Remember Intensified Spell states:
...increases the DAMAGE DICE (not the number of missles, rays, depth of pit, etc.) by 5 levels.....NO other variables of the spell are affected.....spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level (MM is a flat d4+1) are NOT affected.
Thats the releveant parts anyway. Reading the feat shows 3 different reasons why MM is not allowed.
|
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.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.
lol...you are ridiculous...What do the missiles do? Damage. To the tune of 1d4+1 each. Getting increasing damage (spelled in the spell "missiles") as your caster level goes up. All this is in the spell description.
So again. RaW. MM == SPELL that deals increasing DAMAGE DICE that CAPS. Fits the feat.
|
|
Remember Intensified Spell states:
...increases the DAMAGE DICE (not the number of missles, rays, depth of pit, etc.) by 5 levels.....NO other variables of the spell are affected.....spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level (MM is a flat d4+1) are NOT affected.
Thats the releveant parts anyway. Reading the feat shows 3 different reasons why MM is not allowed.
MM the missile deals a flat 1d4+1. MM THE SPELL deals 1d4+1/2 levels. Missiles are the damage. It is the descriptor of how the damage is delivered.
I dont think RAW means whatever you think it does. Rules as written.
What increases by level in Magic Missle? Missles as per the spell the spell description,
What does Intensified Spells affect? Damage Dice. It specifically says that nothing else is affected.
MM the missile deals a flat 1d4+1. MM THE SPELL deals 1d4+1/2 levels. Missiles are the damage. It is the descriptor of how the damage is delivered.Remember Intensified Spell states:
...increases the DAMAGE DICE (not the number of missles, rays, depth of pit, etc.) by 5 levels.....NO other variables of the spell are affected.....spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level (MM is a flat d4+1) are NOT affected.
Thats the releveant parts anyway. Reading the feat shows 3 different reasons why MM is not allowed.
Quote with that? My Rulebook has d4+1/2 levels nowhere in the MM description. Nothing in the Errata either. Remember that its Rules as WRITTEN. Show me where it says MM does d4+1/2 levels. Please, I beg you.
By your Interpretation does Intensified Spell work with Create Pit? You claim that the feat doesnt look at the delivery system of the damage, (with no rules to back that assertation), so I.S. allows you to create a pit 50' deep for 5d6 falling damage?
|
Ok, here's another tack to be shot down...
I have a 5th (dressed in blue), 7th (dressed in green), & 9th level (dressed in red) caster. Each has Fireball and MM. Each has been tasked with doing as much damage to the 5 people in front of them, starting with the person on the left.
All 5 targets all standing side by side.
Target A (the one on the far left).
The 5th level mage casts MM
The 7th level mage casts MM
The 9th level mage casts MM
Target A is asked what level each mage is - they shrug.
The 5th level mage casts FB (average damage, failed save)
The 7th level mage casts FB (average damage, failed save)
The 9th level mage casts FB (average damage, failed save)
Target A is asked what level each mage is - they correctly determine the levels, well after putting themselves out.
So in this case Target A reports no level dependance of MM. Now if we only have Target A, the other 4 persons go off to the pub, then with either MM or FB they determine the levels correctly. Hmmm, now there's an apparent level dependance. Wow, a spell that seems like a quantum-state!
So either (A) MM acts like a quantum state spell and it's level dependance is dependent on the observer or (B) MM damage is a function directly of the number of missiles which in turn is a function of level. So damage output is indirectly level linked.
But, if we accept that MM counts for the feat and look at the spell and the feat then must conclude that NO extra missile beyond 5 can be made (the spell), but the feat increases the cap (the feat). Meaning as discussed before we have 5 missiles (feat say NOTHING about increasing this cap) but doing 7d4+7 (the actual damage dice). What a strange thing? Intensify ends up only increasing the damage output of 20-40% of the spell (meaning one or two missiles must do more damage). Again the feat DOES NOT increase the number of missiles only a the damage cap. Increasing the number of missiles is a personal interpretation of a consequence the increasing damage cap and not RAW - assuming we accept the feat works with MM.
