S Ray would do SA dmg to multiple foes. It's treated just like manyshot if you hit the same person with all 3 bolts.
Elemental Resistance applying to Scorching Ray is MUCH different then it applied to Acid Arrow, Call Lighting or the other spells mentioned above. Those spells all do dmg over multiple rounds, no different then sitting in a campfire or at the edge of a wall of fire as far as damage goes.
Scorching Ray deals all its damage simultaneously, yet EACH ray is considered a separate damage instance, making it much, much easier for low level resistance to utterly neutralize the spell. If it did d6/level up to 12d6, it would be a far more powerful spell, because it could cut through fire resistance.
In other words, it's like the elemental resistance rules were specifically deployed to shaft that spell, and Meteor Swarm (another multiple source spell where dmg is dealt simultaneously, and shafted by fire resistance). They are the only two core spells affected that way.
==Aelryinth
|
The RAW of the feat do not allow these spells to work with the feat. Period.
LOL...No. You do not grasp it.
As written, the MM spell tells us that:
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
and
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile...maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher
Now to me the spell is telling us that:
a)it creates a 1d4+1 damage dice effect
b)the damage dice effect created increases every odd level.
c)the damage dice effect is capped @ 9th level
That is how the spell is written. That is the RAW of the spell.
The feat says:
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.
Now as far as I read it the feat:
a)looks at a "spell" to see if it has damage dice
b)looks to see if the damage dice is modified by level
c)looks to see if the damage dice is capped.
This is the Rule of the feat As Written.
Now, as DJ Lance from Nick's YoGabbaGabba says: Let's Bring It Down.
MM is a spell that:
a)deals damage dice.
b)has the damage dice increase
c)has the damage dice capped.
So. As Written in the Rules MM fits as a legitimate spell for modification by the Intensifiy Spell Metamagic feat.
The spells in question do NOT vary their damage dice by caster level, rather they vary other things that cause the total amount of damage done by the spell to vary. It doesn't matter to you, but it does to me.
The spells in question have other things that scale by level (number of missiles, number of rays, depth of falling, number of rounds burning by acid, number of bolts that can be called down, etc) but these are expressly not allowed to be increased by this feat.
The damage per instance (missile, ray, round, bolt, etc) is always fixed and does not change, and thus the feat does not increase them. A scorching ray's ray always does 4d6, so intensify can't make such a ray deal more as higher caster level scorching ray's rays all deal 4d6.
So there is no way for the feat to work with these spells with the RAW, period. James Jacobs said directly as much, while saying there was no problem with having a DM allow them to work. But that's house rules and NOT what we're talking here. We're talking RAW, which you claim supports your view though I've yet to see how.
Dude. Free your mind of the limits of the vehicle. Forget missiles and bolts and bursts and rays...it's all colourful and GROOVY baby.
Can you do it?
Go straight to the mechanic...the damage dice. you there?
So with those silly fluff things out of the way we can see that MM is a spell that deals damage dice, those damage dice increase and can normally only grow so big..that is until we pack the MM pipe with a big fat dose of Intensify.
Burn it down man...burn it down.
Now you ain't necessarily stoned...but beautiful.
As for what JJ said...you ain't on his page brother...he was saying that if he had a group of problem players he would rule the feat in a strict manner for simplicity sake.
Now you've claimed that several different ways are all correct in these spells interacting with the feat. That doesn't seem right to me. Are you claiming that with your reading of the feat it's completely ambiguous how the feat works with these spells? Perhaps this should be a clue that the feat, in fact, does NOT work with these spells!
It certainly does matter how they interact, and if your side is to have a leg to stand on debating RAW you need to have a definitive answer here. It's lack only reaffirms my above position that by the RAW the feat can't modify these spells.
Actually I think that I did answer how I think it should be,i just would not pigeon hole someone that would rule it a different way.
MM give 2 more damage dice sets....fluff wise you may call them missiles, but there is a hard limit on the # of targets that is not broken by the feat.
ScR gives another 4d6 damage dice set.
CL calls down up to 5 more "bolts" of 3d6 damage dice .
You read too much into things. In fact I thought I said pretty much that in my post.
How's that for answering your question?
-James
Not very well but I knew you would not answer if in what I was looking for.
Try it again.
Forget the rules...forget mechanics...all that...
You seem to take it as a personal affront that there is a side that disagrees with you.
Why do you fight it so hard...if in your game your DM said he is gonna run it as I see it becasue it is how he sees the feat to work. Are you gonna fight him tooth and nail? Like you have here? Convinced that your reading is the only one?
