Hey BenignFacist, you aren't in Japan now are you?.
MOAR DAMAGE1!
Not yet!
We're hoping there will be some left by the time we get there o_o!
::
OT: Do not worry, you did not.
A 'grasp' can be very tenuous, you know.That more than suffices in this instance.
-James
When you've grasped it, let me know!
:)
==Aelryinth
|
First: The spell does fulfill the requirements of the feat. It does. Spell==Damage Dice==Damage Dice Cap...feat requirements filled
Second: I have never been inconsistent. Your only continued argument has either been Acid arrow or that MM deals in missiles. When those arguments are defeated you have little to stand on except go back and repeat them.
Third: Huh. Where does this fit into it. This has no bearing on if the MM spell and intensify work together, and I have not seen this brought up. So is this why you do not want to see Intensify be fulfilled by MM?
First: The spell does fulfill the requirements of the feat. It does. Spell==Damage Dice==Damage Dice Cap...feat requirements filled
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage... For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile."
As opposed to "You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area."
One gives you more missiles at a fixed damage per missile. The other gives you damage per caster level.
And yes, I know I'm being repetitive.
Second: I have never been inconsistent. Your only continued argument has either been Acid arrow or that MM deals in missiles. When those arguments are defeated you have little to stand on except go back and repeat them.
And your only continued argument is that because you get more missiles, and thus more dice, you can get more dice by raising the cap. When that argument is defeated you have little else to do but repeat it. Saying "without your central point your argument doesn't work" goes both ways.
----------------
Here's another take on it. The short description for each spell, from the spell lists:
Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage; +1 missile per two levels above 1st (max 5).
Shocking Grasp: Touch delivers 1d6/level electricity damage (max 5d6).
Acid Arrow: Ranged touch attack; 2d4 damage for 1 round +1 round/three levels.
Scorching Ray: Ranged touch attack deals 4d6 fire damage, +1 ray/four levels (max 3).
Fireball: 1d6 damage per level, 20-ft. radius.
Lightning Bolt: Electricity deals 1d6/level damage.
Some of those clearly say they do damage per level. Some clearly do something else per level.
Yeah, you're being repetitive.
The only difference between the lightning bolt reading and the magic missile reading that is bothered to quote is that the MM line didn't quote the damage per missile, and the lightning bolt line quoted the damage per bolt.
Otherwise, the language is exactly the same. And CERTAINLY the effects for the spells, ignoring how they are delivered, are the same...and that's what the feat looks at. It doesn't look for damage all in one go or on multiple goes...go quote that part of the feat, which doesn't exist, please!
Since Intensify doesn't increase duration, and Acid Arrow damage is fixed, that's also a non-applicable argument. Keep harping on it, it's still a straw man and makes ya look silly.
And Scorching Ray doesn't have a linear dmg/level mechanic. At the very best, you could say it has a multiple dice/multiple level mechanic...but that's not what the feat is looking for, and which is being conveniently ignored by the naysayers.
MM does dmg = lvl/2, round up, max 5dice. that's it, that's all there is to it, and clearly level-based. The whole talk of missiles is a smoke screen...it's like saying the individual dice inside a lightning bolt disqualify it from the feat, because, y'know, each one added on is a FIXED benefit. It's not logically consistent. So, whatever.
And I did go back and look, and I'm pretty sure you haven't quite gotten hold, JM. Holding out hope, tho!
==Aelryinth
|
The only difference between the lightning bolt reading and the magic missile reading that is bothered to quote is that the MM line didn't quote the damage per missile, and the lightning bolt line quoted the damage per bolt.
Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage; +1 missile per two levels above 1st (max 5).
Lightning Bolt: Electricity deals 1d6/level damage.
Seriously dude, did you actually read what Bobson posted from the short description?
Same language?! PER LEVEL vs well the others, same language?!
I'm at a lost, guys we can't use any form to logical argument in this as it's pointless!
Same language?!
<sounds of sobbing>
seriously, dude, if you're going to accuse, at LEAST get the correct quote.
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage... For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile."
As opposed to "You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area."
is the one I was referring to.
========
His entire 'language' and 'missile' explanation is a smokescreen, because you can rephrase the entire spell, changing nothing of parameters, and you get the same result.
Ergo.
