|
@ Glutton: He should never become a teacher? ;)
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.
So you can cast a 1d6 fireball? No. The spell starts with 5d6. Then progressively gets +1d6 added to it.
The bolded part is pretty important because it is "as you believe" the "intentions" of the feat were. No offense meant here but you did not develop the feat for have you been privy to what teh intentions of the feat while being developed were.
MM and ScR both fulfill the requirements of the feat. That being A) They are spells, B) They deal damage. C) Their progression of damage gets capped.
You muddy your waters by insisting that because the damage is done in a different way than a line or a burst that they are invalid. This, as the feat has been presented, is not true.
The feat does not look at HOW the damage is done. It just looks to see that a SPELL deals DAMAGE and that damage gets CAPPED.
Now, I will ask again. Why do you feel so strongly that this reading of the feat that I am backing, is so wrong? It is a reasonable reading and does not present an overpowered option for the feat.
Personally, even if Paizo went and answered your Rules thread on the topic, and they answered it to your satisfaction. I would not be bothered. Your is a very straight forward and reasonable reading. It is just a very limiting one also. The other reading is reasonable also, and it expands the use of the feat in not overpowering ways.
|
|
The feat does not look at HOW the damage is done. It just looks to see that a SPELL deals DAMAGE and that damage gets CAPPED.
So acid arrow is a SPELL that deals DAMAGE and that damage gets CAPPED (at 18th level)... right?
Acid Arrow does not have increasing Damage Dice. It has Increased Damage Length. It is dealing the same 2d4(?) each of those rounds.
Likewise fire shield is a SPELL that deals DAMAGE and that damage gets CAPPED (at 15th level).
And while we're doing this wall of fire also satisfies your criteria (capped at 20th CL).
Seriously. Did you happen to read those spells? The DIE is static. The increasing damage is not the die but a bonus added to the DIE. I am sorry to NOT have included the proper wording from the feat, which invalidated your argument but not my reading.
That's not trying to go to real fringe cases here, but basics.
Please do. Serious. You may find something. NO. I do mean it. If you are willing to do that work I am willing to look objectively at what you find.
Magic missile doesn't have a cap on the DICE, magic missiles do a set amount that doesn't vary by level, the same is true with scorching ray, or with acid arrow for that matter. The total possible damage from the spell increases with level as in the cases above the number of missiles increases, the number of rays increase, and the duration of the acid increases. Each of these progresses via level, each is has a maximum progression, but none get any benefit from Intensified spell.
-James
You mean the dice damage cap of 5d4 @ 9th level is not a cap of the SPELL's dice damage? Oh. Sorry I was confused.
It just keeps going...
Inorite?
Consider two spells:
Blue Evocation: deals 3d4 damage each to 1 target per caster level (maximum five targets).
Red Evocation: deals 1d4 damage per caster level (maximum 5d4 damage) each to three targets.
Both potentially have a "damage cap" (15d4 per casting of the spell), but only one of them has a cap to a level-dependent damage variable -- Red Evocation.
A spell with a variable number of targets or rays or missiles by level, each of which deals a set amount of damage, cannot benefit from Intensified Spell. Blue Evocation cannot. Neither can Magic Missile.
A spell with a variable amount of damage by level can, regardless of how that damage is delivered or to how many targets. Fireball can. So can Shocking Grasp.
I can't believe this argument is still going on!
The last 50 posts were just reiterations of the same argument over and over again.
Everyone should leave it alone, let the post die and agree that in their own games they'll run it how they see fit.
If you're a PFS player, clarify with the GM before the game starts how he rules it because as James Jacobs said, even in PFS, there is room for GM interpretation.
In my games, I'm more than happy to give you 2 extra missiles if you want to make it a second level spell with this feat. (It's not 3 extra missiles because MM level caps at 9th caster level and the plus 5 from Intensied Spell only takes you to 14th caster level, so you get a missile at 11th and 13th caster level).
If you're playing in TOZ's game, then know that this feat will be limited to dice per level spells like burning hands, fireball, and lightning bolt.
Let this thread make its way to the archives...
I removed a personal attack.
|
Consider two spells:
Blue Evocation: deals 3d4 damage each to 1 target per caster level (maximum five targets).
Red Evocation: deals 1d4 damage per caster level (maximum 5d4 damage) each to three targets.
