REJOICE! Empower spells DOES increase static bonuses!

[Ravingdork]

NEW FAQ UPDATES!!!

If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

—Sean K Reynolds, yesterday

I am personally quite thrilled with the reversal of the old ruling (which stated, unofficially, that the static modifiers were not included in the calculation). However, I am quite interested in hearing whether or not you believe this new, official FAQ entry is a good thing.

Discuss.

[Hyperion-Sanctum]

Ravingdork wrote:

NEW FAQ UPDATES!!!

If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

—Sean K Reynolds, yesterday

I am personally quite thrilled with the reversal of the old ruling (which stated unofficially, that the static modifiers were not included in the calculation). However, I am quite interested in hearing whether or not you believe this new, official FAQ entry is a good thing.

Discuss.

i always thought it should... I'm a fan

[Quandary]

Yeah, this is the good ruling we have been waiting for :-)
I´m sure there´s some munchkin combination that will leverage this in some dubious way,
but I will put that up more to ´free´ meta-magic and related tricks rather than Empower Spell itself.
Yeah for FAQ/Errata!

[Kain Gallant]

Makes sense to me. Of course, I've always thought Empower came into effect after you got the final total after rolling and added bonuses. So, I guess that just reinforced my position.

[Shar Tahl]

That's how we've always saw it as, a 50% total boost in the spell numerical effect. I guess we have been doing it wrong until now :P

[james maissen]

Ravingdork wrote:

I am personally quite thrilled with the reversal of the old ruling (which stated, unofficially, that the static modifiers were not included in the calculation). However, I am quite interested in hearing whether or not you believe this new, official FAQ entry is a good thing.

Discuss.

It's always been that way. Just some regions of the country propagated an ignoring of the old 3e PhB that spelled it out... and with the concrete evidence not in the SRD used PF as a means of continuing it.

Nice that they've left it. As to 'issues' I'll second the other poster that the problems, if any, aren't with empower, but rather all the add-ons in PF.

But there's still issues of what is tied with the spell and what is tied with the delivery. For example if an arcane trickster sneak attacks with a fireball what is halved on a save? If a ranged touch spell is empowered are bonuses from point blank shot and the like empowered?

-James

[Davor]

My Half-Orc Sorcerer just found his next feat choice.

Or Metamagic Rod choice. >_>

[Verse]

And there was much rejoicing!

[wraithstrike]

Ravingdork wrote:

NEW FAQ UPDATES!!!

If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

—Sean K Reynolds, yesterday

I am personally quite thrilled with the reversal of the old ruling (which stated, unofficially, that the static modifiers were not included in the calculation). However, I am quite interested in hearing whether or not you believe this new, official FAQ entry is a good thing.

Discuss.

My houserule is no longer a houserule, nice. :)

[Beckett]

Excellent (re)decision.

[Creighton Broadhurst]

Beckett wrote:

Excellent (re)decision.

If nothing else it makes the calculation easier and speeds up game play. It is a Good Thing.

[Maddigan]

Ravingdork wrote:

NEW FAQ UPDATES!!!

If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

—Sean K Reynolds, yesterday

I am personally quite thrilled with the reversal of the old ruling (which stated, unofficially, that the static modifiers were not included in the calculation). However, I am quite interested in hearing whether or not you believe this new, official FAQ entry is a good thing.

Discuss.

I read this yesterday as well. I think I will use it. But only for the variable numeric portion of the spell, not for additional damage added by abilities like the Dragon Sorcerer Bloodline or the Evocation Wizard Intense Spells.

It does improve cure spells, which are far behind offense spells right now. Even a Mass Cure Light Wounds with an Empower Greater Metamagic Rod does not come close to healing an Empowered Caustic Eruption or Delayed Blast Fire cast by a Red Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer. This will make the cure spells more attractive to use with metamagic feats. Empowering a 4d8 spell to 6d8 isn't the most attractive way to spend an Empower Feat, but Empowering the flat numeric portion would make it moreso.