"This spell creates missiles of magical force, dealing d4+1 dmg, + d4+1/additional 2 caster levels past first level, to a maximum of 5d4+5 damage. Each d4+1 dmg manifests as a separate missile of force, which may be directed at individual targets, no two of which may be more then 15' apart."
This above rewrite changes NOTHING of how the spell operates, yet suddenly, because it explicitly mentions dmg/level and a damage cap, and 'creates missiles' is secondary language, it would now qualify by his logic?
The spell hasn't changed, just how it was explained, but the naysayers can't seem to bridge that gap. It IS frustrating.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Umm.. it hasn't been defeated. You simply say that it doesn't apply, not sure why you draw the line here.
I draw the line because every time I explain how the feat works with MM you jump to AA...when I explain why AA does not work you jump to MM. SO everytime I defeat one argument you ignore it and go to your other.
Acid arrow is a spell, has damage dice, and has as much of a damage dice cap as magic missile has a damage dice cap.. in fact arguably it has more of a damage dice cap. These are your criteria. It fits them.
AA is a spell. Yes. It does damage. Yes. It's damage dice is increased. No. It's length that the only damage dice it gets is increased. It only does 2d4, That 2d4 gets dealt over and over round by round the higher your caster level goes. See. It only deals 2d4 again and again.
The other spells (MM, ScR, Fb, LB etc...) do increasing damage dice. AA does increased damage length.
Likewise scorching ray seems to fit your requirements, though it doesn't for your fellow poster that's on your side for magic missile.
-James
Don't confuse him and me. We may see some of the same points but we are not the same. His issue with ScR is that the damage is not tied to caster level. ScR starts @ 4s6 @ 3rd level and he sees that as an issue. I don't see the initial damage as an issue. The spell deals a starting damage and goes up every 4 levels from there. So it also has damage dice that get capped.
Before I quote Aeiryinth, I'll point out that I cited acid arrow, scorching ray, and the rest as examples of other types of spells. It certainly wasn't a list of spells that intensify could apply to.
The only difference between the lightning bolt reading and the magic missile reading that is bothered to quote is that the MM line didn't quote the damage per missile, and the lightning bolt line quoted the damage per bolt.
I most certainly did quote the damage per missile of the MM line. I didn't bold it in the short descriptions, because it's not a per level effect and I was bolding the per level effects. There's a very clear semicolon between them. And I still quoted it there. So I don't know where you're saying I didn't quote it.
And Scorching Ray doesn't have a linear dmg/level mechanic. At the very best, you could say it has a multiple dice/multiple level mechanic...but that's not what the feat is looking for, and which is being conveniently ignored by the naysayers.
And how is scorching ray's 4 dice every 4 levels any different than magic missile's 1 die every 2 levels? Intensify must apply to both or neither, because it's the same mechanic. One creates a level-based number of missiles of fixed damage, and the other creates a level based number of rays of fixed damage.
MM does dmg = lvl/2, round up, max 5dice. that's it, that's all there is to it, and clearly level-based. The whole talk of missiles is a smoke screen...it's like saying the individual dice inside a lightning bolt disqualify it from the feat, because, y'know, each one added on is a FIXED benefit. It's not logically consistent. So, whatever.
I'm going to be repetitive again. Please read it closely this time. Lightning bolt: "deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level" Magic Missile: "For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile" One gives you dice per level, and thus qualifies. One gives you missiles per level and doesn't. Missiles are not dice. I'm being consistant here. Are you?
"This spell creates missiles of magical force, dealing d4+1 dmg, + d4+1/additional 2 caster levels past first level, to a maximum of 5d4+5 damage. Each d4+1 dmg manifests as a separate missile of force, which may be directed at individual targets, no two of which may be more then 15' apart."
Find me one spell which is written like that, and I'll yield the point. Every damaging spell I've seen says "This is the delivery method, here's the damage per delivery" (see magic missile, scorching ray, meteor swarm, chain lightning, fireball, lightning bolt, etc).
Your argument here is equivalent to saying that Power Attack reads "You can choose to take a -1 penalty on all melee attack rolls to gain a +3 bonus on all melee damage rolls. If you are making an attack with a weapon that is not a two-handed weapon or a one handed weapon using two hands, you only add 2/3 this bonus. If you are making an attack withan off-hand weapon, you instead add 1/3 this bonus. When your BAB reaches +4, the penalty increases by -1 and the bonus to damage increases by +3." Seems perfectly reasonable, it maths out the same way... but then you get an ability like the Two-Handed Fighter's Greater Power Attack which normally gives you +100% instead of +50% when wielding a weapon two handed (so +4 damage per step), but with the above version of power attack instead would give you +6 damage, because it gives you a 100% increase.
|
|
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage... For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile."As opposed to "You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area."
