doesn't mean it has an effect on you! (link)
You know everytime I see threads like this I think the only response is to just reply...
'Ok everybody stop playing Pathfinder...burn your books. Pazio I am sorry but you should close down your company. Somebody has broke a RPG game.'
I mean really...most RPG can be broken...nothing is foolproof...or powergamer math proof. So what?
I mean if you really want be with your skkills at breaking stuff than go find Toon and break that.
Sorry but what is the point in doing this?
|
|
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Now your 13th level Wiz can toss a couple of more d4s down with his spell making him a little happier. Life is good
Er no, with all respect. The number of missiles goes up, NOT the damage of A magic missile. I think this is the point you are missing.
S.
The missiles are the damage. That is the point. It is about the spell, not the delivery mechanic of the damage.
The feat wants a spell (MM) that deals damage (1d4+1/2levels) that increases by level(maxed @ 9th level). MM does technically fit that description.
I put this to you. I have 5 MM's. If I target 1 creature I do 5d4+5, simple and fits your description. Now I have 5 targets, if we take your stance then logically the damage would be 5d4+5 to each as its the spell as a whole (level X = Y damage) not the method which the damage is delivered (that method being a single or group of MM's). Obviously this isn't true each missile does d4+1 to each creature in this case. Why, because the delivery mechanic is important. The MM does the damage, like an arrow does the damage, like a sword does the damage. Divorcing the effect (damage dice) from the cause (in this case the MM) seems a strange position to take.
We 'pool' fireball dice as they present a singular blast, we only group MM dice for convenience if we target the same creature with more than one. So in the case of a fire ball I would for example roll 6d6 and yell at the DM 27 points, save for half! In the case of 5 MM's it would more correct for me to say take 3 and 4 and 2 and 5 and 4, rather than take 18 damage. Likewise, damage resistance to MM's would make them useless - 5/MM resistance would equal [d4+1 - 5] or no possible damage!
It's how we play/see MM at any rate. Meaning while I see the flat-footed thing I just don't see Intensify Spell being much use.
S.
Neither can a fireball single out specific parts, the point of the ability is to add it to spells that normally cant get sneak attack damage, obviously many people go to the other extreme and suggest it should apply to each missile.
In my opinion it is just that every creature that...
Sneak Attack does extra damage because it hits enemies in vital areas. Doesn't matter what your weapon of choice happens to be, whether it's a bolt, a ray, or a sword. If you want to call it magical sneak attack damage, go ahead. That's the spirit of the ability, it's not a brute force attack.
I disagree that a fireball can't crit, after all someone can roll a "1" on their saving throw and have gear destroyed. That happens to be the result of a fireball "crit". A magic missile can't do that, it can never crit.
If you guys want to play with broken rules where people sneak attack people with Magic Missile, a spell that can't even specifically target vital areas, be my guest, it's not my game.
It is what the AA cap stone ability does, it adds sneak attack damage to spells that wouldnt otherwise get it. You can say it only applies to rays and attack roll spells, but that wouldnt be an ability since you can already do that.
Just saying that all creatures damaged gets neak attack damage, ONCE, as a result of being damaged by the spell. Not per magic missile, failed reflex save or whatever unless the sneak attack is allowed per the normal rules.By the way I agree that Intensify spell only works on spells that have a number of damage die per level variable, it doesnt create additional rays, missiles or a longer lasting acid bolts, in most cases it acts like the cheapman's empower, but it has some uses and stacks nicely with other metamagic.
|
|
BUT... My real issue is why in the name of all 9 Hells are there MORE feats for spells being released. The most obvious source of rule abuse and misunderstanding is spells. Add in combo-feats and there isn't enough play-testing time between now and the universes heat-death to make sure balance (whatever that means) is retained.
Nearly everyone agrees that spell casters under 3.x/PF are still the rulers of the game at higher level. I always viewed feats as a 'catch-up' for melee classes. But why does the thinking seem to be. "Caster are too powerful relative to melee classes so let's make them even more powerful with metamagic feats!"