How are some of you going to play it? You going to Empower everything including the Sorcerer Bloodline bonus or Evocation Specialist bonus or the static numeric portion of the spell?

[Alakqualyn]

Cheers

[Razz]

It says variable, numeric effects of an empowered SPELL, which sounds to me like only numeric effects from the spell itself, not enhanced by other modifiers. At least it's how I interpret it.

[The Wraith]

I only have to say, in this way Maximize Spell will definitely go the way of the dodo (same as Enlarge Spell vs. Reach Spell... which makes Enlarge useful ONLY for Long range spells).

Spoiler:

Empowered CSW (CL 15°): (3d8+15)x1,5 -> min. 27 hp, max. 58 hp, avg. 42 hp; 5th-level spell slot
Maximized CSW (CL 15°): 39 hp ; 6th-level spell slot

Oh, well, not that Maximize was a good feat anyway. But still...

[Ravingdork]

Maddigan wrote:

How are some of you going to play it? You going to Empower everything including the Sorcerer Bloodline bonus or Evocation Specialist bonus or the static numeric portion of the spell?

I believe a lot of those abilities modify the spell, but the added bonus is still considered part of the spell, so we include those in the calculations in my games. It gives the blasters a much needed leg up and makes those bonus damage abilities more worthwhile and fun.

The Wraith wrote:

I only have to say, in this way Maximize Spell will definitely go the way of the dodo (same as Enlarge Spell vs. Reach Spell... which makes Enlarge useful ONLY for Long range spells).

** spoiler omitted **

Oh, well, not that Maximize was a good feat anyway. But still...

I don't think so. Maximize still remains good on a number of other types of spells, namely those that don't use static numbers (like fireball). It's often nice to know exactly what you are going to get.

[Epic Meepo]

It's nice to see Empower Spell getting a bit more useful, so I don't mind that ruling.

The ruling that strikes me as a bit off is the Quicken Spell ruling. Somehow, they've ruled that a casting time of 1 round isn't longer than a casting time of 1 full-round action, even though a 1-round spell takes until the beginning of your next turn to cast and a 1-full-round-action spell takes until the end of your full-round action during your current turn.

A ruling which makes it possible to quicken things like summon monster spells, which, frankly, seems to go against the entire reason those spells were made 1-round spells in the first place.

[Gentleman]

This would work on the Draconic Bloodline's - Bloodline Arcana, right? +1 damage per die in damage spells of a specific element.

His empowered scorching rays are going to do ridiculous damage.

Edit: While I'm at it, how exactly do you count empowered? Does 4d6+4 become 6d6+6, or do you take the result of 4d6+4 * 1.5?

[james maissen]

Gentleman wrote:

Edit: While I'm at it, how exactly do you count empowered? Does 4d6+4 become 6d6+6, or do you take the result of 4d6+4 * 1.5?

You take the result and multiply by 1.5 (rounding down).

-James

[magnuskn]

Nice! Now, I hope we'll get FAQ entries for Ultimate Magic soon. :p

[minneyar]

Epic Meepo wrote:

The ruling that strikes me as a bit off is the Quicken Spell ruling. Somehow, they've ruled that a casting time of 1 round isn't longer than a casting time of 1 full-round action

It's not:

d20pfsrd.org wrote:

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

In other words, if a spell's casting time is "1 round", it only takes your character a full-round action to cast it. The difference between that and a casting time of "1 full-round action" is that the effect of the spell doesn't occur until just before the beginning of your next round.

[james maissen]

minneyar wrote:

In other words, if a spell's casting time is "1 round", it only takes your character a full-round action to cast it. The difference between that and a casting time of "1 full-round action" is that the effect of the spell doesn't occur until just before the beginning of your next round.

More than that.

A spell with 1 round casting time can be disrupted after the caster's turn and before the start of the caster's next turn.