S.
|
|
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
See how this equates the missile with the 1d4+1 damage? So missile == 1d4+1 damage.
"For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile "
Since we have already seen that each missile equals 1d4+1 damage, then this passage concludes that the damage dealt by the SPELL increases 1d4+1 for every 2 levels beyond first.
Nothing else is affected. the range is the same, your # of targets does not increase. Teh targets still need to be w/in 15' of each other.
But.
the damage the SPELL deals goes up.
you have a spell that can deal damage to up to 5 targets that are within medium range of you and they all have to be within 15'of each other. teh damage comes in 1d4+1 increments and each increment has to be dealt whole. The damage of this spell increases 1d4+1 every other level after 1st all the way to 9th level where you have 5 sets of 1d4+1 to deal out.
that spell has increasing damage and goes about its business just like MM, but we have left the missiles out of it.
|
|
@ Stefan: That is a horrible example. All you did was show how better it is to use a 3rd level spell to deal more damage over a greater number of targets.
change it up.
Only Target A is dealt damage by all 3 wizards.
He notices the difference between each Wiz in regards to teh MM SPELL.
The higher the wizard the MORE damage he took when he was targeted by the MM SPELL.
Becasue the MM SPELL increases its damage as you get higher in level.
@ Stefan: That is a horrible example. All you did was show how better it is to use a 3rd level spell to deal more damage over a greater number of targets.
change it up.
Only Target A is dealt damage by all 3 wizards.
He notices the difference between each Wiz in regards to teh MM SPELL.
The higher the wizard the MORE damage he took when he was targeted by the MM SPELL.
Becasue the MM SPELL increases its damage as you get higher in level.
You apparently failed to read the entirety of his post, since he addressed that exact thing.
|
|
@ Stefan: That is a horrible example. All you did was show how better it is to use a 3rd level spell to deal more damage over a greater number of targets.
change it up.
Only Target A is dealt damage by all 3 wizards.
He notices the difference between each Wiz in regards to teh MM SPELL.
The higher the wizard the MORE damage he took when he was targeted by the MM SPELL.
Becasue the MM SPELL increases its damage as you get higher in level.
You apparently failed to read the entirety of his post, since he addressed that exact thing.
You are right. I got to the end of the first part and was tired.
Meh.
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
See how this equates the missile with the 1d4+1 damage? So missile == 1d4+1 damage.
"For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile "
Since we have already seen that each missile equals 1d4+1 damage, then this passage concludes that the damage dealt by the SPELL increases 1d4+1 for every 2 levels beyond first.
Nothing else is affected. the range is the same, your # of targets does not increase. Teh targets still need to be w/in 15' of each other.
But.
the damage the SPELL deals goes up.
you have a spell that can deal damage to up to 5 targets that are within medium range of you and they all have to be within 15'of each other. teh damage comes in 1d4+1 increments and each increment has to be dealt whole. The damage of this spell increases 1d4+1 every other level after 1st all the way to 9th level where you have 5 sets of 1d4+1 to deal out.
that spell has increasing damage and goes about its business just like MM, but we have left the missiles out of it.
So what if the damage of the SPELL went up? Thats irrelevant. It went up only because the number of missles went up, something that intensifed spells doesnt deal with.
Edit-Just like the damage of acid arrow. the SPELL's damage goes up, but not due to anything that Intensified Spell interacts with. (in this case duration)
So, I posted about this in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread. Personally I think I presented it in a balanced way, although you can always go over there and check. As I was doing so, I realized all the back and forth boiled down to one question: "Does magic missile shoot one missile per 2 caster levels that happen to do 1d4+1 damage, or does magic missile do 1d4+1 damage per 2 caster levels that happen to be delivered in the form of missiles?"
