|
I'm of the opinion that intensified spell effects neither acid arrow or magic missile, for what it's worth.Same here, I was just running with the other sides argument.I think that's what I meant when I said 'we' several pages ago.
Their argument isn't logically consistent with itself. Heck they don't even agree with one another on scorching ray.
-James
bold part...most important. This whole thread.
I answered your "agree with each other" back there also. And I have always been consistent with what I have said.
Obviously you know my opinion.
And that gets us where? 400 posts in a thread with no one budging on their opinions.
I'm of the opinion that intensified spell effects neither acid arrow or magic missile, for what it's worth.
I concur!
stuffThis I do agree with, OilHorse while I disagree with his interpretation of the feat, has maintained a constant stance with constant reasons. My disagreement in this matter doesn't mean I don't respect his view. Now some other posters in this area have been a little more random...
Yeah I respect his view, and could probably be persuaded to rule as such in my home group. But I do not think RAW means what he thinks it does.
|
So nobody has a specific situation where allowing Intensify to apply to all level caps is overpowered?
Checking cleric and wizard spells up to level 3 in the PRG.
Barkskin will get a max value of +6
Break enchantment become noticeably more powerful
False life 1d10+15
Nothing seem excessively broken but allowing a CAP increase for all the spells make this feat a competitor to Empower, Extend and Widen for some spell.
If your campaign allow casters to go above level 20 (or if they use one of the systems to get a temporary boost to their caster level):
Divination (up to 95% chance of success)
Magic weapon greater (+6 weapons)
A bit worse here. Especially if the GM allow the level gained through Death Knell to stack [there is nothing in the spell description saying the don't but I wouldn't allow it]
I think it will make it too good in high level playing.
Then there are the "weird" effects:
Mirror image:
- "1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total)"
if we increase the camp we should decide how it applies.
The images increase at the speed of 1 image/3 levels but the camp include a random dice roll.
So the cap is 21? (dice roll of 1 plus 7 images)
Or 12 ?(maximum dice roll of 4 plus 4 images)
or we should simply allow 5/3 of extra images, putting the maximum number at 9? [probably the "right one"]
Better keeping under control and allowing only the increase in damage.
|
|
But I do not think RAW means what he thinks it does.
Paraphrased:
Feat- With spells that deal increasing damage dice by level that get capped, add 5 levels to the cap.MM spell: Creates a component that deals damage dice and these increase every other level.
I do not see how you think it is not written by the rules.
|
|
Your intensified scorching ray can target 4 enemies and gets 4 rays, how does this not violate the letter of the feat? Where it says:No other variables of the spell are affected
The stat block before the spell description. These are teh variables that get affected, or not.
Acid Arrow:
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect one arrow of acid
Duration 1 round + 1 round per three levels...No other Variables are affected.
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Magic Missile:
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Scorching Ray:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
As seen AA get ONE arrow that slowly deal a duration of damage that is NOT increased.
MM gets increased damage but can still not affect more than 5 targets. Whether you want it as 5 missiles with 2 missiles being intensified, or add 2 missiles that hit those targets is up to the group. But the variables of the spell are not affected.
ScR gets damage dice in the form of targeted rays. These rays increase in level. There is no limit to the number of targets that can be affected, like in MM. Just one or more rays. In the same manner of MM, whether the bonus damage is a extra ray, or just one super ray is a group decision.
So where [b]does[/b[ it violate teh feat?
But I do not think RAW means what he thinks it does.Paraphrased:
Feat- With spells that deal increasing damage dice by level that get capped, add 5 levels to the cap.MM spell: Creates a component that deals damage dice and these increase every other level.
I do not see how you think it is not written by the rules.
If you have to paraphrase it to cut out the parts that dont mesh with your view, then its not RAW. Rules as Written uses what is actually written, not a summary.
Whether you use Scorching Ray as creating an additional ray or dumping the extra damage onto an existing ray is a flavor choice, keep in spirit of the spell or adhere strictly to feat.
Whether you increase the number of missiles and targets they can hit of MM, or limit it and tack the damage on to an existing missile, is a flavor choice, keep to the spirit of the spell or adhere strictly to the feat.
I tip my hat to Oilhorse, who notes explictly that duration is a variable not affected by Intensify, since other logic wasn't working.
