If I take Intensified Spell at say level 7, then apply it to a Shocking Grasp, would the spell do 7d6 damage or 10d6 damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intensified Spell increases the upper limit of dice your roll, but it does not automatically increase the total. In your example, Intensified Spell would allow you to add two more dice for being seventh level, and you could add additional dice as you gain levels up until you hit 10d6.
Intensified Spell (Metamagic)
Your spells can go beyond several normal limitations.
Benefit: 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. An intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Looks like you'd have to have 10 caster levels to do that. A spell that caps at 5d can't be intensified until then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intensified Spell (Metamagic)
Your spells can go beyond several normal limitations.
Benefit: 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. An intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.Looks like you'd have to have 10 caster levels to do that. A spell that caps at 5d can't be intensified until then.
You don't have to have all five extra levels to benefit, you just have to have more levels than the spell's maximum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like you'd have to have 10 caster levels to do that. A spell that caps at 5d can't be intensified until then.You don't have to have all five extra levels to benefit, you just have to have more levels than the spell's maximum.I'll take your word for it. If it just said "up to" 5 levels, there'd be no question.
So, a 7th level caster can cast a 10d spell with this feat. Not bad!
No, a 7th level caster can cast a 7d6 spell with this feat.
Intensify changes nothing about the feat except the maximum. So if you have some arbitary spell that deals "1d6 per caster level (max 5d6)" and you intensified it, the spell would deal "1d6 per caster level (max 10d6)." It would not change the way damage is calculated for the spell (it would still be based on your caster level) it only changes the cap.
You must have enough caster levels to exceed the maximum of the spell to intensify it. You can't Intensify a Shocking Grasp at 4th level, for example, because your caster level would only allow for 4d6 damage and the max is 5. You could not Intensify Shocking grasp until 6th level, when it deals 6d6 damage.
It really is a wonderful feat, especially given that it has only a +1 spell level. As a 19th level caster, you can fire off a 10d4+10 auto-hit magic missile as a 2nd level spell. Or use a 4th level slot as a 15th level caster for a 15d6 fireball or lightning bolt.
Combined with maximize and empower spell you could deal an auto-hit 5d4+55 points of damage as a 6th level spell, then quicken a second intensifed empowered magic missile as a 7th level for another 15d4+10. Yes, I know, that raw damage isn't that powerful, but 20d4+65 for no save (average of 125) will at least hurt most critters (even CR 20 critters) quite a bit.
BDE, I think that (in this case) the maximum in the feat description is referring to the cap, not to the cap on damage dice, not damage dice + 5. So, an 11th level caster can throw an 11d6 fireball as a 4th level spell (his 11 caster levels surpass the maximum damage cap of 10d6 normally allowed by the spell).
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a 19th level caster, you can fire off a 10d4+10 auto-hit magic missile as a 2nd level spell.
Magic missile would cap at 7d4+7, since you only get one missile per 2 caster levels. So the feat would add 2.5 missiles, which rounds down to 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I was reading increaes the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. I thought it just said increase the maximum number of damage dice by 5.
My bad.
Master Arminas
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a 19th level caster, you can fire off a 10d4+10 auto-hit magic missile as a 2nd level spell.Magic missile would cap at 7d4+7, since you only get one missile per 2 caster levels. So the feat would add 2.5 missiles, which rounds down to 2.
Actually, you can't use Intensify on Magic Missiles because the damage doesn't increase with levels, the number of missiles does.
Intensify requires the damage increase, and it only increases the cap on damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Semantics. I would certainly allow a player to cast an intensified magic missle. Might not be how the RAW is, but I don't see a problem with it.
Master Arminas
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Semantics. I would certainly allow a player to cast an intensified magic missle. Might not be how the RAW is, but I don't see a problem with it.
Master Arminas
Well, yeah, RAW pretty much is all Semantics.
If you want to allow it, that's fine. I'd never dispute someone choosing to houserule. But this is a rules question thread, so I wanted to make sure the correct answer by the rules was given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a 19th level caster, you can fire off a 10d4+10 auto-hit magic missile as a 2nd level spell.Magic missile would cap at 7d4+7, since you only get one missile per 2 caster levels. So the feat would add 2.5 missiles, which rounds down to 2.Actually, you can't use Intensify on Magic Missiles because the damage doesn't increase with levels, the number of missiles does.
Intensify requires the damage increase, and it only increases the cap on damage.
There was a huge thread on this a few months ago. I forget what the conclusion was, if there was one. I argued the point you just made. It's besides the point I was making, though, which is that if you can apply Intensify to magic missile (via your reading of the rule or a permissive GM), you still cap it at 7d4, not 10d4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's besides the point I was making, though, which is that if you can apply Intensify to magic missile (via your reading of the rule or a permissive GM), you still cap it at 7d4, not 10d4.
Well, yes, that's true.
Except that if you're changing the rule to apply to Magic Missile in the first place, I don't see why you couldn't or wouldn't change it to work as 10d4 as well. ;)
|
Semantics. I would certainly allow a player to cast an intensified magic missle. Might not be how the RAW is, but I don't see a problem with it.
Master Arminas
It would not be allowed in organized play if you're in those.
Also, would you allow it for all damage spells? What about flaming sphere? Scorching Ray? Acid arrow?
You can do whatever in your home game, but think about what's really happening if you make this change.
Semantics. I would certainly allow a player to cast an intensified magic missle. Might not be how the RAW is, but I don't see a problem with it.
Master Arminas
It would not be allowed in organized play if you're in those.
Also, would you allow it for all damage spells? What about flaming sphere? Scorching Ray? Acid arrow?
You can do whatever in your home game, but think about what's really happening if you make this change.
I don't play in organized play. lol Sounds like a song, doesn't it? Anyway, I don't do Pathfinder Society (or Living Greyhawk or Living Realms or Eberron Anything), so pretty much I only deal with my own local folks.
Conditionally yes, BYC. If the spell had a scaling mechanic already in place for damage (whether as additional missiles or increasing damage dice) AND had a maximum cap on that damage, then yes. If it was a set damage that does not increase in any way with level, then no. If it was a spell with no cap, then no.
Regardless, I take your points to heart. Did not mean to derail the thread, and I do apologize if my response earlier (Semantics.) seemed curt. It was not intended to be.
Master Arminas