|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey, a probably quick and simple Ear-Piercing Scream damage question: Does it do 1d6 damage at 1st and 2nd (caster) levels, and 2d6 at 3rd and 4th levels, etc.?
It is worded, though, that the target "... takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per two caster levels...". Arguably, then, 1st level wouldn't get the 1d6 caster bonus because, well, it isn't two levels... So, you would only get the 1d6 at 2nd level, 2d6 at 4th, etc.
I am probably reading too much into it, but I was wondering because such spells often are written like, "1d6 plus 1d6 for every additional two levels...", IIRC.
Thanks!
It is worded, though, that the target "... takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per two caster levels...". Arguably, then, 1st level wouldn't get the 1d6 caster bonus because, well, it isn't two levels... So, you would only get the 1d6 at 2nd level, 2d6 at 4th, etc.
At 1st level, it is no damage but may daze any creature.
At 2nd and 3rd, it does 1d6 damage and may daze any creature.
(saves reduce the effect of course)
I disagree.
"1d6 per two caster levels" =
Level 1-2: 1d6
Level 3-4: 2d6
Level 5-6: 3d6
etc.
I cannot find RAW to argue this either way, but there are numerous effects that would do ZERO damage/effect at the time they are learned if characters have to wait until the even level to get any benefit - the sheer preponderance of these situations convinces me that "x per y levels" always rounds y upward in favor of the ability working at the level it's gained rather than later.
List of CRB spells with "per two caster levels"
Astral Projection
Chaos Hammer
Flame Blade
Glyph of Warding
Heroes' Feast
Holy Smite
Order's Wrath
Phantom Steed
Ray of Enfeeblement*
Searing Light
Speak with Dead
Unholy Blight
Vampiric Touch
None of these are level 1 except for Ray of Enfeeblement. Ray of Enfeeblement has 1d6+ 1 per two caster levels so at level 1 is 1d6+0.
Normally, this is not a problem. Either there is a clause that there is a minimum effect or they are written X+Y/2 after the first.
Neither one is occurring in this case. As per the normal rules you round down and so, at level 1, this spell only dazes and does not do any damage.
- Gauss
In most cases the rules normally round down, but level 1 is a distinct exception.. It matches the wording, and other spells tend to have text that clarifies meaning. An example that comes to mind is Arcane Strike. You get +1 per 5 levels, but +5 at level 20, so it starts at +1 and becomes +2 at level 5.
DM Blake has it halve level, round up. This is not wrong as it matches the Round up logic and is fine if that is how things are done in his game group.
I don't have an example in mind right now.
Thankfully, Paizo cleaned up a bunch of this awkward language from 3.5, but that system was literally riddled with stuff like "You get 1 something per 3 levels to a maximum of 4 at 10th level". When you reverse-engineered the math, you could instantly see that (using this example), that would mean level 1, 4, 7, and 10.
Pathfinder cleared up a lot of this awkward language, changing it to the much more wordy version you almost always see now, such as "you get one use of this ability at first level and then get +1 additional use every three levels to a maximum of 4 uses at 10th level." This says the same thing as my previous example, but uses a lot more wordage.
Off-hand, I can't think of a recent example, but I know that from time to time they come up at the table (the OP's question is a perfectly good example) and we've always followed the long-established 3.5 interpretation.
As I said, I can't back that by RAW, but I'm sure it's how it has always worked and consequently, it's how I continue to resolve questions that come up in Pathfinder.
"1d6 per two caster levels" =
Level 1-2: 1d6
Level 3-4: 2d6
Level 5-6: 3d6
etc.
I agree, but wouldn't it be 1d6 until 3rd and then 2d6 at 4th, 6th, etc.?
I agree, but wouldn't it be 1d6 until 3rd and then 2d6 at 4th, 6th, etc.?"1d6 per two caster levels" =
Level 1-2: 1d6
Level 3-4: 2d6
Level 5-6: 3d6
etc.
Probably not. That would mean you have three levels of 1d6, then one level of 2d6, then from that point on it's finally two levels for each extra d6. This doesn't fit what the description says, nor the way it was ruled in previous versions of the game, but since there is no Pathfinder ruling (that I can find), then I'm sure this way is no more or less valid than what I said, and both of them are probably less valid than what Rory said.
DM_Blake's assessment is how he runs it but it isn't RAW. There is no general rule that states "per two levels" or "every two levels" is rounded up.
There are a number of abilities that list "every two levels beyond the 1st" if that is what they meant. Those abilities are 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.
It appears that this spell is just written badly and does no damage at level 1. If you believe that it is written badly you can fix it by stating:
A) +1d6 every two levels (minimum 1d6)
This will keep it at 1d6 at levels 1-3. There are many abilities that, because they can be taken at level 1, are written with a minimum damage clause.
B) 1d6 +1d6 for every two levels beyond the 1st.
This is how DM_Blake is house ruling it.
If we start using fractional bonuses to mean a full bonus then a number of spells and abilities would need to be re-written to account for that.
For example: Lay On Hands is "every two levels"
If we use DM_Blakes interpretation then at level 3 a Paladin heals 2d6 and not 1d6 when using Lay on Hands.
However, if we look at the Level 3 Paladin (Haughty Avenger) on NPC Codex p113 it is listed as 1d6.
In summary, if this spell was not written poorly then we probably wouldn't have this problem since I cannot find any other spell or ability that scales like this one, can be used at level 1, and yet does not have the minimum clause.
- Gauss
Edit, found another badly written spell: Interrogation. Again, a level 1 caster can use it but it has no minimum meaning at level 1, as written, you cannot ask a question.
|
|
That is interesting about the Interrogation spell, Gauss, in that it does suggest that Ear-Piercing Scream, like Interrogation, is simply poorly written so as to not include the minimum clause.
I actually meant, BTW, that I was agreeing with DM_Blake's (last) assessment that Rory's view (only the Daze effect at first level, with 1d6 damage coming in at 2nd level) was probably more valid, RAW. But now, if viewed similarly, Interrogation would have no meaning to a first-level caster - not even having something like the Daze effect of the Ear-Piercing Scream.
So, back to having the 1st through 3rd-level effects of EPS doing both Daze and 1d6 damage, and 1st through 3rd-level effects of Interrogation allowing 1 question.
(I was accused of being a bit of a "rules lawyer", but I like to have the correct answer, especially in PFS; working some with PCGen, where you are trying to code the rules, probably has exacerbated the situation.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to come to the rescue.
In the Ultimate Magic errata thread, I compiled a huge list of all the errors that persisted in the book post-errata. One of them was for ear-piercing scream. SKR responded:
Page 218: (Possibly not errata) Ear-piercing scream spell, based on the description, a 1st-level character actually wouldn't do any damage with this spell, but they would pull off the dazing ability of the spell. It's hard to tell if this was intentional or not.
Not errata