MM creates Missiles which create damage.
Fireball creates a burst which creates damage.
No difference between them.
===Aelryinth
If you have to paraphrase it to cut out the parts that dont mesh with your view, then its not RAW. Rules as Written uses what is actually written, not a summary.But I do not think RAW means what he thinks it does.Paraphrased:
Feat- With spells that deal increasing damage dice by level that get capped, add 5 levels to the cap.MM spell: Creates a component that deals damage dice and these increase every other level.
I do not see how you think it is not written by the rules.
Since all the parts mesh, what's the problem?
==Aelryinth
But I do not think RAW means what he thinks it does.Paraphrased:
Feat- With spells that deal increasing damage dice by level that get capped, add 5 levels to the cap.MM spell: Creates a component that deals damage dice and these increase every other level.
I do not see how you think it is not written by the rules.
Would you allow intensify with telekinesis? Specifically the hurl mechanics.
Would you allow 5 extra items to be thrown? According to your argument it would appear it is a yes. Since you said the delivery vehicle of damage doesn't matter as long as it deals damage it should be allowed.
My own reading of Intensify is that it should only apply to spells that specifically written as "damage increased by levels". Any other spell is a no go for me. I don't care if it increases damage due to duration, missiles, rays, tentacles, puke. If it doesn't say damage it doesn't work for me.
This is the spirt of/strict wording adherence.
Since it deals damage by level, the cap definitely goes up for damage. However, the cap for items hurled is not the cap for damage (damage is highly variable depending on what you hurl). In scorching rays and MM's, they are one and the same.
==Aelryinth
MM creates Missiles which create damage.
Fireball creates a burst which creates damage.
Each missile created by MM deals a set amount of damage.
Each burst created by Fireball deals a variable amount of damage by level with a cap.MM produces a variable number of missiles by level with a cap.
Fireball produces a set number of bursts.
That's the difference between them. One of these things is the variable that Intensify affects, and the other is not.
Round and round we go.
MM creates Missiles which create damage.
Fireball creates a burst which creates damage.Each missile created by MM deals a set amount of damage.
Each burst created by Fireball deals a variable amount of damage by level with a cap.
MM produces a variable number of missiles by level with a cap.
Fireball produces a set number of bursts.That's the difference between them. One of these things is the variable that Intensify affects, and the other is not.
Round and round we go.
Best writeup of the rebuttal to that argument yet. Nice.
Whether you use Scorching Ray as creating an additional ray or dumping the extra damage onto an existing ray is a flavor choice,Umm.. no it's not.
If you have resist fire 30 then you won't normally take damage from a scorching ray. You make one of the rays suddenly 8d6 and then you might.. you maximize it as well and you certainly will.
It's not a flavor choice.
Each scorching ray does 4d6.. it doesn't vary. Likewise each magic missile does 1d4+1, it doesn't vary. And each round of an acid arrow deals 2d4, it doesn't vary.
Thus none of them benefit from intensify and none of those vary in damage by level. Intensify specifically doesn't increase other things such as number of missiles, rays or rounds of duration so there's really no option on how you could even try to apply intensify to any of these spells.
-James
Yawn. The spell deals variable dmg by level. Deal with it. The fact it increases the number of rays is a flavor issue.
Your 'damage cap' argument is worthless. The counter argument is Burning Hands. BH does a max of 20 pts of dmg per spell. Cast Intensify, it now deals up to 40. But, OH, it would exceed your precious fire resistance, so now it doesn't qualify?
Riiiiight.
Another illogical argument.
MM creates Missiles which create damage.
Fireball creates a burst which creates damage.Each missile created by MM deals a set amount of damage.
Each burst created by Fireball deals a variable amount of damage by level with a cap.
MM produces a variable number of missiles by level with a cap.
Fireball produces a set number of bursts.That's the difference between them. One of these things is the variable that Intensify affects, and the other is not.
Round and round we go.
Each missile represents one of the damage dice of the spell.
As the spell goes up in level, it produces more missiles to deal the damage of the spell.The dice dealt caps at 5.
The burst represents the damage dice of the spell.
As the spell goes up in level, the dice in that burst increase.
The dice dealt caps at 10.
No difference. If you want to apply a harsh reading and say it produces more damage without producing more missiles...fine by me. It's not in the spirit of the spell, but whatever.