Both potentially have a "damage cap" (15d4 per casting of the spell), but only one of them has a cap to a level-dependent damage variable -- Red Evocation.
A spell with a variable number of targets or rays or missiles by level, each of which deals a set amount of damage, cannot benefit from Intensified Spell.
Blue Evocation cannot. Neither can Magic Missile.
A spell with a variable amount of damage by level can, regardless of how that damage is delivered or to how many targets. Fireball can. So can Shocking Grasp.
This eloquent post says it all. Thanks Avalon. And with that I withdraw from the discussion.
Regards,
S.
|
|
I removed a personal attack.
Hi Ross,
Wouldn't it just be easier to get one of you fine Paizo fellows to put in 2 cents on the intent? Where basically all adults here and personally if I'm wrong about intent then no drama. I'm one of these DM's who likes playing RAW tempered with RAI - so knowing would be nice.
Any chance Ross, myself and this thread would really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Stefan.
Let this thread make its way to the archives...I never can understand the thinking of yelling 'don't yell' that invariably shows up on long threads.
What is the thought process here?
-James
So that a year down the line some relative newcomer will find this thread, have some new interpretation of the rule, and resurrect the thread. Then we can all be nostalgic about it.
If it stays active, it won't be the same.
And TOZ, can I get a huge-sized beaststrike club, become a large earth elemental, and use monkey grip to wield the club? And can it be a greatclub instead of a regular club, and can I channel a wild shape into it to increase the damage step one more time?
|
|
And TOZ, can I get a huge-sized beaststrike club, become a large earth elemental, and use monkey grip to wield the club? And can it be a greatclub instead of a regular club, and can I channel a wild shape into it to increase the damage step one more time?
If I was TOZ, and I'm not, this is hypothetical, I would say YES to all your demands. Oh, unless you then attempted to Intensify it, then NO.
See I brought this persons post back on topic.
No thanks needed, really.
|
And TOZ, can I get a huge-sized beaststrike club, become a large earth elemental, and use monkey grip to wield the club? And can it be a greatclub instead of a regular club, and can I channel a wild shape into it to increase the damage step one more time?
Hmm, let's see.
Huge-sized beaststrike greatclub. Sounds expensive, okay.
Large earth elemental. Well, if you're an appropriately leveled caster, sure!
Channel wildshape is what beaststrike does, right? Approved.
Now, I'd like you to meet this rune giant druid I just met...
Consider two spells:
Blue Evocation: deals 3d4 damage each to 1 target per caster level (maximum five targets).
Red Evocation: deals 1d4 damage per caster level (maximum 5d4 damage) each to three targets.
Both potentially have a "damage cap" (15d4 per casting of the spell), but only one of them has a cap to a level-dependent damage variable -- Red Evocation.
A spell with a variable number of targets or rays or missiles by level, each of which deals a set amount of damage, cannot benefit from Intensified Spell. Blue Evocation cannot. Neither can Magic Missile.
A spell with a variable amount of damage by level can, regardless of how that damage is delivered or to how many targets. Fireball can. So can Shocking Grasp.
This is a poor example.
Blue Evocation deals damage by target, not by level. If it dealt 15d4 dmg, allocated in lots of 3d4 to as many as 5 targets, or merely to 1, it would qualify for the spell, exactly like MM does. BLue Evocation is merely increasing in AREA, not in damage potential. It's still a fixed 3d4 damage, and so does not reflect MM at all.
Red Evocation does qualify since it's damage potential increases by level.
Poor example. Does not refute or reflect MM or the feat at all.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Fixed for accuracy. :)If you're playing in TOZ's game, if you ask nicely he will let you use Oilhorse's equally valid interpretation of the feat. If you ask like a jerk, you'll get to use TOZ's interpretation, if he even lets you keep playing.
Lol...So If I ask but in a kinda whiny way... am I a jerk or can a score those extra 2 missiles?
So, I'm sure I'm not going to convince anyone, but I don't remember anyone quoting the entire relevant rule text, so I'll do that and give it a try.
