Quote from the SRD, read carefully now!
"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."
Let me snip out that first line there...
An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels.
Now, does a Wall of Fire increase damage dice by level at all?
No.
Do the Inflict series of spells increase damage dice by level at all?
No.
Neither qualifies.
Would it be broken to let it? Well, if you're going to add +1 level to the spell, best to just cast the next higher up version of the spell, get a +d8 and +5 to the level cap, no? So, no, it wouldn't be broken.
==Aelryinth
|
Quote from the SRD, read carefully now!
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."Let me snip out that first line there...
An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels.
And I'll snip out
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.
So in the case of MM the extra damage can only be from the extra dice and not from the extra dice modifier right?
So max. damage is 7d4+5, correct? Given that as you pointed out "dice" are what is affected and MM clearly states 1d4 (the die) +1 (a modifier or variable).
If the +1 were also to scale then Inflict Light Wounds must count for this feat as it does;
1st 2-9
2nd 3-10
3rd 4-11
4th 5-12
5th 6-13
Which if we accept that 2-5 is a "dice" then the Inflict does indeed increase damage dice by level, ergo allowable.
My point isn't if MM should or shouldn't be included it is that from RAW we have NO idea if we are playing RAI. RAW can go either way, however, I would say it points more to not including MM for example - but others argue the other way. JJ gave an opinion, based it would seem on it not being over balancing (which is true). I don't mind house-ruling, but I like to know when I'm doing it!
S.
I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
|
|
I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
Where is this from?
That we need to stop arguing on internet forums?
What else would we do?
Where is this from?I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
Ask James Jacobs in OT forums right here on Paizo.com
|
|
Ask James Jacobs in OT forums right here on Paizo.comWhere is this from?I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
Thanks, it does read that way RAW. But as said it isn't unbalancing for those who choose to take a more liberal view of the feat.
S.
|
Ask James Jacobs in OT forums right here on Paizo.comWhere is this from?I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!Thanks, it does read that way RAW. But as said it isn't unbalancing for those who choose to take a more liberal view of the feat.
S.
The bolded part speaks to me.
The feat is obviously intended for the Fireballs/Lightning Bolts of the Spell world.
I just find that saying that it is the ONLY way it fits is narrow and limiting.
In reading the feat with a more open mind you can easily see that spell like MM and ScR do fit the criteria.
|
|
What would be broken if I just allowed Intensify to add 5 to all level caps?Let's put it this way, If I don't see a change as enhancing the game, that's reaason enough to veto it.
Is making a player happy enough of a game enhancer?
Really by the time the feat is usable on spells they are losing their potency anyway. Letting them keep utility in old resources can amke them happy.
|
|
Is making a player happy enough of a game enhancer?.I can make Mr. Munchkin happy by acceding to every desire he asks for. It might spoil the game for others though. The problem with the rule change is that you have to examine ALL the doors that it opens. It doesn't just impact the first level, or second level spells, it impacts EVERYTHING up to eighth level.
You want to keep your world a place where the spellcasters don't turn the noncasters to Doctor Who style Companions and cheerleaders? Being brutally strict on magic is the only way and that means erring on the side of the conservative.
Why does he have to be a munchkin to ask for the feat to be working on all spells?
Imediately you are closing yourself off from discussion with the player since you have a predetermined mindset heading into the discussion.
So nobody has a specific situation where allowing Intensify to apply to all level caps is overpowered?
Honestly, if nobody on the boards can come up with even a SINGLE spell that is too powerful when Intensified, I'm not really worried about my players abusing it either.
The full quote:
James Jacobs[/url]]If you're looking for me to step in and stop your argument... go ahed and use the following quote:
Intensified Spell does NOT in and of itself increase the damage dice for spells. It merely increases the level cap at which your spell stops accruing damage dice. And it doesn't meantion "Hit Dice" at all—it only mentions "level." Which equates to Caster Level.Magic missile normally stops at CL 9th. An Intensified magic missile increases this by 5 levels, to CL 14th. You gain one more missile every odd level—6 missiles at CL 11th, and 7 missiles at CL 13th. Even though this caps your spell's advancement at 14th level... you don't get squat for even levels, so that level's effectively wasted.