See, me? I don't care that many more have come in here to voice themselves on the side of no MM/ScR/etc...i am not afraid of having the feat re-worded or a FAQ entry saying officially that it does not work as i see it. I look forward to the day it happens. the feat is open enough that "as written" spells like MM DO work. Should they? that is for smarter people than I to figure out. And when they do? I will finally know that either I saw it right (somehow) or I now officially call my ruling a houserule.
How I see you. If a ruling comes down officially saying the MM/ScR/etc work I think you will be one of the first to call them idiots and say they got it wrong. You seem like a guy that does not like to be called wrong, but you like to call others wrong.
So calm down. Relax mon.
|
|
Of course OilHorse my good friend... :)Yesssss??? You rang?Sorry I was implying you were an interesting and non-prickly person to debate with.
Apologies.
PS: Only ~400 more posts to go. Paizo should give the 1000th poster a prize. Then again they may just ban us all from the game...
I will take it as the compliment that it was intended as...gracias.
Still going I see.
Just wanted to chime in again and say: I am quite well known around here for finding cheese, exploits, and rules loop holes--and even I don't believe you can apply this feat to magic missile, scorching ray, acid arrow, et al.
|
|
stuffWith all due respect, James, you're making arguments that have been made already. Many, many times. The difference between the two main interpretations of the feat is that one group believes that the method of delivery is an important part of the spell, while the other does not. We should focus on proving that the method of delivery is important, rather than simply saying it just matters.Actually, and correct me James et al if I'm wrong, it's simpler than that. We believe that spells which have in their description (RAW);
"dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)"
count only.
MM, for example, has a second step required to jump to the same conclusion as above, something like.
MM's do damage --> caster level = more MM's --> MM does damage/caster level, Q.E.D. feat can be applied.
This becomes a logic argument rather than simply reading RAW, again, we are now talking consequence rather than RAW.
Our stance means no grey areas, simply the feat functions as written (RAW), without any further consideration such as delivery.
S.
I see it as not really more steps to get to teh conclusion. Just the spell due to it's descriptor language is not a clean in this case.
MM @ its core, as i mentioned in a previous post, is no different than the -"dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)"- spells.
See.
"dealing <1d4+1> points of <force> damage per <2> caster level(s) (maximum <5d4+5>)"
The issue, as I see it, is that people do not separate the missile from the damage due to how the spell is worded. These people are fine in separating the "dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)" from the "blast/line/burst" though.
While i agree that your stance is much more black/white....it is not more RAW.
|
Still going I see.
Just wanted to chime in again and say: I am quite well known around here for finding cheese, exploits, and rules loop holes--and even I don't believe you can apply this feat to magic missile, scorching ray, acid arrow, et al.
Ok, this cracks me up, too funny. Also a most convincing argument.
S.
|
|
See.
"dealing <1d4+1> points of <force> damage per <2> caster level(s) (maximum <5d4+5>)"The issue, as I see it, is that people do not separate the missile from the damage due to how the spell is worded. These people are fine in separating the "dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)" from the "blast/line/burst" though.
While i agree that your stance is much more black/white....it is not more RAW.
The RAW of the MM spell makes if difficult not to think that each MM does damage and that the total damage inflicted is a multiple (based on caster level for sure) of the fixed single MM damage. Applying the feat to MM becomes a mind mine field.
If I apply the feat. Damage either goes up by 2d4+2 or 2d4, still a point of debate. So if MM == Damage then Damage == MM, so we add 2 missiles (as they are damage for this spell). But wait, maximum of 5 missiles and the feat can't change that. But if MM == damage then we can, I'm already getting confused. Or we add the damage to either 1 or 2 of the missiles fired. But it states that an MM does a fixed d4+1, so the feat can't change that, actually on this point I'm sure.
It's not that I think it spoils the game to apply this feat, just that the DM has to make a few choices that another DM might do another way. Spells like FB etc only have one way this feat can be applied - RAW.
Just thought of another way MM + feat 'could be done'. 5d4+5 + 2d4/5 (applied to each missile).
So in summary I can have with MM + feat (against max. targets);
7d4+7 ==> 7 targets all 1d4+1
7d4+5 ==> 5 target @ 1d4+1 & 2 targets @ 1d4 (underpowered missiles?)
5d4+5 + 2d4+2 ==> [4 @ 1d4+1, 1 @ 3d4+3] or [3 @ 1d4+1, 2 @ 2d4+2]
5d4+5 + 2d4 ==> [4 @ 1d4+1, 1 @ 3d4+1] or [3 @ 1d4+1, 2 @ 2d4+1]
5d4+5 + 2d4+2/5 ==> 5 @ 1d4+1 + 2d4+2/5
5d4+5 + 2d4/5 ==> 5 @ 1d4+1 + 2d4/5
Which is correct? All 'could be' used if the feat were applied to MM & we go with MM == Damage.