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
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. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
Ok, so here's my futile attempt:
Magic missile states that you gain one missile per two caster levels. It doesn't say you get any more damage, or that you get more dice, or that your missiles turn bright blue. You get more missiles. If you have an ability which makes your magic missiles do 2d10+5 instead of 1d4+1, you still get the same number of missiles. Twice as many dice, but the same number of missiles. If you have an ability which increases the number of missiles, then you get more missiles. The question is, is Intensify Spell that ability?
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. An intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
The feat increases the maximum number of damage dice, provided the damage is modified by caster level. It doesn't increase the range, the number of targets, the duration, the flat bonus to damage from caster level, or anything else other than number of damage dice.
So far, I hope everyone can agree with me. Magic Missile states you get more missiles. Intensify spell states it only increases damage dice. That's the actual text, not any interpretation of it. If you disagree with me here, you're going to have to really dig into the rule text I quoted to prove your point.
Now for interpretation:
Given that magic missile gives you more missiles, not more dice, as you gain caster levels, and intensify spell boosts dice, not anything else, it seems pretty obvious to me they don't interact. However, there's quite obviously a contingent who say that because you gain missiles and the missiles give you more dice, intensify can give you more missiles. Thus the far too many posts in this thread that I can't believe I'm still following.
For the moment, lets assume that intensify does give you more missiles. What would that mean?
First of all, it would mean you could target 7 different creatures. After all "If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures." But the spell's also limited to "up to five creatures". So we have a contradiction. The spell allows each missile to target separate targets, but we're also limited to five targets (intensify does not increase that, because it only affects damage dice). Therefor, we're forced to double up missiles. But this can be waved away because the spell just says "several creatures" and makes no guarantees about each missile being able to strike a separate creature. I feel this violates the intent of the spell, but it's a valid resolution to the contraction.
Secondly, it would mean adding to a fixed modifier. Each missile does 1d4+1. Adding another missile adds 1d4+1 damage to the spell. But intensify only adds to dice, not to any other part of the spell. So, since we're assuming it's allowed, the total damage would go from 5d4+5 to 7d4+7. But it can't. It has to stay 7d4+5, because the flat modifier is not dice, and thus isn't affected. But magic missile does 1d4+1, and has no provision for missiles doing less damage. So we have another contradiction that's harder to wave away: Each missile does 1d4+1, but when you add seven of them up, they have to come to 7d4+5.
You can try to resolve this by saying that the two missiles which strike targets already struck don't do the extra +1 damage each, but now you've clearly left the realm of "What is written" and entered the realm of "house rule".
So allowing intensify to give you more missiles produces two contradictions in the rules: One barely resolvable, one not at all. Therefore, applying the rules of logic (if you make an assumption, and that assumption leads to a contradiction, then the assumption is false), results in having to conclude that the reading of the rules which allows intensify to work on magic missile is false.
(That being said, I don't think it breaks anything if you allow it, and it makes a perfectly good house rule, but I certainly would classify it as a house rule, not RAW.)
This is a poor example.Blue Evocation deals damage by target, not by level.
MM deals damage by missile, not by level.
You can't intensify a magic missile for exactly the same reason you can't intensify a Blue Evocation -- because neither of them have a level-dependent damage variable.The only structural difference between Blue Evocation and Magic Missile is the ability to select the same target for multiple missiles -- but that doesn't suddenly mean that the damage, rather than the number of missiles, is level-dependent.
This is a poor example.Blue Evocation deals damage by target, not by level.
MM deals damage by missile, not by level.
You can't intensify a magic missile for exactly the same reason you can't intensify a Blue Evocation -- because neither of them have a level-dependent damage variable.
The only structural difference between Blue Evocation and Magic Missile is the ability to select the same target for multiple missiles -- but that doesn't suddenly mean that the damage, rather than the number of missiles, is level-dependent.
Incorrect. The total amount of damage MM can deal to a single target definitely does increase by level. The fact it can be allocated is immaterial.
Blue Evo is just a fixed damage spell that gets 'bigger' by level. That is clearly not what Intensify does.
The above argument on creating missiles is again focusing on the delivery vehicle. You can now disqualify lightning bolt, fireballs and cones of cold because they CREATE bursts, bolts, and cones, they don't DIRECTLY increase damage...they carry the damage to the target. See how silly that argument is? Just because fireball doesn't make multiple Bursts like MM does missiles is not a reason to rule against MM, but that's what you're trying to sell, and we ain't buying.