Scorching Ray normally stops at 11th level. An Intensified scorching ray stops at 16th level. Thus, at 15th level, you can fire four rays... and that's it.
Intensified Spell is not efficient when applied to spells like scorching ray or magic missile. You're better off applying it to spells that do damage as one die per level, such as fireball, lightning bolt, or cone of cold.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!
Honestly, if nobody on the boards can come up with even a SINGLE spell that is too powerful when Intensified, I'm not really worried about my players abusing it either.I'm not sure how many people have really bothered to look for you to be honest.
I'll throw out divine favor as a candidate for an edge case. Also as a case of needing to specify for these extra spells what '5 more levels' means.
-James
I see what you mean. An Intensified Divine Favor would cap at a +4 bonus for caster levels 12-14, I think -- and that doesn't seem overpowered.
Ask James Jacobs in OT forums right here on Paizo.comWhere is this from?I retract my concession. Turns out that I was correct by RAW.
If I had a group that included strict "RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players, though... I'd say that Intensified Spell ONLY works with spells like fireball that have damage dice per level. Keeps things simple, and when you have players who intentionally enjoy overcomplicating things, keeping rules simple is good!Thanks, it does read that way RAW. But as said it isn't unbalancing for those who choose to take a more liberal view of the feat.
S.
Oh yeah I'd have no problems allowing it in my home campaign, Its just other posters and I argued whether it was RAW or not
Yeah. I took it as, "Intensified Spells wouldnt be game-breaking to allow with MM, and I'd allow it in my games, However a strict reading of the written rules would probably not allow it."
Which has been my stance all along.
Edit-Which is why I only quoted the only part that I did. I only ever claimed to explain how the feat worked by RAW. JJ explained that if he had a group that was serious about only used RAW, it wouldnt work. So once again, RAW, magic missle cant be intensified.
|
|
Edit-Which is why I only quoted the only part that I did. I only ever claimed to explain how the feat worked by RAW. JJ explained that if he had a group that was serious about only used RAW, it wouldnt work. So once again, RAW, magic missle cant be intensified.
We shall agree to disagree.
MM does not explicitly say 1d4+1 damage/2 level...it is fully inferred through the # of missiles increasing. It is still there but a pedantic player will not see it that way.
This is why I read his ""RULES AS WRITTEN" pedantic players" as a derogatory comment, than just a neutral statement. It is not spelled out all clean and clear for them so they will not want it allowed.
For those that are not as formal and strict the reading of the feat allows MM. RaW.
This is why the feat would need to be cleaned up as far as the wordage goes if it is to NOT allow MM.
And that was all I was arguing as well. I'm more of a 'screw the rules I'm the DM' in actual play. But I like to have them set down clearly.
That's good to know. I've been unfortunate enough to have GMs who will play like the first part of your post, but not do the essential thing mentioned in the second part of your post.
Essentially, mid-game game changers. Few things piss me off more.
Yeah, I knew people would misunderstand if I didn't add that last part. :) I try to avoid fiating things as much as possible, but sometimes you gotta just wing it.
I fully understand the necessity of it when rules don't cover a given situation, or the desire to change the rules when a particular group isn't fond of those that have been established before, provided everything is clear to all in the beginning. As I said before, it's only when such things are not clearly stated (or not stated at all) that problems generally arise.
I'm glad you clarified your post in the manner you did. If you hadn't, I might have "misunderstood," as you say, and made a fuss about it.
Now I can go and be fussy somewhere else. ;P
|
|
Dude. Be serious, stop being a clown. AA does not have increasing damage dice. Pure and simple. It has increasing duration. That is it.