One gives you more missiles at a fixed damage per missile. The other gives you damage per caster level.
And yes, I know I'm being repetitive.
Yes, you are. take out Any wordage of HOW the damage is done. Go ahead. Do it. Now MM says somehting along the lines of:
1d4+1/2 levels, max @ 9th level with 5d4+5. This damage may be dealt against up to 5 targets.
Lightning Bolt now says:
1d6/level, this damage is maxed out @ 10th level
Are they both spells that deal damage?
Do they both deal their damage expresseed with dice?
Do the get a maximum amount of damage dice?
And your only continued argument is that because you get more missiles, and thus more dice, you can get more dice by raising the cap. When that argument is defeated you have little else to do but repeat it. Saying "without your central point your argument doesn't work" goes both ways.
Since the spell fulfills the requirements of the feat I do not see how it has been defeated. I have stayed with my points constantly and consistently. It is others that swing back and forth from one argument to another when I defeat their points.
----------------
Here's another take on it. The short description for each spell, from the spell lists:
Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage; +1 missile per two levels above 1st (max 5)1d4+1 to 5d4+5 damage dealt to upto 5 targets.
Shocking Grasp: Touch delivers 1d6/level electricity damage (max 5d6). obviously works...
Acid Arrow: Ranged touch attack; 2d4 damage for 1 round +1 round/three levels.duration and not damage is increased
Scorching Ray: Ranged touch attack deals 4d6 fire damage, +1 ray/four levels (max 3).4d6 to 12d6 damage, dealt to upto 3 targets
Fireball: 1d6 damage per level, 20-ft. radius. obvious target to feat
Lightning Bolt: Electricity deals 1d6/level damage.see fireballSome of those clearly say they do damage per level. Some clearly do something else per level.
Some clearly say in descriptions created in editions previous to PF and obviously before teh feat was created. Does not disqualify other spell from qualifying when they fit the description.
|
|
I'm going to be repetitive again. Please read it closely this time. Lightning bolt: "deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level" Magic Missile: "For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile" One gives you dice per level, and thus qualifies. One gives you missiles per level and doesn't. Missiles are not dice. I'm being consistant here. Are you?
I am. Ignore the description of teh damage carrier. Ignore Missiles, ignore burst, ignore line.
Mm does damage that is increased off of your caster level. Having a damage increased based off of "every other level" is as level based as having it increased "every level"
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage... For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile."As opposed to "You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area."
One gives you more missiles at a fixed damage per missile. The other gives you damage per caster level.
And yes, I know I'm being repetitive.
Yes, you are. take out Any wordage of HOW the damage is done. Go ahead. Do it. Now MM says somehting along the lines of:
1d4+1/2 levels, max @ 9th level with 5d4+5. This damage may be dealt against up to 5 targets.
Lightning Bolt now says:
1d6/level, this damage is maxed out @ 10th level
I take that challenge: Lightning bolt, with no mention of a bolt:
You deal 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area.Magic Missile, with no mention of a missile:
Magical energy strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
The energy 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 1d4+1 damage - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five 1d4+1's at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple 1d4+1s, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single 1d4+1 can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
I think one of those reads much cleaner than the other. If you dislike how I rewrote magic missile, feel free to try it yourself. But your rewrite would allow me to roll 5d4+5, then split the damage however I choose to each target. I'd really like to see a rewrite which keeps each 1d4+1 discrete that doesn't refer to it as a missile/bolt/dart/energy/etc. The delivery method is an integral part of magic missile. It's not an integral part of lightning bolt, or fireball.
Are they both spells that deal damage?
Do they both deal their damage expresseed with dice?
Do the get a maximum amount of damage dice?
Yes.
Yes.No - one gets maximum dice, one gets maximum missiles.
EDIT:
I'm going to be repetitive again. Please read it closely this time. Lightning bolt: "deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level" Magic Missile: "For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile" One gives you dice per level, and thus qualifies. One gives you missiles per level and doesn't. Missiles are not dice. I'm being consistant here. Are you?I am. Ignore the description of teh damage carrier. Ignore Missiles, ignore burst, ignore line.