I just don't get it. I'm not even convinced the metamagic feats in the core rulebook need to be there.
Please, please Paizo stick with feats for melee classes, they won't cause nearly as many headaches as metamagic ones, and again other than add more power to an already power thing (i.e. spells) what do they add?
S.
Then you are not trying, cause it is easy.
MM is a spell. It is a spell that deals damage. That damage is modified as your caster level goes up.
DUN.
Now your 13th level Wiz can toss a couple of more d4s down with his spell making him a little happier. Life is good
Er no, with all respect. The number of missiles goes up, NOT the damage of A magic missile. I think this is the point you are missing.
S.
The missiles are the damage. That is the point. It is about the spell, not the delivery mechanic of the damage.
The feat wants a spell (MM) that deals damage (1d4+1/2levels) that increases by level(maxed @ 9th level). MM does technically fit that description.
I put this to you. I have 5 MM's. If I target 1 creature I do 5d4+5, simple and fits your description. Now I have 5 targets, if we take your stance then logically the damage would be 5d4+5 to each as its the spell as a whole (level X = Y damage) not the method which the damage is delivered (that method being a single or group of MM's). Obviously this isn't true each missile does d4+1 to each creature in this case. Why, because the delivery mechanic is important. The MM does the damage, like an arrow does the damage, like a sword does the damage. Divorcing the effect (damage dice) from the cause (in this case the MM) seems a strange position to take.
We 'pool' fireball dice as they present a singular blast, we only group MM dice for convenience if we target the same creature with more than one. So in the case of a fire ball I would for example roll 6d6 and yell at the DM 27 points, save for half! In the case of 5 MM's it would more correct for me to say take 3 and 4 and 2 and 5 and 4, rather than take 18 damage. Likewise, damage resistance to MM's would make them useless - 5/MM resistance would equal [d4+1 - 5] or no possible damage!
It's how we play/see MM at any rate. Meaning while I see the flat-footed thing I just don't see Intensify...
Huh, I'm looking at the feat, and it doesn't say anything about being able to choose where the damage goes having any effect on qualifications. Could you point that out for me, since it doesn't exist?
Since it's only looking at the spell, and doesn't mention the inner workings of the spell, the fact MM satisfies all its conditions means Intensify works with MM just fine.
This bias against 'missiles' I can throw back in your face as bias against 'bursts'. Fireball creates a burst before it does any damage, and this burst does the damage. Obviously, since it doesn't do damage directly, it doesn't qualify! I guess there's NO spells that qualify, since the Inflict chain is all fixed, and is the only damage spells with no delivery vehicle! What a great feat, with no spells that qualify for it!
Balderdash. The delivery vehicle is irrelevant.
Your example falls flat...all you have to do is refer to spell resistance. It's ONE SR roll to resist every single missile in a MM spell. The breakup of the spell is actually a weakness if resistance ever enters the picture, same as Scorching Ray...Scorching Ray would be incredibly powerful if it was just a single beam. Yet Fire Res 20 will basically shut it down because it's damage is divided, and it has multiple rolls to hit...AND it only rolls once against SR, because it's one spell.
==============================
Fire Shield won't work, it doesn't increase in dice of damage by level.
Scorching Ray doesn't work because it doesn't have a linear damage progression, and you literally cannot increase its damage cap by 5 dice.
Acid Arrow doesn't work, because it doesn't do dmg/level, it does dmg by duration. Intensify doesn't increase duration. Extend does the job of Intensify in this context. Acid Arrow is a textbook example of your 'indirect damage increase', the damage is truly fixed, and it is the duration which does the damage. Note that if the arrow did d4/dmg/2 lvls AND lasted multiple rounds, it still wouldn't qualify, as it doesn't actually have a damage cap!