It's a false logic argument. Missiles ARE the damage of MM, the exact same way bursts, bolts and Cones are the damage of the other spells. There is NO difference here. The fact MM can differentiate between single and multiple targets is irrelevant. It's just parceling out the per-level damage.
As for the multiple targets argument, it's RAW that five is the max, however, it's also bloody obvious RAI is that 5 is there because 5 is the maximum number of missiles in the default spell (it surely means nothing when you can create only one missile). If you go back to 1E, there was no such limit on numbers of targets, when you could create any number of missiles.
The hit dice argument is a smokescreen. d4+1 is a per level variable. The +1 is not 'tacked on' to the end of the spell. It's nothing more then a less erratic version of a d6. Trying to break out the +1 from the dice is not an argument that's going to fly with anyone. The spell has been around as long as fireball has, and the +1 has NEVER been treated as anything other then an intrinsic part of the damage. It's not an Orc damage bonus, it's not Warmage Edge...it's part of the hit dice of damage and always has been.
===Aelryinth
1) Acid Arrow does damage by duration...a fixed amount. Intensify does not increase duration. It also has no cap, if you want to get silly. Doing a fixed amount of damage is nowhere near the same as breaking up a level-based block of damage and allocating it to different targets.
And it was shot down in an earlier argument, so, hey, don't recycle it.
2) 2-5 dmg is as valid a damage range as 1-6. The +1 is not a bonus added on to the end, it's part of the hit dice damage of the spell, and always has been.
As for INVALDATION...come on. The most it would do is change the damage to 7d4+5. By your own argument, what it would do is NOT create two more missiles, it would simply increase the existing damage of the 5 missiles by +2d4, allocated somewhere...which now doesn't follow the per level dmg mechanics evenly, so it would have to be 2d4+2 to conform.
In short, if you're so stuck on 5 missiles, then stick with 5 missiles. But the SPELL would still get +2d4+2 damage, you'd just have to choose where to stick the extra damage.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The feat does not work for AA because the damage is extended in duration. it is the same damage dealt over teh rounds, not an increase of damage in one shot like ALL the other spells do. The duration is capped, not the damage.
And I have asked the same of you James.
Why is it so important for this feat to NOT work for MM...and ScR.
As plainly stated over and over...these are spells that deal damage and have a cap on their damage dice. They fulfill the requirements of the feat in every way needed.
You can now disqualify lightning bolt, fireballs and cones of cold because they CREATE bursts, bolts, and cones, they don't DIRECTLY increase damage...they carry the damage to the target.
The difference is that the burst, bolts, and cones each do level-dependent damage. It's not the fact that there is or isn't a delivery vehicle; it's the fact that the damage dealt by the delivery vehicle is or isn't a level-dependent variable.
If Magic Missile did 1d4 + caster level (maximum 1d4+5) damage per missile, then you could intensify it. But the damage isn't a level-dependent variable, only the number of missiles is, so intensify doesn't apply.
no, the feat doesn't ask if the delivery vehicle is level dependent. It asks if the Spell is, which is completely a separate item.
Intensify asks if the SPELL creates level dependent damage, and MM certainly satisfies that. The mechanics in between are largely irrelevant. As your level goes up, the variable damage increases. Direct causation. How can it NOT apply?
Creating one magic missile at level 1 by level bias is the same as creating a minimum damage fireball. Your logic does NOT carry through. The spell creates additional damage by manifesting more missiles. Even if you want to restrict the amount of missiles it can create, that doesn't disqualify it from adding more damage via Intensify.
And James, if you don't think there's a difference between duration and damage, you need to go reread core rules. Acid Arrow has a feat that does exactly what you want it to...it's called Extend. Trying to argue Acid Arrow is level-based damage is just making you lose all credibility. Damage and Damage Over Time effects have always been defined completely different.
=Aelryinth
|
|
The feat does not work for AA because the damage is extended in duration.I'm sorry, how is that a requirement?
According to you there is a simple checklist. Acid arrow MEETS your checklist.
Doesn't the feat not care how the damage is done? Only that it deals DICE and gets CAPPED by levels?
That's actually MORE acid arrow than magic missile.
Because it is the SAME dice being used. It is NOT the dice being capped, it is the DURATION being EXTENDED.
And I have asked the same of you James.
And when would that have been?
