"Intense spell" and "wall of fire"


Rules Questions


Hi Guys!

I play a evoker mage. Recently I had a discussion with my GM about the mechanics of the "intense spell" feat. Can anyone point out which rule-interpretation is right?

Here's the situation:

I'm level 10 and cast a wall of fire so that a single undead creature is in the line of effect. Here are the two versions of what happens.

My opinion: The wall deals 2d6+10+5 Dmg. Since the wall deals double dmg to undead creatures the final dmg=2*(2d6+10+5)=4d6+30

GM opinion: The wall deals 2d6+10+5 Dmg. Since the wall deals double dmg to undead creatures the final dmg=2*(2d6+10)+5=4d6+25.

Generaly: When does the "intens spell" bonus come into play?

Thanks ahead


Your interpretation is correct.

Intensified Spells allow for a higher "range" of Caster Level Scaling.

Other than that, nothing changes about damage types or spell parameters.

Since the Wall deals double damage to undead creatures, and damage increase to the wall is also doubled, your variant is the correct one.

Compare Empowered or Maximized variants.

For a maximized wall of fire against an undead, you wouldn't "roll once and add the maximum possible damage to that", you'd see what the maximum damage is and double that.

Same principle here. Thus, 4d6+30(but only if the target is in the wall/passing), you are high enough caster level and the target is undead.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Intensified spell does nothing for wall of fire at caster levels less than 20.

EDIT: Oh, you meant the evoker's Intense Spells CLASS ABILITY. Don't do that. Mixing terms causes confusion.


If you had a feat that gave you +5 damage to undead, would it get multiplied in a crit? Yeah, probably. Your interpretation is correct.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean the "intensified spell". As Ravingdork was suggesting I ment the evoker class ability "intense spell" which applies extra damage whenever a evocationspell would deal damage.

Would MordredofFairy's interpretation still comply?


Ranis van de Moor wrote:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean the "intensified spell". As Ravingdork was suggesting I ment the evoker class ability "intense spell" which applies extra damage whenever a evocationspell would deal damage.

Would MordredofFairy's interpretation still comply?

Intense Spells:

Intense Spells (Su)

Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage (minimum +1). This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This bonus damage is not increased by Empower Spell or similar effects. This damage is of the same type as the spell. At 20th level, whenever you cast an evocation spell you can roll twice to penetrate a creature's spell resistance and take the better result.

Yes, my interpretation still applies.
It's not some "additional damage tacked on", it simply adds to the spells damage, being of the same type and with the same benefits and restrictions.

So in case of wall of fire, doubled damage against an undead.

Ask your GM if by his logic, casting a spell like "flaming hands" with 5d4 fire damage against targets with "Resist Fire 30" would mean they take 5 points of damage from your intense spells class ability?

What about targets immune to fire? Would they take 5 points of damage? Despite it clearly being fire damage as per the class ability?

He can't mix and match as to when he wants the bonus to count as part of the spell and when he wants to count it separately, without pulling DM Fiat card.

By RAW, your interpretation stands.


If he's concerned about the power, remind him that the ability to double (or similar) spell damage is fairly rare (I can only think of Empower, or a Crit with a ray).


While I wouldn't mind you getting those few points of damage extra, I agree with your GMs interpretation.

This line in Intense Spells seem quite important: "This bonus damage is not increased by Empower Spell or similar effects".
While we can discus whether it is similiar to Empower Spell (But if this isn't I can't think of anything that is).


That is a good point; I wasn't aware of that portion of the ability.

Hmm. I still lean towards doubling on Fire Wall, because it's a base function of the spell itself. Not stacking with Empower seems more intended to prevent it from stacking with outside abilities (a fair rule, I think).

Take Scorching Ray, for example, which benefits from this ability. It's a ray, and can Crit. Would the damage be doubled? Sure, I think so, because it's a basic part of the spell. I think Fire Wall could be justified similarly.


HaraldKlak wrote:

While I wouldn't mind you getting those few points of damage extra, I agree with your GMs interpretation.

This line in Intense Spells seem quite important: "This bonus damage is not increased by Empower Spell or similar effects".
While we can discus whether it is similiar to Empower Spell (But if this isn't I can't think of anything that is).

but then, we have to take a look at Empower Spell:

Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.

In the case of intense spells, it's a flat-out bonus. It's not a random variable.
And the "increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls" also clearly states that the variable-numeric effects of a spell are the dice rolled by that spell.

So yeah, the main aspect ist that it's a one-time bonus to ONE part of the spell(e.g. with scorching ray, you could only add the intense spells bonus to ONE ray), and it is not considered a bonus to that particular part, but additional damage.

Lets take a look at a similar aspect:

A good comparison would be stuff like sneak attack damage. You can sneak attack with a scorching ray, or a vampiric touch.
In both cases, the spells damage is increased and the damage type is of the same kind as the original spell.

However, the sneak attack dice are not subject to critical hits on the touch attack, nor are they affected by Empower or Maximize Spell. They are tacked on on TOP of the spell, but still part of the spell. They don't do "untyped" damage, and a successfull sneak attack with a scorching ray against a target taking half damage from fire will reduce that whole damage by half, while the same attack against a creature with vulnerability to fire will increase the whole damage.


We both mentioned Scorching Ray, and it's a good example for a talking point. Sneak Attack is a separate ability, as is Empower, but the spell can Crit on its own, regardless of separate class abilities. I'd lean towards it doubling on a Crit (only on that one ray, of course).


Bizbag wrote:
We both mentioned Scorching Ray, and it's a good example for a talking point. Sneak Attack is a separate ability, as is Empower, but the spell can Crit on its own, regardless of separate class abilities. I'd lean towards it doubling on a Crit (only on that one ray, of course).

yeah, i am not even contesting something like that.

I just meant to say that damage added to a spell in some sort usually ALWAYS behaves like the spell would.

I remember a discussion in the past about Sneak Attack with Vampiric Touch:

"You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. You can't gain more than the subject's current hit points + the subject's Constitution score (which is enough to kill the subject). The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later."

But yes, you gain temporary hit points for the sneak damage you do. It's a different "origin" of damage, but its part of the spell and thus any effects of the spell apply to it...and by raw, you "deal" more damage and thus gain more temporary hitpoints.

So in that same avenue of thought, if some mechanism like intense spell adds damage to a wall of fire, and a wall of fire has the automatic ability to double it's damage against undead targets, then yes, that added damage should double as well.

That was basically the point i was trying to make. That just because something is not affected by additional modifications(such as empower spell or maximize spell) does not mean it is "detached" from the spell. It's still part of it and any benefits or limitations that apply to the spell apply to everything "extra" as well.
Hence also the example with scorching ray. If something takes double damage from fire, and you cast a fire spell against it, you wouldn't rule out that intense spell would not also get it's damage doubled, since it does "damage of the same type as the spell". In that same respect, if the spell does damage of a type that deals double damage against a certain type of creature, that additional damage also should get doubled.


Yes, I was agreeing with you :P


Bizbag wrote:
Yes, I was agreeing with you :P

haha, yeah, i felt that way but it seemed like you were making an argument against my point somehow :)

Sorry, my command of english is usually rather good, but it's not my primary language, so sometimes i misread intent ;)

Thanks anyway ^_^

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Intense spell" and "wall of fire" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.