Mm does damage that is increased off of your caster level. Having a damage increased based off of "every other level" is as level based as having it increased "every level"
Write me a magic missile spell that does not describe how the damage is delivered, but does force you to keep it in 1d4+1 chunks, that doesn't sound horribly awkward.
I have no quibble with "every other level" vs "every level". If Lightning bolt said 1d6/2 caster levels (max 5d6) it would still qualify.
|
|
Then why are you (as in those who read it in a way to try and disqualify MM) so caught up on the fact that the spell give more missiles, when the missiles are the damage.
The feat does not care that the spell can be spread out among multiple targets. It does not care that the damage has to be dealt in 1d4+1 increments per target.
It only looks to see that the spell deals damage dice that get capped.
It does not care how awkward the wording is. Only the reader cares.
The point of the exercise of ignoring the damage transport is to break the spell down. HOW the damage gets done (line, ray, missile, etc...) is unimportant. As teh feat is written it allows the MM spell to fill every requirement. You cannot do it. Even when you re-write it to make sure the actual word "Missile" is not written you have the image in your head as shown later when you go through the questions...
"Yes.
Yes.
No - one gets maximum dice, one gets maximum missiles."
Get missiles out of your head. You do not stay consistent in your answers.
You say "Yes" to both being spells, as you should...
You reply "Yes" to the question if they both deal damage expressed in dice, as they do
Then you slide back into the "Missiles" trap on the last answer. Forget Missiles, Bobson. MM deals 1d4+1/2 levels. That damage dice expression has a limit. That limit comes @ 9th level when the max amount of dice you will get per casting is 5d4+5.
Then why are you (as in those who read it in a way to try and disqualify MM) so caught up on the fact that the spell give more missiles, when the missiles are the damage.
The feat does not care that the spell can be spread out among multiple targets. It does not care that the damage has to be dealt in 1d4+1 increments per target.
It only looks to see that the spell deals damage dice that get capped.
It does not care how awkward the wording is. Only the reader cares.
The feat doesn't care about those things. But those are the things which make the difference between bonus missiles and bonus dice. So to me, they are very much the point.
The point of the exercise of ignoring the damage transport is to break the spell down. HOW the damage gets done (line, ray, missile, etc...) is unimportant. As teh feat is written it allows the MM spell to fill every requirement. You cannot do it. Even when you re-write it to make sure the actual word "Missile" is not written you have the image in your head as shown later when you go through the questions...
"Yes.
Yes.
No - one gets maximum dice, one gets maximum missiles."Get missiles out of your head. You do not stay consistent in your answers.
You say "Yes" to both being spells, as you should...
You reply "Yes" to the question if they both deal damage expressed in dice, as they do
Then you slide back into the "Missiles" trap on the last answer. Forget Missiles, Bobson. MM deals 1d4+1/2 levels. That damage dice expression has a limit. That limit comes @ 9th level when the max amount of dice you will get per casting is 5d4+5.
Perhaps we have a different reading of the question. "Do they both deal their damage expresseed with dice? " I say yes, it's expressed as "1d4+1 per missile". That's a dice expression, which does that amount of damage per missile. If you want to read the question as "Do they both deal their damage expressed solely with dice?" then my answer would be "No, one does, one splits it up per missile."
From my reading and understanding (though I feel it is awkwardly worded) there is nothing that should prevent Intensify Spell from working with Magic Missile, either from a mechanical or balance perspective. At the level when getting a couple of extra missiles is applicable you are able to cast 7th level spells. Is the slight boost in damage from Intensify Spell being applied to Magic Missile that much of a problem that it needs to devolve down into this level of debate? Upping the average damage of Magic Missile slightly by making it a second level spell doesn't seem like a problem to me at all; heck - if a character wants to burn one of his precious feat slots to be able to do it he should be able to. The damage still won't beat out a regular Scorching Ray. The range and damage type may be superior, and you don't have to roll to hit, but the feat doesn't even improve the spell by all that much. Why would someone really want to prevent Intensify Spell from doing what it does (adding just a bit of "oomph" to damage spells) when you need to use a feat to do so anyway is beyond me.
If you have to completely reword a spell to make it fit with what you think is right, you probably arent doing it by RAW. Magic Missle does d4+1. Lightning bolt does d6/level. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
|
|
The feat doesn't care about those things. But those are the things which make the difference between bonus missiles and bonus dice. So to me, they are very much the point.