Too many places where DM/Player fiat can influence the outcome of the spells damage for me to believe this was intended.
S.
My quest to 1k drives on. Thanks for the contribution.
...And in the end, that's all this really is.
|
I see it as not really more steps to get to teh conclusion. Just the spell due to it's descriptor language is not a clean in this case.
MM @ its core, as i mentioned in a previous post, is no different than the -"dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)"- spells.
See.
"dealing <1d4+1> points of <force> damage per <2> caster level(s) (maximum <5d4+5>)"The issue, as I see it, is that people do not separate the missile from the damage due to how the spell is worded. These people are fine in separating the "dealing <XdY> points of <type> damage per caster level (maximum <ZdY>)" from the "blast/line/burst" though.
I would like to point out that the reason that people separate the "blast/line/burst" from the spell damage is because it is directly listed as a different part of the spell, i.e., the area affected. It is directly separate from the damage element of the spell, and is probably why we omit it when referring to a spell's damage effect. They have a very specific location in the spell description which is clearly not modified by any damage modification feats.
Magic Missile is not written that way, though. The Range is clear, and the target(s) is clear. The only aspect of the spell that could be interpreted differently is the damage part of the spell description. Normally this would not be an issue, as the mathematical calculations for the damage are very similar to other spells, as you have mentioned and shown.
However, the wording is different enough to make the spell unique, or at least very similar to Scorching Ray. While this difference may seem small, it is very distinct in regards to the damage wording of other spells, and this is why the delivery system (ooo, buzz word!) is actually important for these very few spells. It is the ONLY thing that separates them from other spells as far as damage dealt is concerned, and has a obvious impact on the functionality of the spell in given situations (i.e., Elemental Resistance or the presence of a Shield Spell or Amulet of MM Absorption [or w/e it's called]). This means that the method of delivery actually impacts the functionality of the spell, so much so that it defines the parameters of the spell's damage. It isn't so much that damage is in the delivery system, but that the delivery system provides the damage.
Keep in mind that you cannot exchange "missile" with "blast/line/burst" because the two are not in the same part of the spell description. The later is the area affected by the spell. The former is the method of delivery. Big difference.
|
|
My quest to 1k drives on. Thanks for the contribution....And in the end, that's all this really is.
Yeah pretty much. It has been a given that the sides are entrenched and not budging.
If there is still gonna be a discussion then might as well have a reason...The Quest to 1K is my reason.
I now assume the anyone that posts in this thread is not worried abuot the ins and outs of the feat and if a spell works with it or not. They are joined with me to reach the finish line of 1k posts. If there are no takers on this quests the thread will die.
So please...for pity's sake. Join me in making this thread last until post 1k.
;)
Hey poll time....out of all the people argueing here...
Who actualy currently plays the game? (I run into people from time to time on gaming messageboards who are without a group so it is not as stupid a question as it looks)
Who GMs?
Who plays?
Who does both?
Why have you devoted this much time on this topic?
This poll is meant to see if I am correct about something. Thank you for answearing.
1. Does 3.5 count?
Absolutely for the purpose of the poll.
2. GM.
Ok noted...
3. I'm in Iraq with nothing else to do.
Understandable...keep safe.
Though...it has been a long time and alot of posts....which side of the debate you do you come down on.
.
..
...
....
GMs.
Plays.
Does both.
I haven't really.
Currently play PF
GM 80-90% of the time, play the rest
Come down on the Intensify does not work side of the fence
Insomniac with nothing better to do at 631 am.
I'm a GM-only these days, and I have no idea why I keep coming back to this thread.
-----------------------
In other words, it's like the elemental resistance rules were specifically deployed to shaft that spell, and Meteor Swarm (another multiple source spell where dmg is dealt simultaneously, and shafted by fire resistance). They are the only two core spells affected that way.
Meteor swarm specifically says "all of the fire damage is added together after the saves have
been made, and fire resistance is applied only once." So it's just Scorching Ray.|
|
Hey poll time....out of all the people argueing here...
I guess this does not mean me...I ain't arguing..;)
Who actualy currently plays the game?Yes.
Who GMs?Yes.
Who plays?Yes.
Who does both?Yes.
Why have you devoted this much time on this topic?Yes....oh sorry I got carried away. I am gunning for 1k posts in this thread. I am lonely and there are wolves outside. I wake up early and have nothing else to do. I truly see that it works. I dunno, why not?
|
|
No other variables. Number of bolts that you can call down during the spell, number of targets, number of rays/missiles, duration of the spell, depth of the pit, etc.