I think he is being serious.
The feat doesn't state any temporal component. AA does 2d4/round + 1 round/3 levels. If we ignore the time it takes to deal the damage (as the feat doesn't say anything about this either way) then we have;
3rd level 2d4
6th level 4d4
9th level 6d6
.
.
.
18th level 14d4
This would seem, if we remove the time component, to progress damage by level as the feat requires.
Now don't get snarky, stop, read, and think. This seems very similar to MM of;
1st level 1d4+1
3rd level 2d4+2
5th level 3d4+3
7th level 4d4+4
9th level 5d4+5
Based on the point you made that the method of delivering the damage is immaterial (i.e. missiles) it's the SPELL that counts. We can say that ultimately MM at 9th level caster does 5d4+5 and AA at 9th level caster does 9d4. Where exactly is the difference - if we remove the delivery method (missiles in one case and rounds in another).
Now if you can show me in the feat where the damage is required to be done within 1 round I'll happily admit I was wrong.
Again this highlights the confusion that the feat causes if you read beyond dice/level, meaning fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc.
In my game at least I don't want to have to rule on every spell that some player feels it should apply to. By using JJ's 'pedantic' RAW I'm covered. Some DM's don't mind the extra thinking, I personally hate thinking :)
S.
Thats why I stick with the "problem player pendantic RAW-only" way of thinking. Sure it might not be game breaking to allow Intensified Spells work with MM, but then you got to consider Acid Arrow and Create Pit. Not game breaking either, but starting to stretch the feat beyond what it was intended. Then a 5 years down the road, when Ultimate Magic 17 or whathaveyou comes out, there will be some spell that completely breaks the Intensified Spell feat*. Better to just nip it in the bud by being RAW about it now.
*See also Locate City bomb
|
|
Yes it does. A 10th level caster will do more damage with AA than a 5th level caster. It gets more damage from its longer duration.
Bold part says it all. It will deal more damage because it has a longer duration, not because it has increasing damage dice.
It is a DoT spell not a DPR one.
Who does more damage, on average, in the first round with AA, the 5th level caster or the 10th? Neither. It is the same isn't it? 2d4.
|
|
Yes it does. A 10th level caster will do more damage with AA than a 5th level caster. It gets more damage from its longer duration.Bold part says it all. It will deal more damage because it has a longer duration, not because it has increasing damage dice.
It is a DoT spell not a DPR one.
Who does more damage, on average, in the first round with AA, the 5th level caster or the 10th? Neither. It is the same isn't it? 2d4.
Very much like MM does more damage due to more missiles NOT due to any given MM increasing in damage - they all do 1d4+1. I'm failing amazingly to see you train of thought here.
Where in the feat does it negate spells that have increased damage from duration?
I think people are just showing the can of worms this opens. You are now arguing as hard that AA doesn't work as we argue that MM doesn't. Is that irony?
No offense intended,
S.
The person who can't distinguish between damage increasing and duration increasing needs to check the rules.
How much damage did I take this round?
Same as last round.
And next round?
Same as this round.
Does the damage ever go up?
No.
Oh. Damage remains the same, then?
Yep.
Would it be broken to apply it? Likely not. Does it work as RAW? No. Does MM work as RAW...yes. You have to literally ignore the language of the feat to NOT let MM work.
As for the Pit spell...that's kinda like arguing that you can intensify a Wall spell, or a Summon spell. It doesn't do damage unless someone falls into it...it doesn't actually 'produce damage' in ANY form. i.e. it doesn't have a delivery vehicle. Saying it creates a deeper hole is like saying a Wall of Stone summoned to fall over on things creates more damage because it's bigger with levels...
He put in 'pedantic', which is a short hand way of saying 'whiny complaining rules lawyers'. In other words, if you want to take the absolute most restrictive interpretation and are going to worry it to death like a dog chewing on a bone, "yep, no MM for Intensify, you're right, now shut up about it and go away so I don't have to listen to you complain more". You basically have to interpret the feat in the worst way possible to do that.