The ruling is that the quicken spell feat is missing that it means spells that "take more actions to cast than a full-round action cannot be quickened" rather than "takes more than"..

Obviously a 1 round casting time spell "takes more than" what it takes to cast a full-round action casting time spell. It's just that both take the same amount of actions.

Frankly it's more a West coast reading of it, but as long as they've come down one way or the other it doesn't really matter. It was the variation that was the real problem.. stemming from the wording mind you, which I wish that they would update for clarity now that they've decided which way it should be.

-James

[The Forgotten]

The Wraith wrote:

I only have to say, in this way Maximize Spell will definitely go the way of the dodo (same as Enlarge Spell vs. Reach Spell... which makes Enlarge useful ONLY for Long range spells).

** spoiler omitted **

Oh, well, not that Maximize was a good feat anyway. But still...

Or take the healing domain and get an empowered CSW in a third level slot.

[ProfPotts]

Okay so...

A level 6 crossblooded Orc/Primal (fire) bloodline half-orc Sorcerer, with the APG favoured class option casts an empowered burning hands and does...

(5d4+13) x 1.5 damage = 25.5 x 1.5 (average) = 38.25 rounded down to 38 average damage.

Whereas with the previous ruling he'd have done...

[(5d4) x 1.5] +13 damage = (12.5 x 1.5) + 13 (average) = 31.75 rounded down to 31 average damage.

Sound about right?

[Maddigan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Maddigan wrote:

How are some of you going to play it? You going to Empower everything including the Sorcerer Bloodline bonus or Evocation Specialist bonus or the static numeric portion of the spell?

I believe a lot of those abilities modify the spell, but the added bonus is still considered part of the spell, so we include those in the calculations in my games. It gives the blasters a much needed leg up and makes those bonus damage abilities more worthwhile and fun.

The Wraith wrote:

I only have to say, in this way Maximize Spell will definitely go the way of the dodo (same as Enlarge Spell vs. Reach Spell... which makes Enlarge useful ONLY for Long range spells).

** spoiler omitted **

Oh, well, not that Maximize was a good feat anyway. But still...

I don't think so. Maximize still remains good on a number of other types of spells, namely those that don't use static numbers (like fireball). It's often nice to know exactly what you are going to get.

You can build a really insane blaster now. If I allow my static bonus to be enhanced, that will be insane.

I imagine not everyone allows the Orc bloodline. I have a sorcerer with the Orc and Dragon (silver) bloodline. When I use Empower Elemental (Cold) Caustic Eruptions at 17th level with Spell Specialization Caustic Eruption and Magical Lineage Caustic Eruption, I do 19d6+38 cold damage for an average of 157 damage.

For single target damage that isn't the greatest maybe at 19th level, but as an AoE attack that is insane. Last week I did this combination with the bard loading me with heroic finale, the cleric casting heroic fortune, and my own action. The DC on my spell is 30 reflex. I did 400 plus points of damage in one around to 12 creatures.

I don't know. Blasting seems pretty tough with as many things as you can combine it with. Then again the two-hander warrior is averaging over 300 points a round without limited spell slots.

I might go full spell. I don't know. Caustic Eruption is pretty much the best direct damage spell in the game now. Kind of lame that it is conjuration, but the designers seem real keen on keeping the evocation spells toned down.

Though I guess a Meteor Swarm with a Greater Metamagic Empower Rod can hit the hardest.

[Epic Meepo]

minneyar wrote:

In other words, if a spell's casting time is "1 round", it only takes your character a full-round action to cast it. The difference between that and a casting time of "1 full-round action" is that the effect of the spell doesn't occur until just before the beginning of your next round.

Well, that and...

PRD wrote:

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

I just always assumed that a spell that required a full-round action plus concentration until the beginning of your next turn was using more than just a full-round action. Though, per the FAQ, I was mistaken in that assumption.