But "to you" does not matter. it only matter about what the feat sees.
Perhaps we have a different reading of the question. "Do they both deal their damage expresseed with dice? " I say yes, it's expressed as "1d4+1 per missile". That's a dice expression, which does that amount of damage per missile. If you want to read the question as "Do they both deal their damage expressed solely with dice?" then my answer would be "No, one does, one splits it up per missile."
And again it does not matter that one splits the damage "per missile". It deals that damage dice. That is what the feat is looking at. You don't, but that don't matter 'cause the feat does.
If MM said that it created ONE missile that dealt 1d4+1/2 levels. it would be ok with you. it is the fact that the spell allows you to separate the damage among multiple targets that seems to be a problem to you. Would this be correct?
And this thread is starting to enter this territory now.
Fine hilarious reading, that.
|
|
talks
One increases teh damage dice. The other increases the damage length. DUN.
Drop a hammer on your foot == MM 1st level...Drop a maul on your foot == MM higher level.
Take Acid and drip some on your hand...start leaving it there.
See the distinction between increased damage and increased length?
One deal MORE damage, one deals LONGER damage
If MM stated that it made one missle that did d4+1/2 levels, I wouldnt have a problem with Intensify working with it. Unfortunately, that is NOT what was written.
If MM stated that it made one missle that did d4+1/2 levels, I wouldnt have a problem with Intensify working with it. Unfortunately, that is NOT what was written.
Exactly.
|
|
talksOne increases teh damage dice. The other increases the damage length. DUN.Both increase the number of dice of damage dealt.
Both damages are capped by level.
You are telling people to ignore the method of delivery for this damage.
It meets YOUR criteria.
Pot, meet kettle.
-James
No. You try and squeeze it into my criteria.
AA does not increase damage dice. It has the initial damage extended. There is the difference.
i did an edit on that post. Go re-read.
What is the difference? The fact that the damage can be split up? Oh, no, it is that it is more missiles? I see. Seriously?If MM stated that it made one missle that did d4+1/2 levels, I wouldnt have a problem with Intensify working with it. Unfortunately, that is NOT what was written.Exactly.
Yes. If you want to go by RAW (Rules as Written) you kinda have to use the rules as written. Not saying it wouldnt be a decent houserule, but thats exactly what it would be-a houserule.
|
|
It actually goes by RaW FYI.
You are new to the thread it seems so let me clear it up.
Feat needs a spell that deals increasing damage dice that gets capped.
MM is a SPELL that has increasing DAMAGE DICE that gets CAPPED.
RaW...MM is good to go.
Here is where I throw you a bone...
i do not think that MM was thought of when they were wording the feat. I think it was more for the fireball/lightning bolt type spells.
Does not change the fact that MM does fit the core of the feat.
It actually goes by RaW FYI.
You are new to the thread it seems so let me clear it up.
Feat needs a spell that deals increasing damage dice that gets capped.
MM is a SPELL that has increasing DAMAGE DICE that gets CAPPED.
RaW...MM is good to go.
Here is where I throw you a bone...
i do not think that MM was thought of when they were wording the feat. I think it was more for the fireball/lightning bolt type spells.
Does not change the fact that MM does fit the core of the feat.
FYI, It does not go by RAW. MM does d4+1. Thats it. End of Story. Good night, Goodbye, Do not pass go or collect 200 dollars. You get extra missles as you go up in caster levels. That does not satisfy the feat as written, without someone (in this case you and Aelryth) simplfying and rewriting BOTH the feat and the spell description to make it fit into your criteria. That is NOT raw. As I posted earlier, If you have to rewrite a spell to make it fit your view, your view probably isnt RAW.
Is it RAI? I dont know and that cant be debated without asking the writers, so lets just stick with RAW.EDIT- Just to clarify why MM doesnt work.EDIT- What is the damage of a Magic Missle at 1st level? d4+1.
What is the damage of a magic missle at 9th level? d4+1.
What is the damage of a magic missle at 145th level? d4+1.
Doesnt really seem to scale by level does it?
So MM never get more than 1d4+1? Each missile does not deal more than 1d4+1, but the spell sure does. So yes. RaW. Works. the feat is not looking at the missiles it is looking at the spell. There is a difference.
So youre saying that a magic missle's damage never goes up by caster level, just the number of missles do.