The answer:
James Jacobs[/url]]Ah... Yeah. Intensified Spell works fine with magic missile and scorching ray. It's up to the GM, of course, but balance wise I don't see letting it work as being a particular problem at all.
Here it is, from a developer, even if it's in an unofficial format. They've contradicted each other before and put out errata which overrules unofficial guidance like this, but unless one or the other happens, we can finally let this argument die.
|
|
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
You really think that rephrasing a spell "chancing nothing of the parameters" will "get the same result"?
LOL
I really hope you never get some of the players I know.
To me te argument is really simple: the feat increase the damage cap for spells that do a x number of damage dice for level and so it don't apply to MM, scorching ray and so on.
It is a perfectly acceptable house rule to increase the cap of MM and scorching ray too, but
1) it is a house rule;
2) it must be done in a consistent way
So you apply it to all spells that have ian increase in damage through an increase in the number of attach (like MM and Scorching ray) or to none of them.
You should absolutely not not apply one to one spell(MM9 and not the other (SR) because you like or dislike one or the other. That is very bad gamemasterying.
Wow, 315 posts of pointless discussion.
Unless Paizo will FAQ this thing, we will never know for sure if MM is ment to be affected by Intensify or not.
So, there it has been said, now hug each other and be nice again.
So, I posted about this in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread. Personally I think I presented it in a balanced way, although you can always go over there and check. As I was doing so, I realized all the back and forth boiled down to one question: "Does magic missile shoot one missile per 2 caster levels that happen to do 1d4+1 damage, or does magic missile do 1d4+1 damage per 2 caster levels that happen to be delivered in the form of missiles?"
The answer:
James Jacobs[/url]]Ah... Yeah. Intensified Spell works fine with magic missile and scorching ray. It's up to the GM, of course, but balance wise I don't see letting it work as being a particular problem at all.Here it is, from a developer, even if it's in an unofficial format. They've contradicted each other before and put out errata which overrules unofficial guidance like this, but unless one or the other happens, we can finally let this argument die.
I stand corrected then. I can not argue with JJ. Thanks Bobson
|
|
So, I posted about this in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread. Personally I think I presented it in a balanced way, although you can always go over there and check. As I was doing so, I realized all the back and forth boiled down to one question: "Does magic missile shoot one missile per 2 caster levels that happen to do 1d4+1 damage, or does magic missile do 1d4+1 damage per 2 caster levels that happen to be delivered in the form of missiles?"
The answer:
James Jacobs[/url]]Ah... Yeah. Intensified Spell works fine with magic missile and scorching ray. It's up to the GM, of course, but balance wise I don't see letting it work as being a particular problem at all.Here it is, from a developer, even if it's in an unofficial format. They've contradicted each other before and put out errata which overrules unofficial guidance like this, but unless one or the other happens, we can finally let this argument die.
Thanks for doing that Bobson. I figured that no matter which way this discussion went everyone was looking for a more official answer so they can figure out if they are houseruling or not. Both reading are 100% reasonable.
|
|
Wow, 315 posts of pointless discussion.
Unless Paizo will FAQ this thing, we will never know for sure if MM is ment to be affected by Intensify or not.
So, there it has been said, now hug each other and be nice again.
I LUV U GUYS!!!
Though to be fair it was not pointless. If if\t hadn't gotten to this point Bobson would not have asked JJ.
I do agree that the feat needs a clear wording to (dis)allow certain spells.
So, I posted about this in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread. Personally I think I presented it in a balanced way, although you can always go over there and check. As I was doing so, I realized all the back and forth boiled down to one question: "Does magic missile shoot one missile per 2 caster levels that happen to do 1d4+1 damage, or does magic missile do 1d4+1 damage per 2 caster levels that happen to be delivered in the form of missiles?"
The answer:
James Jacobs[/url]]Ah... Yeah. Intensified Spell works fine with magic missile and scorching ray. It's up to the GM, of course, but balance wise I don't see letting it work as being a particular problem at all.Here it is, from a developer, even if it's in an unofficial format. They've contradicted each other before and put out errata which overrules unofficial guidance like this, but unless one or the other happens, we can finally let this argument die.