Can't do it.
You know the stat pack before the spell description? There are your variables that are not modified.
The feat can modify MM because it satisfies what the feat is looking for, after that those variables are not modified. The range, the targets, casting time...etc...
This is your best argument on a RAW debate.
That part of my post went over your head. Sorry.
that is not part of my argument...that was part of my question to you.
forget about the whole rules discussion...tell me why you got such a hard on for this topic.
That was what I was saying...you read too much into things because you think it is an "I win, You lose" thing.
So, again, simply put it doesn't work by the RAW. Which everyone but the two of you have been saying from James Jacobs all the way down to Ravingdork ;).
Quote JJ saying it again? Cause I think you are going to quote the "pedantic players" quote if you do. Which was a "How I rule it with problem players for ease and simplicity." statement.
You will notice that he constantly says: Ask for DM ruling.
Now outside of the RAW, you can have fun. Its not going to break your game to let the feat work with such things as a house rule. You would have to decide on HOW IT WORKS though... otherwise it would be a bad house rule.
-James
So to answer my question you think it is a bad way to run it and you must fight it for everyones game?
|
|
The RAW of the MM spell makes if difficult not to think that each MM does damage and that the total damage inflicted is a multiple (based on caster level for sure) of the fixed single MM damage. Applying the feat to MM becomes a mind mine field.
I don't see it like that. It deals damage dice that you can separate to multiple targets. Ok? Nothing in the feat says that is not possible.
If I apply the feat. Damage either goes up by 2d4+2 or 2d4, still a point of debate. So if MM == Damage then Damage == MM, so we add 2 missiles (as they are damage for this spell). But wait, maximum of 5 missiles and the feat can't change that. But if MM == damage then we can, I'm already getting confused. Or we add the damage to either 1 or 2 of the missiles fired. But it states that an MM does a fixed d4+1, so the feat can't change that, actually on this point I'm sure.
Yes another debate can ensue about the "+1", I hold that it is part of the Damage Dice Expression.
Now if you see it as I do. And the spell just creates multiple sets of 1d4+1. You see that that is the damage cap of the spell (the "(maximum <ZdY>)" of a spell that undoubtedly works). The only part NOT adjusted then is the variable of the targets (5 max), so if you spread out the spell to cover as many targets as possible, and you can target 5, then 2 targets get hit with 2d4+2 (or I guess 1 can get hit with 3d4+3).
This is why I say that people have a hard time separating the fluff from the crunch, the missile from the damage dice.
It's not that I think it spoils the game to apply this feat, just that the DM has to make a few choices that another DM might do another way. Spells like FB etc only have one way this feat can be applied - RAW.
Oh i wish things in the game were so clearly written that no one could have a differing opinion on how it works.
7d4+7 ==> 7 targets all 1d4+1
7d4+5 ==> 5 target @ 1d4+1 & 2 targets @ 1d4 (underpowered missiles?)
5d4+5 + 2d4+2 ==> [4 @ 1d4+1, 1 @ 3d4+3] or [3 @ 1d4+1, 2 @ 2d4+2]
5d4+5 + 2d4 ==> [4 @ 1d4+1, 1 @ 3d4+1] or [3 @ 1d4+1, 2 @ 2d4+1]
5d4+5 + 2d4+2/5 ==> 5 @ 1d4+1 + 2d4+2/5
5d4+5 + 2d4/5 ==> 5 @ 1d4+1 + 2d4/5
The is no possibility of 7 targets...personally I only see the bold example as being the right one. I can see other possibilities being used, but the bold one holds the continuation of the original damage dice expression while keeping within the # of targets limit.
|
|
TOZ made the excellent point earlier that, in order to be RAW, you need to look at the equation before totaling damage.
In your above example, a target would not take:
[4 @ 1d4+1, 1 @ 3d4+3]
Going off the same number of missiles, it would look more like:
(1d4+1)/(1d4+1)/(1d4+1)/(1d4+1)/((3)1d4+1)
Which is a very different beast. Mathematically it results in an equal amount of damage, but only if the target has no resistance to the missiles. The above spell would remove three charges from the final target of the spell, not one as your post suggests.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you're popping out of stealth, you'd only get the sneak attack damage on the first ray of multiple rays on a single target, since he's only flat footed against your first attack; after that, even a split second later, he sees you and can react and isn't flat footed.
Umm James? Until you guys FAQ it, Stealth does not make your foe lose his DEX vs your attacks. Only Invisibility and Blindness.
YYYeeesssss, yyyyeeeessss RETURN to uussssss...
RISE!