Still amused at your logical disconnect.
===Aelryinth
[
Yawn. The spell deals variable dmg by level. Deal with it. The fact it increases the number of rays is a flavor issue.Another illogical argument.
How much does a single magic missle deal at 1st level? (d4+1)
How much does a single magic missle deal at 19th level? (d4+1)Does Intensified Spells give you extra missles? (No as that is not damage dice and would be a variable not covered by the feat)
I really really fail to see how you two arent getting this.
[
Yawn. The spell deals variable dmg by level. Deal with it. The fact it increases the number of rays is a flavor issue.Another illogical argument.
How much does a single magic missle deal at 1st level? (d4+1)
How much does a single magic missle deal at 19th level? (d4+1)
Does Intensified Spells give you extra missles? (No as that is not damage dice and would be a variable not covered by the feat)I really really fail to see how you two arent getting this.
Yawn. I really fail to see how YOU aren't getting it.
Read the feat.Where does it EVER reference a single missile in damage?
Why, nowhere.
It references the spell. The whole, entire spell, not a subset of it.
And the spell damage goes up by level. Your focus on the delivery vehicle is already dead and buried...the Intensify feat references it nowhere.
If JJ says Scorching Ray qualifies for Intensify, I'll let it pass. Since the spell increases the damage dice cap, it adds the dice onto an existing ray or missile, if you want to violently disassociate dmg from how its dealt. I don't have a problem with it...but that IS what the feat does. If you don't want it to create more missiles/rays, fine by me. Still works.
==Aelryinth
I wonder why everyone in this thread hasn't realized about 300 posts ago that there is no way you're going to change the other side's opinion on the matter.
Let it go already. James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Yawn. I really fail to see how YOU aren't getting it.
Read the feat.
Where does it EVER reference a single missile in damage?
Why, nowhere.
It references the spell. The whole, entire spell, not a subset of it.
And the spell damage goes up by level. Your focus on the delivery vehicle is already dead and buried...the Intensify feat references it nowhere.If JJ says Scorching Ray qualifies for Intensify, I'll let it pass. Since the spell increases the damage dice cap, it adds the dice onto an existing ray or missile, if you want to violently disassociate dmg from how its dealt. I don't have a problem with it...but that IS what the feat does. If you don't want it to create more missiles/rays, fine by me. Still works.
==Aelryinth
I am well aware that it references the spell. The whole entire spell. Not just a subset of it. And that would include the fact that magic missle gains more missles. More missles=/= increased damge dice. And more missles is something Intensified Spells explicitly does NOT do.
Also, why do you start every post with a yawn?
Editted for clarity
Edit 2- ninja'd by James
I wonder why everyone in this thread hasn't realized about 300 posts ago that there is no way you're going to change the other side's opinion on the matter.
Let it go already. James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Where would the fun in that be? Maybe I'm a masochist.
James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Did he now? Did he elaborate on how he was going to go about it? If not, that concerns me. James and crew sometimes "over correct"--sometimes when there wasn't even a problem to begin with.
(Make no mistake, I have much respect for them as designers.)
|
|
James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Did he now? Did he elaborate on how he was going to go about it? If not, that concerns me. James and crew sometimes "over correct"--sometimes when there wasn't even a problem to begin with.
(Make no mistake, I have much respect for them as designers.)
What JJ said was that 'by the book' (or to use his words, pedantic) RAW is no MM, SR, AA, or any spell that doesn't implicitly say [dice/level] is covered by this feat. BUT, he did say he couldn't see any game breakers by allowing a more liberal reading.
I agree with JJ, no game breakers, but as DM I'll get annoyed as hell with exactly what a more liberal reading means - this thread... I wold have nightmares, MM yes, AA no, ah SR, er, maybe. Yet all can be argued the SAME way that MM has been by OilHorse and Aelryinth. Now I understand that never either see this or are willing to admit they see this.
I would be interested in a more concise reason as why OilHorse doesn't see AA == MM using his own criteria. Specifically why DoT and DPR which ARE NOT mentioned in the feat seem to have any bearing at all. Why do I want to seemly insert a needle in my own eye - metaphorically speaking. Because I wish to understand more this view, right now it seems so alien that I think perhaps I am missing OilHorse's logic, and that could just be me.