==Aelryinth
|
|
What a great feat, with no spells that qualify for it!
But your statement I quoted above would be, in my opinion, the best designed metamagic feat. Unfortunately, they seem to make the metamagic feats with criteria that allow them to be used and screw up peoples games by people such as the OP (no offense intended to the OP btw).
Thank you metamagic feats, you're my hero.
S.
PS: From pfSRD
Int. Spell "spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat."
MM "dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
Nope not seeing where it says the MM damage is modified by level at all. Again only the NUMBER of MM's change not the damage.
But I guess this is as another poster said, an impasse.
Just to throw more fuel on the fire I would as DM rule that Scorching Ray indeed doesn't qualify for Intensify given it does a set 4d6 no matter the level of the caster - only the number of rays.
Acid Arrow, nope not in my games either. Use a feat to increase duration and bingo (as you stated)!
Fireball yep, d6/level of caster. Here's me thinking this type of spell was in the game designers mind when this feat was created... Just saying. Still apply to Ghost Sound for all it'll matter to my game, if it makes you happy of course.
Fire Shield - you are right I would say no to that also. There is no component of that spell with has a level dependent DICE for damage. The feat no where mentions that it effect the level based constant so again nope.
Any other examples, this is fun.
+1
I just don't get it. I'm not even convinced the metamagic feats in the core rulebook need to be there.
The main benefit for most of them is through metamagic rods. Or as prereqs to craft the rods. . .
|
The main benefit for most of them is through metamagic rods. Or as prereqs to craft the rods. . .+1
I just don't get it. I'm not even convinced the metamagic feats in the core rulebook need to be there.
Wait, what? Megamagic feats are good because you can make metamagic rods to use them without the level increase? I'm confused.
Personally, I think metamagic should be built into the spells themselves. "Prepare in a higher level slot to gain extra benefits" should just be "Cast this higher level spell."
I am curious...without metamagic feats what would caster spend their feats on?
Maybe...it might balance the game alittle bit more if pure casters had a different feat progression...IE they get less feats.
I never had a issue with metamagic feats...but they can be annoying as it seems you have to get the spirit of the rules and not the RAW of the rules.
Why is it that metamagic feats so badly written?
I think that would be better to work on than to just get rid of them.
Wait, what? Megamagic feats are good because you can make metamagic rods to use them without the level increase? I'm confused.
Well, that and the fact that you can apply the metamagic feat when you suddenly need it -- not when you prepare spells. Not having to use the level increase can be important too, if your encounter is built around using metamagic. One example I can think of is an invisible caster summoning. If you use a silent rod, then you can possibly spam your highest level spells while *usually* being undetected.
Personally, I think metamagic should be built into the spells themselves. "Prepare in a higher level slot to gain extra benefits" should just be "Cast this higher level spell."
That has always been a reason that the original designers of 3.0 put sorcerers equal with wizard's power -- you use a higher level spell slot (and a full round action) to cast a spell with whatever metamagic feat(s) you want. But most people hate the full round action to cast. . . and thus the 3.0 sorcerer was always regarded as the weaker caster compared to the 3.0 wizard.
|
|
Breaking High Level play is as much to brag about as saying that you broke an egg by hitting it with a sledgehammer.
+LOTS. Seems one of those things where you should ask the individual whether they would like a medal or a chest to pin it on while cheering, "By the gods you have done it, you have WON Pathfinder/D&D!" <insert sounds of rejoicing>.
On another note, Paizo's PF nearly did break my toe. 1st printing to be exact. Second day I had it I dropped it on the big toe of my left foot (I recall). Actually posted the event here on the forum, Paizo weren't forthcoming with any form of apology at my toe's distress caused my their monster tome of goodness.
It's not only the continuation of caster metamagic feats they have to answer for at Paizo!!!
X<
S.
|
|
I am curious...without metamagic feats what would caster spend their feats on?