Wait is he not just the Creative Director? You know the guy who comes up with all the cool lore? Is not asking him a rules question sorta like asking a liberal arts major to explain quantum physics?
Just kidding..;)
.
..
...
....
.....
.
..
...
....
.....
|
|
just cannot let it drop
Hey. StFU. MM works. ScR works.
As much as you wanna make the claim AA works if MM works I do not see it that way. The spells I claim that work have their actual damage directly increased/ AA does not. It has it duration increased and it does teh same damage dice again evey round the spell is increased.
The feat looks for a certain wording. Fireball has that wording. MM, arguably, has that wording, ScR has that wording (arguably again). AA does not have that wording. Its wording it about increasing the duration, not the damage. Wall of Fire does not have that wording because it DICE do not get increased only the damage modifier gets increased.
As for the +1's in the 1d4+1. I see it as added, so every addition (the 2 bonus missiles you gain), deals 1d4+1. It is different than Wall of fire where the +level tot he dice roll is fully seperate from the dice roll.
MM's dice roll is 2-5
WoF's dice roll is 1d6
You wanna see it different go ahead. I ain't gonna quibble over a +1 with my players and I hope my DM would not quibble over a +1 with me.
.
..
...
....
.....
THIS IS HOW IT STARTS PEOPLE!
.
..
...
....
.....
Now we just have to get Acid Arrow some of that love.The SPELL (at 18th CL) deals 12d4 points of damage.
Much like magic missile it doesn't deal it directly all in one place. Whereas magic missile does it by missile, acid arrow does it by round.
Put another way: the damage the SPELL deals goes up by level. That damage is in DICE. And those DICE get CAPPED at a certain level.
Or in your words:
Now you claim
So again. RaW. MM == SPELL that deals increasing DAMAGE DICE that CAPS. Fits the feat.AA does not increase damage dice. It has the initial damage extended. There is the difference.
It deals 2d4 damage. Those are DICE. More so than 1d4+1 can claim to be DICE.
It does deal them over rounds, but magic missile deals them via missiles.
The feat makes NO MENTION of duration needing to be instantaneous now does it?
How much damage does a 4 round acid arrow spell deal? 8d4? How much damage does a 4 missile magic missile spell deal? 4d4+4?
How does the FEAT see these as different?
You make a claim here, but have nothing to back it up.
If magic missile can have this feat applied to it, then certainly acid arrow can as well.
Here's the next question: how does intensify work with magic missile? It gets more DICE via the feat. So how does that WORK? It DOESN'T get more missiles obviously as then it can target more creatures. it DOESN'T get more +1's as they are not DICE.
So do we suddenly get magic missiles that deal 2d4+1 damage? That doesn't seem right.
If so can we increase wall of fire? It has DICE. The Damage goes up by level. Perhaps it can deal more than 2d6+level now?
I do agree with you that magic missile was not thought of when writing this feat. I think if it were then...
I would allow intensify spell to work with wall of fire with respect to the damage for walking through. The difference between this damage and the damage from acid arrow is that the damage for walking through a wall of fire and MM is instantaneous in the same round. At any point with acid arrow, it deals 2d4 instantaneous damage (unaffected by level). Only duration is affected by level, and there already is a feat that extends durations that doesn't have a level cap like intensify spell.
And keep in mind: while I agree with JJ's response and interpretation of Intensify spell, he has said before that rules that are unclear are left to the particular GM to interpret, even in PFS. He said earlier in this thread that he would change the RAW of telekinesis with respect to hurling gargantuan arrows at targets so it became AOE.
EDIT: to clear up the quoting.
And keep in mind: while I agree with JJ's response and interpretation of Intensify spell, he has said before that rules that are unclear are left to the particular GM to interpret, even in PFS. He said earlier in this thread that he would change the RAW of telekinesis with respect to hurling gargantuan arrows at targets so it became AOE.