S.
What JJ said was that 'by the book' (or to use his words, pedantic) RAW is no MM, SR, AA, or any spell that doesn't implicitly say [dice/level] is covered by this feat. BUT, he did say he couldn't see any game breakers by allowing a more liberal reading.James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Did he now? Did he elaborate on how he was going to go about it? If not, that concerns me. James and crew sometimes "over correct"--sometimes when there wasn't even a problem to begin with.
(Make no mistake, I have much respect for them as designers.)
That's a relief.
|
|
Would you allow intensify with telekinesis? Specifically the hurl mechanics.
Would you allow 5 extra items to be thrown? According to your argument it would appear it is a yes. Since you said the delivery vehicle of damage doesn't matter as long as it deals damage it should be allowed.
Does TK have ascending damage dice. I didn't think so, but I am not overly familiar with the spell. Show me where it has something like an increasing damage dice in the spell.
My own reading of Intensify is that it should only apply to spells that specifically written as "damage increased by levels". Any other spell is a no go for me. I don't care if it increases damage due to duration, missiles, rays, tentacles, puke. If it doesn't say damage it doesn't work for me.
Well that is good for you. it is not how the feat is actually worded though. Maybe it should be,a nd it would clear up much debate.
|
|
That's a relief.What JJ said was that 'by the book' (or to use his words, pedantic) RAW is no MM, SR, AA, or any spell that doesn't implicitly say [dice/level] is covered by this feat. BUT, he did say he couldn't see any game breakers by allowing a more liberal reading.James Jacobs has said how he would handle the feat, and everyone else is free to adjudicate the feat as they wish in their games.
Did he now? Did he elaborate on how he was going to go about it? If not, that concerns me. James and crew sometimes "over correct"--sometimes when there wasn't even a problem to begin with.
(Make no mistake, I have much respect for them as designers.)
Yeah, see that is putting on a slant that I am not sure it really had.
JJ said that for excessive pedantic RAW players he would rule it the simplest way possible.
I got it as: For problem players rule it simply to save headaches. For normal games yes MM ans ScR work, but really it is not a very efficient way to use the feat.
|
|
I agree with JJ, no game breakers, but as DM I'll get annoyed as hell with exactly what a more liberal reading means - this thread... I wold have nightmares, MM yes, AA no, ah SR, er, maybe. Yet all can be argued the SAME way that MM has been by OilHorse and Aelryinth. Now I understand that never either see this or are willing to admit they see this.
your bold sentence read weird to me. Clear it up for me please.
I would be interested in a more concise reason as why OilHorse doesn't see AA == MM using his own criteria. Specifically why DoT and DPR which ARE NOT mentioned in the feat seem to have any bearing at all. Why do I want to seemly insert a needle in my own eye - metaphorically speaking. Because I wish to understand more this view, right now it seems so alien that I think perhaps I am missing OilHorse's logic, and that could just be me.
S.
DoT...Damage over time...duration...not increased damage dice...not covered by feat. What are you missing?
trust me this is like the searing hot needle in the scrotum metaphor for me.
I really really fail to see how you two arent getting this.I fail to see how you keep missing it.
The fireball blast starts at 5d6. Doe the fireball spell stay at 5d6? No. It has increasing damage dice.
MM the spell starts at 1d4+1...does it stay there? No. It increases also.
But thats the rub. Magic Missle starts at d4+1 and does indeed stay there. Only the number of missles increase. Other missles are not damage die. Trust me I looked up "Missles" in the dictionary and there is no mention of damage die. And the feat explicitly states that "no other variables" are increased. "other variables", in this case, meaning number of missles, rays, or rounds of acid. They are straight out. And thats not a pendantic reading of the feat. Its pretty much spelled out in plain English when it says only the damage die increases, no other variables are affected.
Magic Missle maxes out at 5 missles. Missles, as my dictionary has led me to believe, are not a damage die. Therefore, If you apply Intensified Spells to Magic Missle, you get a second level spell that shoots five missles (cos thats the max and its an "other variable"), each missle doing d4+1 (assuming 14th level caster, since the die never increases.)
|
|
But thats the rub. Magic Missle starts at d4+1 and does indeed stay there. Only the number of missles increase. Other missles are not damage die. Trust me I looked up "Missles" in the dictionary and there is no mention of damage die. And the feat explicitly states that "no other variables" are increased. "other variables", in this case, meaning number of missles, rays, or rounds of acid. They are straight out. And thats not a pendantic reading of the feat. Its pretty much spelled out in plain English when it says only the damage die increases, no other variables are affected.