Er, they wouldn't have any - other than General feats. Casters can be in a different role every morning they wake up nearly. Poor old melee classes are what they are. Feats allow two fighters to be different, all 2 casters have to do is take different spells (and only if they wish). I agree with TOZ, in the case of casters play with the spells not add in feats that modify spells.
S.
Int. Spell "spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat."
MM "dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
Nope not seeing where it says the MM damage is modified by level at all. Again only the NUMBER of MM's change not the damage.
But I guess this is as another poster said, an impasse.
Just to throw more fuel on the fire I would as DM rule that Scorching Ray indeed doesn't qualify for Intensify given it does a set 4d6 no matter the level of the caster - only the number of rays.
Does the spell do more dmg at level 3 then at level 1?
At 5th then 3rd?at 7th then 5th?
At 9th then 7th?
Does it increase after 9th?
Huh. That looks like an increase in damage by level with a cap. Nothing fixed about it. Oh, because it creates a 'missile' instead of a single 'burst' to convey the damage, WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FEAT, it is ineligible.
But since a Fireball creates a Burst which then does the damage, it is ineligible too! And Bolts and Cones and Storms and Rays and whatnot.
Gotcha. Not.
Scorching Ray is ineligible because it doesn't increase by caster level progression. 4d6 at 3rd + 4d6/4th levels is not an even progression. If it was 4d6 at 4th (starting), you'd have a progression, but then you'd have to justify the 5 levels/dice of damage, and not a die/CL advancement.
Sorry, man, but trying to say it creates a missile instead of damage disqualifies every spell except the Inflict Series, and none of those are dmg dice/level. The feat looks at the SPELL, not the delivery vehicle. The logical inconsistency doesn't seem to be sinking in. Being able to spread out the damage to targets of choice is no different then being able to do so with Chain Lightning. The fact that each parcel of damage in MM is discreet in no way obviates the fact that they are all part of the same spell, and that spell qualifies for the feat in all ways.
==Aelryinth
I am curious...without metamagic feats what would caster spend their feats on?Er, they wouldn't have any - other than General feats. Casters can be in a different role every morning they wake up nearly. Poor old melee classes are what they are. Feats allow two fighters to be different, all 2 casters have to do is take different spells (and only if they wish). I agree with TOZ, in the case of casters play with the spells not add in feats that modify spells.
S.
The problem with most meta feats is they don't allow you to culminate in PF.
A spellcaster blaster build in PF has Empower and Maximize to use...that's it, and that sucks. You cannot do viable damage at any level with those two feats, paying the cost for them. Only with a Rod are they any sort of viable.
The other feats are limited usefulness, or cater to the Save-Or-Die style of play, or don't allow "Eternal Buffs" (also a broken concept!)
You can easily build a Caster with just general feats. Item creation focus comes to mind, and then save buffs, Toughness, and improved Init. Get your Metamagic out of a Rod. Other then Extend Spell, I'm kinda suprised anyone would use Metamagic at all.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Scorching Ray is ineligible because it doesn't increase by caster level progression. 4d6 at 3rd + 4d6/4th levels is not an even progression. If it was 4d6 at 4th (starting), you'd have a progression, but then you'd have to justify the 5 levels/dice of damage, and not a die/CL advancement.
If Magic Missile's damage increases by caster level, then so does Scorching Ray. It doesn't matter that the progression is uneven, if you're saying that the qualifier is 'does more damage at a higher level' then Scorching Ray counts. Because you do more damage when your caster level is higher.
|
|
Sorry, intensify spell doesn't work with magic missile just like it doesn't work with scorching ray or acid arrow.
I'm with you James.
Cross post that has my reasoning why I agree with James;
From the SRD;
====================================================
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.
Level Increase: +1 (an intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.)