-James
So instead of actually answering you play cat and mouse.
|
|
You can now disqualify lightning bolt, fireballs and cones of cold because they CREATE bursts, bolts, and cones, they don't DIRECTLY increase damage...they carry the damage to the target.The difference is that the burst, bolts, and cones each do level-dependent damage. It's not the fact that there is or isn't a delivery vehicle; it's the fact that the damage dealt by the delivery vehicle is or isn't a level-dependent variable.
If Magic Missile did 1d4 + caster level (maximum 1d4+5) damage per missile, then you could intensify it. But the damage isn't a level-dependent variable, only the number of missiles is, so intensify doesn't apply.
Wait. What? Getting missiles every 2 levels is not a level dependent variable?
The idea is that if you just flat out ignore that MM has missiles and look at the spell and that it does 1d4+1 damage/ 2 levels, capping @ 5d4+5 which can be spread out evenly among up to 5 different targets.
See.
Everyone goes back to the thought that MM ONLY gets more missiles. Well the missiles in MM ARE 1d4+1 damage. Rephrase. MM missiles == damage.
MM == Spell.
MM missiles == Damage Dice.
Damage Dice are capped.
Intensify is satisfied, has a cigarette and goes to sleep.
.
..
...
....
.....
MOAR DAMAGE1!
|
|
James since you are here, can you sneak attack with the hurl ability of telekinesis?
Imagine Perfect Spell Quicken Telekinesis + Telekinesis and you are hurling 30 gargantuan arrows.
That would be 90d6 + 30 x Sneak attack damage.
Med arrows do 1d4 under telekinesis
Large 1d6
Huge 1d8
Collosus 2d6
Gargantuan 3d6.That's a pretty hard core bit of rules manipulation... but why are you throwing arrows when you could have cast flaming arrow on them? That'd up your damage by another 30d6, after all.
In addition, at the point you're doing 90d6 damage... adding sneak attack damage at that point is pretty much pointless.
In any case, since you're at minimum a 20th level character (rogue 3/wizard 7/arcane trickster 10) in order to pull this off... I'd be fine with that. What would annoy me isn't the damage you're doing, but the fact that you'd be forcing the game to a halt in order to roll that many dice. 30 attack rolls in a round is kinda lame.
If someone pulled this in my game, I'd just ad-hoc it to be an area effect attack that does 20d6 damage to all creatures in the area of effect. Not to reduce the damage, but to speed things up.
In this situation I would rule that:
1) it is not the spell that deal damage but the objects hurled with the spell, so Surprise Spells don't apply;
2) in suborder sneak attack apply only once to a attack that fire multiple objects (look the Manyshot feat)
3) Regular sneak attack apply only within 30' (and yes, I think it could be applied to this use of the spell, but the player would specify before rolling the dices at what arrow he is applying it).
Semi seriously:
4) how the **** someone has put down 30 gargantuan harrows to be fired by Telekinesis while being sthealty?
5) I am the rule lawyer at the table, how they dare to try a stunt like this one on me!
|
|
So your saying if i full attack with a bow only the FIRST one counts?last i checked they all resolved ON the TURN they are shot. because they are shot on THAT turn... even if "they had a chance to react" in the end they are FLAT FOOTED to each attack. they LOSE their DEX. which is the only pre req that SA have.
them firing 'all at once" or 'as a volley" has no BEARING on whether or not they are flat footed..
still trying to see your logic.
first ray. is he flat footed? = YES
second ray. Is he...
You are partially wrong:
- you are right if you act in the surprise round and in the following before the target act;
- you are wrong if you are leaving invisibility/concealment and so on (i.e. popping out of stealth as cited) after the target has already started to act. In that situation he is denied his dexterity (and so susceptible to sneak attack) only for the first attack.
Note that in this situation it is never flat footed, simply his dexterity is negated by your "popping out" of stealth.
|
Both sides have heard the others case and rejected it outright. But they continue to argue.
Are they rollplayers and roleplayers?
Democrats and Republicans?
Atheists and fundamentalists?Is there a difference?
Wait, wait, did you just say that rollplayers are atheist Democrats and roleplayers are fundamentalist Republicans? IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! :)
.
MOAR DAMAGE1!
Hey BenignFacist, you aren't in Japan now are you?
Can't we just agree to disagree?