Magic Missle maxes out at 5 missles. Missles, as my dictionary has led me to believe, are not a damage die. Therefore, If you apply Intensified Spells to Magic Missle, you get a second level spell that shoots five missles (cos thats the max and its an "other variable"), each missle doing d4+1 (assuming 14th level caster, since the die never increases.)
Did you see "damage dice" in the dictionary definition of Cone or Burst? No? Why? I mean other than the fact you would not have done the search which proves the impotence of that claim. Maybe casue you know that the spells provide teh definition of what is the damage dice within it.
Now if you read teh spell Fireball you are told:
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
The spell just told you that it creates an explosion that deals damage dice.
Let's read MM:
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
Hmmmmm....this spell creates a missile that deals damage dice. Imagine that.
Both spell state that the damage dice increases. Fire ball directly (1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) ). MM less directly but just as legitimate (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.).
MM reads as it does becasue if it just said you get a 1d4+1 damage dice expression every odd level up to 5 1d4+1 damage dice expressions people would be confused if they get multiple missiles, which you do. The missiles and the damage dice expression are one and teh same. They are not separate variables, thus increasing one increases teh other.
|
|
It stays there just as much as acid arrow stays at 2d4.
-James
Difference. AA does not increase the damage dice.
That 2d4 never goes up to 3d4 or 4d4 etc..it stays at 2d4 for perpetuity.
Its length that it deals damage increases, but that is not the damage dice, that is its duration...a variable that is NOT modified by the feat.
I will come to that realization when you wake up and see how MM does work with the feat.
I just showed you how it work with the feat. Missles wouldnt be increased. you would get 5. Each doing d4+1 damage, as that would be the damage for a 14th level caster. All for the low low price of +1 spell level.
Edit- And I never looked up "Burst" or "Cone" because Im not claiming that they=damage dice. You are the one aguing that the "delivery vehicle" equals the damage dice, not me.
|
|
I keep looking for something new here, and I keep getting disappointed.
I apologize. Truly. I am sorry but the topic has reached its apex long ago.
They go from one argument which I defend against, to a second which I also defend against. At that point they return to the first argument which i repeat my defense and they circle which means I circle with them.
You should stop coming in cause it is not gonna provide anything new.
|
|
I just showed you how it work with the feat. Missles wouldnt be increased. you would get 5. Each doing d4+1 damage, as that would be the damage for a 14th level caster. All for the low low price of +1 spell level.
Edit- And I never looked up "Burst" or "Cone" because Im not claiming that they=damage dice. You are the one aguing that the "delivery vehicle" equals the damage dice, not me.
But no. I showed you how the wording is done, which negates your opinion.
You like how I can speak in absolutes and definites also. Quite refreshing.
I am just showing what the spell itself claims. Missile == Damage Dice.
You should stop coming in cause it is not gonna provide anything new.
Why do you keep coming back? What do you hope to gain from repeating the same points?
This get like a car wreck...you can't just look away.
I just showed you how it work with the feat. Missles wouldnt be increased. you would get 5. Each doing d4+1 damage, as that would be the damage for a 14th level caster. All for the low low price of +1 spell level.
Edit- And I never looked up "Burst" or "Cone" because Im not claiming that they=damage dice. You are the one aguing that the "delivery vehicle" equals the damage dice, not me.
But no. I showed you how the wording is done, which negates your opinion.
You like how I can speak in absolutes and definites also. Quite refreshing.
I am just showing what the spell itself claims. Missile == Damage Dice.
And therein lies the rub, you have NOT shown how the wording is done. You have shown your own paraphrased version of both the feat and the spell, not the actual written versions of both.
Missle=damage dice about as much as burst or cone=damage dice. Are you suggesting that an INtensified firball has 2 20 foot radius spheres?
Edit- I dont get the refreshing absolutes and definites remark. What is it referencing? In this case, we are discussing rules as they are written, so I believe, in this case, "definites and absolutes" are a GOOD thing.