====================================================
Now the keywords I take from this is DAMAGE DICE & LEVELS. To me this implies, that only spells that have a damage DICE pool that is determined directly by LEVEL, e.g. fireball, would be affected by this feat. Spells where the number of damage dice is fixed, e.g. scorching ray, or damage is based on duration, e.g. acid arrow, would not be viable targets of this feat as the actual damage dice rolled is/are NOT directly a result of level but rather the fact that level allows more missile/rays/duration - each delivering a fixed non-level based damage.
|
|
If Magic Missile's damage increases by caster level, then so does Scorching Ray. It doesn't matter that the progression is uneven, if you're saying that the qualifier is 'does more damage at a higher level' then Scorching Ray counts. Because you do more damage when your caster level is higher.Scorching Ray is ineligible because it doesn't increase by caster level progression. 4d6 at 3rd + 4d6/4th levels is not an even progression. If it was 4d6 at 4th (starting), you'd have a progression, but then you'd have to justify the 5 levels/dice of damage, and not a die/CL advancement.
Yes he is being inconsistent with his thought process. MM is 1d4+1/2 levels...ScRay is 4d6/4 levels...They both work in my eyes.Both are spells that deal damage and that damage is increased as your level increases.
|
|
Sorry, intensify spell doesn't work with magic missile just like it doesn't work with scorching ray or acid arrow.I'm with you James.
Cross post that has my reasoning why I agree with James;
From the SRD;
====================================================
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.Level Increase: +1 (an intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.)
====================================================Now the keywords I take from this is DAMAGE DICE & LEVELS. To me this implies, that only spells that have a damage DICE pool that is determined directly by LEVEL, e.g. fireball, would be affected by this feat. Spells where the number of damage dice is fixed, e.g. scorching ray, or damage is based on duration, e.g. acid arrow, would not be viable targets of this feat as the actual damage dice rolled is/are NOT directly a result of level but rather the fact that level allows more missile/rays/duration - each delivering a fixed non-level based damage.
MM damage dice= 1d4+1/ 2 levels...there are the "damage dice" and "levels" you allude to...
Now I agree Acid Arrow is based on duration and is not affected by the feat (since it is only doing the same damage over and over again). But to say that MM and SC are "fixed" in damage is not true.
MM==1d4+1 +1d4+1/2 levels.
SC == 4d6 +4d6/ 4 levels past 3rd level.
Fireball == 5d6 +1d6/level.
There is nothing in the feat saying you separate how the damage is done in regards to how the damage scales as your level increases. Should it? Maybe. If it did there would be no confusion that only certain spells should work with it, but as it stands MM and SC can work with it.
Now seriously. Why do you have an issue with it working? I mean other than wanting to be right. It is certainly not overpowering considering the spells most talked about with this feat get a minimal advantage (+2d4+2 over the 5 levels, +4d6 over the 5 levels)
at 3rd level SR does 4d6 dmg. No way is that a /level dmg progression. Sure, it adds them linearly, but the damage itself is never smoothly /level based.
MM is 1 die/2 levels, rounded up.
Fireball is 1 die/level.
And if they can't see that MM adds dice by level, they're just willfully misinterpreting the feat and the spell, that's all. If they want to House Rule it doesn't work, well, that IS their perogative. Although I can't see why they would...but that's just me.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Now I agree Acid Arrow is based on duration and is not affected by the feat (since it is only doing the same damage over and over again). But to say that MM and SC are "fixed" in damage is not true.MM==1d4+1 +1d4+1/2 levels.
SC == 4d6 +4d6/ 4 levels past 3rd level.
Fireball == 5d6 +1d6/level.There is nothing in the feat saying you separate how the damage is done in regards to how the damage scales as your level increases. Should it? Maybe. If it did there would be no confusion that only certain spells should work with it, but as it...
It's the wording of the feat.
Fireball is actually d6/level not 5d6 + d6/level for example, however MM is always d4+1/missile - i.e. extra missiles are a consequence of levels which in turn means more damage but the damage is not directly a function of levels in any way.