Does Intensify Spell state that increases all level dependent variables or does it state that it increases only damage dice?Now tell me, how is that RAW?
EDIT- just as example, how would your interpretation interact with Create Pit (apg) I say it wouldnt work, but your interpretaion Im assuming that you think itd make a pit 50 feet deep.
|
And this thread is starting to enter this territory now.
Fine hilarious reading, that.
I was done by the third post. True Strike does not target the Nondetectioned character, and is not blocked.
|
|
No you are saying MM never has increasing damage.
The SPELL has increasing damage dice.
Catch that?
THE SPELL.
the feat is looking at THE SPELL. Not the Ray, nor the burst, nor the line, nor the missile. THE SPELL.
MM, THE SPELL, has increasing damage. 1d4+1/2 levels. It caps out @ 9th level.
Intensify works with SPELLS that have DAMAGE DICE that CAP.
MM, THE SPELL, does ALL that.
R.
A.
W.
Giddyup.
|
|
I was done by the third post. True Strike does not target the Nondetectioned character, and is not blocked.And this thread is starting to enter this territory now.
Fine hilarious reading, that.
Hey you never answered me. If I ask with a slight whine do I still get my extra missiles?
No you are saying MM never has increasing damage.
The SPELL has increasing damage dice.
Catch that?
THE SPELL.
the feat is looking at THE SPELL. Not the Ray, nor the burst, nor the line, nor the missile. THE SPELL.
MM, THE SPELL, has increasing damage. 1d4+1/2 levels. It caps out @ 9th level.
Intensify works with SPELLS that have DAMAGE DICE that CAP.
MM, THE SPELL, does ALL that.
R.
A.
W.Giddyup.
Good. Now show me where it, in the spell description (the "as written" part of "Rules As Written") states that MM does d4+1/2 levels. You cant. You know why? Because it does not say that.
I was done by the third post. True Strike does not target the Nondetectioned character, and is not blocked.And this thread is starting to enter this territory now.
Fine hilarious reading, that.
I agree, but some people thought it best to argue about it for a year or two. It gets pretty hilarious at times.
|
|
Hey you never answered me. If I ask with a slight whine do I still get my extra missiles?I was done by the third post. True Strike does not target the Nondetectioned character, and is not blocked.And this thread is starting to enter this territory now.
Fine hilarious reading, that.
TOZ does not answer whines. TOZ prefers to play with adults, not children.
:)
I agree, but some people thought it best to argue about it for a year or two. It gets pretty hilarious at times.
THIS thread has been pretty hilarious the whole way through.
I agree, but some people thought it best to argue about it for a year or two. It gets pretty hilarious at times.THIS thread has been pretty hilarious the whole way through.
Which is why I immediately drew the connection between the two.
Edit--That and some of the posters are the same people. Including me. I'll give you a free cookie if you can guess which one I am.
|
|
Good. Now show me where it, in the spell description (the "as written" part of "Rules As Written") states that MM does d4+1/2 levels. You cant. You know why? Because it does not say that.No you are saying MM never has increasing damage.
The SPELL has increasing damage dice.
Catch that?
THE SPELL.
the feat is looking at THE SPELL. Not the Ray, nor the burst, nor the line, nor the missile. THE SPELL.
MM, THE SPELL, has increasing damage. 1d4+1/2 levels. It caps out @ 9th level.
Intensify works with SPELLS that have DAMAGE DICE that CAP.
MM, THE SPELL, does ALL that.
R.
A.
W.Giddyup.
You are telling me the MM spell does not deal 1d4+1 damage per 2 levels?
You are telling me the MM spell does not deal 1d4+1 damage per 2 levels?Good. Now show me where it, in the spell description (the "as written" part of "Rules As Written") states that MM does d4+1/2 levels. You cant. You know why? Because it does not say that.No you are saying MM never has increasing damage.
The SPELL has increasing damage dice.
Catch that?
THE SPELL.
the feat is looking at THE SPELL. Not the Ray, nor the burst, nor the line, nor the missile. THE SPELL.
MM, THE SPELL, has increasing damage. 1d4+1/2 levels. It caps out @ 9th level.
Intensify works with SPELLS that have DAMAGE DICE that CAP.
MM, THE SPELL, does ALL that.
R.
A.
W.Giddyup.
Correct! You've read the spell, then. It deals d4+1, no matter what your caster level is. The only variable is the number of missles that you get.