For rule questions, I'd follow this ranking: GM >> Errata > FAQ > Rule developer > JJ >> Forum consensus > Most reasonable-seeming side in a forum argument. No offense to JJ intended.
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.
Ah, you mean the Nondetection effect that doesn't need to be actually targeted, and works against all divinations, which True Strike is?
Uh-huh.
==Aelryinth
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
See how this equates the missile with the 1d4+1 damage? So missile == 1d4+1 damage.
"For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile "
Since we have already seen that each missile equals 1d4+1 damage, then this passage concludes that the damage dealt by the SPELL increases 1d4+1 for every 2 levels beyond first.
Nothing else is affected. the range is the same, your # of targets does not increase. Teh targets still need to be w/in 15' of each other.
But.
the damage the SPELL deals goes up.
you have a spell that can deal damage to up to 5 targets that are within medium range of you and they all have to be within 15'of each other. teh damage comes in 1d4+1 increments and each increment has to be dealt whole. The damage of this spell increases 1d4+1 every other level after 1st all the way to 9th level where you have 5 sets of 1d4+1 to deal out.
that spell has increasing damage and goes about its business just like MM, but we have left the missiles out of it.
So what if the damage of the SPELL went up? Thats irrelevant. It went up only because the number of missles went up, something that intensifed spells doesnt deal with.
Edit-Just like the damage of acid arrow. the SPELL's damage goes up, but not due to anything that Intensified Spell interacts with. (in this case duration)
That's self-justifying circular logic here.
"This spell doesn't work with intensify the way you say it does because the spell doesn't work with intensify this way."
Hah. So much for logic.
==Aelryinth
The AA argument is completely moot.
Damage and Damage over time have always been completely different items. Otherwise you could say Wall of Fire does infinite damage since it can be kept up for as long as concentration, or a Permanent One, or you could shove a hundred people into it at once. That's clearly not how it's listed.
Damage is described directly in the spell description, and that for AA never changes. It's always the same, the damage never goes up, only the duration goes up. Your argument that 'it's variable by level because the duration goes up' falls flat, because the damage inflicted never changes even once for each time its inflicted, and the feat only looks at damage, it does not look at duration. AA always delivers the same damage, it never varies by infliction. Attempting to stretch damage to equal duration is a Straw Man. damage tied to duration is Damage over time, and the feat does not reference such a thing.
Wall of fire doesn't work because it doesn't deliver variable dice by level, either. Unless you want to include duration in the feat definition, which it never references. Note that not mentioning duration is not a sign that it allows such to be included in a definition.
I find it difficult to believe Srch Ray follows the rules of the feat, since you can't add individual dmg increments to it, only in lots of 4 that don't follow a per-level formula, but if he says so, I suppose that's fine.
==Aelryinth
|
Ah, you mean the Nondetection effect that doesn't need to be actually targeted, and works against all divinations, which True Strike is?
Uh-huh.
==Aelryinth
I wondered when someone would bite on that.
Nondetection says 'becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as etc.', meaning not all divination spells are blocked, only those that attempt to detect the target. It also says 'if a divination is attempted against the warded creature' meaning that the divination must affect the target of the Nondetection. Since True Strike does not affect the Nondetected character, it works.
You're welcome to disagree, but I got my answer by the third post.
|
|
Would Intensify therefore work on Inflict Wound spells because they deliver damage modified by level.
This sets up something crazy.
10th level Cleric casts:
Inflict Light Wounds - can Intensify
Cure Light Wounds - can't Intensify
Cure Light Wounds vs Undead - can Intensify
Aaarrrrrggggggh <sound of a DM going insane>.
S.
Would Intensify therefore work on Inflict Wound spells because they deliver damage modified by level.
This sets up something crazy.
10th level Cleric casts:
Inflict Light Wounds - can Intensify
Cure Light Wounds - can't Intensify
Cure Light Wounds vs Undead - can IntensifyAaarrrrrggggggh <sound of a DM going insane>.