From SRD
FIREBALL
"A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level"
MAGIC MISSLE
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
A Fireball = direct level dependence for damage.
A MM = not level dependent for damage (i.e. fixed), the number of missiles is immaterial, no matter if you have 1 or 1,000 each MM has a fixed d4+1 damage. Fixed damage means it is not eligible for the feat.
Again, it's unlikely either of us change their mind in this.
S.
linear progression matters not though. the spell starts at 4d6 and progresses from there. that is all that matters. spell does damage and increases damage as you level. the feat does not ask for more than that.
Yeah, but progression has to include level 0. You can make a case for 1d6 being the starting point of all spells, and increasing in a reasonable manner, as both MM and fireball do, but Scorching Ray doesn't follow the pattern.
Sure, you could expand the definition if you like, and I don't believe it'd be too imbalanced (4 rays, 16d6 at 15th level, for a 3rd level slot), but I can't quite call it a smooth progression and justify it, myself.
===Aelryinth
Now I agree Acid Arrow is based on duration and is not affected by the feat (since it is only doing the same damage over and over again). But to say that MM and SC are "fixed" in damage is not true.MM==1d4+1 +1d4+1/2 levels.
SC == 4d6 +4d6/ 4 levels past 3rd level.
Fireball == 5d6 +1d6/level.There is nothing in the feat saying you separate how the damage is done in regards to how the damage scales as your level increases. Should it? Maybe. If it did there would be no confusion that only certain spells should work with it, but as it...
It's the wording of the feat.
Fireball is actually d6/level not 5d6 + d6/level for example, however MM is always d4+1/missile - i.e. extra missiles are a consequence of levels which in turn means more damage but the damage is not directly a function of levels in any way.
From SRD
FIREBALL
"A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level"MAGIC MISSLE
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."A Fireball = direct level dependence for damage.
A MM = not level dependent for damage (i.e. fixed), the number of missiles is immaterial, no matter if you have 1 or 1,000 each MM has a fixed d4+1 damage. Fixed damage means it is not eligible for the feat.Again, it's unlikely either will change there mind in this.
S.
Yawn. You're repeating an invalid argument.
By your argument, since FIreball creates an explosion, it doesn't work. Each individual explosion is fixed damage too, is it not?You are not looking at the spell, you're looking at the delivery vehicle, which is irrelvant.
The SPELL most assuredly does damage by level. Even arguing that it doesn't is boggling to the mind. How it does the damage is not referenced anywhere in the feat. All you have to do is ask yourself how much damage the Magic Missile SPELL does at each level, and you have your answer. Nowhere does the feat 'count delivery vehicles' for the dice of damage, which is the blatant claim being made here.
==Aelryinth
It's not a straight progression if it doesn't include the starting point! That's math for ya.
===Aelryinth
|
|
Yawn. You're repeating an invalid argument.
By your argument, since FIreball creates an explosion, it doesn't work. Each individual explosion is fixed damage too, is it not?
Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!
The description of fireball states clearly that it does d6/level per fireball. Until I reach the cap of 10d6 each extra level = an extra d6. Now once I reach 10d6 I can use this feat, as I believe was intended, and get another up to 5 levels, i.e. 15d6, damage out of the spell.
The description of MM states clearly it does d4+1 per missile. No matter what god-like heights the caster is each magic missile will continue to do d4+1 damage.
Your insistence, and no offense, that a 9th level caster firing MM does 5d4+5 damage is plainly wrong under the description of the MM spell. It does 5 x d4+1, different things altogether. Fireball on the other hand is d6/level totaled before applying.
If we apply your logic to say a fighter with 5 attacks doing say d10+4 (assuming all hit) that the damage is 5d10+20 and that total would be compared to the DR. This isn't correct as we all know each of the 5 attacks would have the DR removed before totaling the damage.
Play the way you wish my all means, I'm not trying to change your mind.
S.
*you're