Is it RAW? No more then MM being allowed. People tend to confuse RAW and 'most restrictive'...they are not the same thing.
===Aelryinth
|
|
S. said stuff
I got the idea of what he is talking about but really the damage dice is not increasing. It stays at 2d4, it only deals it over a period of time.
Round 1: 2d4..round 2: 2d4...round 3: 2d4...
Sure you will have done a total of 6d4 in that time but it is not the you have done 6d4, you have done 2d4 in 3 consecutive rounds.
You can admit whatever yo wish Stefan. In your reading Wall of Fire is legitimate for Intensify cause it can deal 1d6+level every round it is active.
The delivery method for AA is the magical acid arrow, not the rounds.
Read the Feat...it only works for spells that increase damage dice.
Wall of Fire is +1/level, it doesn't have increased damage dice.
===Aelryinth
oh. Well, by that rule SUMMON MONSTER and PLANAR ALLY qualifies. So does HEAT METAL, Blade Barrier, Flaming Weapon, and Evard's Tentacles! YAY!
===Aelryinth
|
|
Yes it does. A 10th level caster will do more damage with AA than a 5th level caster. It gets more damage from its longer duration.Bold part says it all. It will deal more damage because it has a longer duration, not because it has increasing damage dice.
It is a DoT spell not a DPR one.
Who does more damage, on average, in the first round with AA, the 5th level caster or the 10th? Neither. It is the same isn't it? 2d4.
Very much like MM does more damage due to more missiles NOT due to any given MM increasing in damage - they all do 1d4+1. I'm failing amazingly to see you train of thought here.
Where in the feat does it negate spells that have increased damage from duration?
I think people are just showing the can of worms this opens. You are now arguing as hard that AA doesn't work as we argue that MM doesn't. Is that irony?
No offense intended,
S.
I just actually replied to this kind of post.
The burst, cone, missiles, arrow, ray....the thing that DEALS the damage is the vehicle. In MM the missiles ARE the damage. Missiles == Damage. The spell increases missiles and thus increases damage.
AA does not increase the damage dice of the arrow. Not one little bit.
We know the feat workd on increased damage dice spells.
MM gets it Damage Dice increased becasue it gets more missiles, which as already shown is the damage.
Teh feat does not modify any other part of a spell, it interacts with no other part of a spell.
So AA does not work because it is not the damage dice that is modified, it is the damage duration.
i guess it is irony cause you are fighting for AA as hard as I fought for MM.
|
|
The burst, cone, missiles, arrow, ray....the thing that DEALS the damage is the vehicle. In MM the missiles ARE the damage. Missiles == Damage.MM gets it Damage Dice increased becasue it gets more missiles, which as already shown is the damage.
AA does not increase the damage dice of the arrow. Not one little bit.
So a single MM is damage and not the vehicle of damage? Yet a single fireball is not damage itself but rather the vehicle of damage. Er, I think you may have to explain this to me.
Using your notation;
Missiles == Damage
Fireball =/= Damage
You actually haven't 'shown' anything, you said Missiles == Damage and then went on to say this statement therefore proves that Missiles == Damage. I work in science and my job would be FAR easier if this were how you went about proving something.
Isn't it also correct to say that a Magic Missile does Damage rather than a Magic Missile is Damage? Else we can then logically conclude ALL damage is a Missile, right?
And level in no way effects the damage of a MM, it's 1d4+1, fixed, set in stone, etc. At any time anyone can tell me the damage a MM does without any prior knowledge of caster level, unlike FB. Caster level in MM is only important if you wish to know the number of missiles...
Again, the point being that under the idea that a spell need only have a damage output that increase with level and a cap for the feat to apply leads to situations that require DM Fiat.
S.
I'm of the opinion that intensified spell effects neither acid arrow or magic missile, for what it's worth.