S.
I am just going to ban the feat in my games...it is...badly written. There done...problem solved.
Though...maybe ahem...Pazio might considering more of the books for play testing...
So does Intensified spells work on create pit? No one's answered me on that?
"A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage."
See how this equates the missile with the 1d4+1 damage? So missile == 1d4+1 damage.
"For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile "
Since we have already seen that each missile equals 1d4+1 damage, then this passage concludes that the damage dealt by the SPELL increases 1d4+1 for every 2 levels beyond first.
Nothing else is affected. the range is the same, your # of targets does not increase. Teh targets still need to be w/in 15' of each other.
But.
the damage the SPELL deals goes up.
you have a spell that can deal damage to up to 5 targets that are within medium range of you and they all have to be within 15'of each other. teh damage comes in 1d4+1 increments and each increment has to be dealt whole. The damage of this spell increases 1d4+1 every other level after 1st all the way to 9th level where you have 5 sets of 1d4+1 to deal out.
that spell has increasing damage and goes about its business just like MM, but we have left the missiles out of it.
So what if the damage of the SPELL went up? Thats irrelevant. It went up only because the number of missles went up, something that intensifed spells doesnt deal with.
Edit-Just like the damage of acid arrow. the SPELL's damage goes up, but not due to anything that Intensified Spell interacts with. (in this case duration)
That's self-justifying circular logic here.
"This spell doesn't work with intensify the way you say it does because the spell doesn't work with intensify this way."
Hah. So much for logic.
==Aelryinth
Why are you quoting me after I have conceded due to JJ's ruling? Just to feel smug and/or knock me down a peg?
Wall of fire doesn't work because it doesn't deliver variable dice by level, either. Unless you want to include duration in the feat definition, which it never references. Note that not mentioning duration is not a sign that it allows such to be included in a definition.I find it difficult to believe Srch Ray follows the rules of the feat, since you can't add individual dmg increments to it, only in lots of 4 that don't follow a per-level formula, but if he says so, I suppose that's fine.
Would Intensify therefore work on Inflict Wound spells because they deliver damage modified by level.
Aelryinth makes a good point. The feat specifically says dice in the wording, so +1 per level increases wouldn't work by RAW. I'm starting to come around to the no intensified MM by RAW party now as well. Aelryinth did some of the convincing with his discussion of scorching ray above.
That said, I don't believe that letting scorching ray have 1 more ray, magic missile have 2 more missiles, or even cure light wounds heal 5 more hp is all that game breaking, but I know that's not the argument here. The argument here is RAW.
I think my mind has been officially changed to the anti-intensified magic missile per RAW, but I'll always allow it in my game.
What would be broken if I just allowed Intensify to add 5 to all level caps?
What would be broken if I just allowed Intensify to add 5 to all level caps?
I dont think, off the top of my head, that anything would be broken about it.
What would be broken if I just allowed Intensify to add 5 to all level caps?
Would it break any spells that don't do damage directly? I.e. spells that set a HD cap of things that can be affected, or that do stat damage or energy drain that's affected by levels? I haven't gone to look for examples, but that's the kind of spell that I'd worry about.
|
|
Would Intensify therefore work on Inflict Wound spells because they deliver damage modified by level.Aelryinth makes a good point. The feat specifically says dice in the wording, so +1 per level increases wouldn't work by RAW.
The rest of "RAW" in this feat tells us when it can't be applied;
"spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat."
Do Inflict Spell have damage modified by level = yes. Hence it should be applicable.
The feat is horribly worded and I agree with 'the other side' it can be read in different ways. Even given that JJ says MM is a yes for this feat we still have the issue of is the damage from MM intensified 7d4+7 or 7d4+5? The feat ONLY mentions dice caps. d4 (the die) +1 (the die modifier).
The feat needs reworded, an errata added, or dropped.
One feat has caused hundreds of posts - what does that say to you...
S.