This just came up in a game I'm running and I'm confused.
What roll does a 7th-level mage make if they're working with an Empowered (via class ability), Maximized Magic Missile?
Possible solutions I see:
20 + 2d4
20 + (4d4/2)
20 + 2d4+2
20 + (4d4+2 /2)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each missile would do 0.5(1d4+1) + 5 damage. At 7th level, with 4 missiles aimed at a single target, that would be 0.5(4d4+4) + 20.
Maximize makes a normal missile do 5 damage. Empower adds half the normally rolled damage.
So let's say I rolled...
Total damage would be 7+20=27?
So let's say I rolled...
4d4 + 4 ⇒ (2, 3, 3, 3) + 4 = 15
Total damage would be 7+20=27?
Yes.
20 + 2d4+2
Empowered is applied after all the rolls.
So a Magic Missile would be x 1.5 (so 7 damage).
So a Maximized Empowered spell would be 4d4+4 (20 damage) x 1.5 (30 damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Empowered is applied after all the rolls.
So a Magic Missile would be 1d4+1 x 1.5 (so 7 damage).
So a Maximized Empowered spell would be 4d4+4 (20 damage) x 1.5 (30 damage).
No. Empowered does not interact with maximize at all. You get the separate benefits of each.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level.
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.
Maximized = max variable number
Magic Missile is 1d4+1 so 4+1 =5
Empowered = +1/2 (variable number + bonus number)
Magic Missile is 1d4+1 so a maximized roll is (4+1)+1/2(4+1)=7.5 or 7 rounded
4 Maximixed Empowered Magic Missiles damage would be 30 or 28 rounded
That...is an unnecessarily complex way of doing things. But I guess 20+7=27 is correct.
This is an interesting question. First, is the +1 in 1d4+1 that every missile gets included in the empower? It isn't a variable, it is a constant on every missile, so there could be argument that it isn't included. I would probably err on the side of caution saying it isn't but could be persuaded.
After that wouldn't it be more correct to treat each missile separately? They are separate damage rolls, so if you targets 4 different enemies, each target would take 5 +.5(1d4)+1, the same formula should apply when targeting 1 enemy with multiple missiles, even though you resolve them all at once, they are separate. While adding them all up before applying the multiplier from empower is simpler, it does skew the numbers somewhat. Probably not enough that I would quibble with a player or a gm about it (depending on which side I was on).
edit: after posting I see there is a faq that would seem to allow the +1 to be included in the empower.
The empowered part is rolled, so 27,28 and 30 are only correct if you rolled that amount on 20 + 2d4+2 [or half of 4d4+4].
There is an FAQ Jayder22: The +1 in the 1d4+1 is part of the variable.
On separate rolls you COULD but it's just easier and quicker to not do it and little to no benefit to do it.
Technically yes, they would all be separate rolls. This would be important for things like energy resistance, which would apply to each missile (or ray) separately. In this case, however, I don't know of any force resistance like there is for the energy types or any other effect that would apply to each individual missile, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
I can not find where it says the One Feat is not affected buy another. Why is the Maximized Feat not used in the Empowered mechanics?
Dr Styx: Jeraa posted it already earlier in the thread.
"An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result."
Dr Styx: Jeraa posted it already earlier in the thread.
"An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result."
Thank you Gisher ans Greystone
:-)
20 + 2d4+2
It doesn't make much difference in the example given, but it is actually .5(4d4 + 5) and NOT 2d4 + 2.
This really only becomes important when you have an odd number of dice, eg, at 9th level 5d4, you can't roll 2.5 dice. Although from a purist perspective, rolling more dice, then halving the result, is more likely to end up with an average result than rolling half the number of dice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting question.
It's really not. ;-;
Empower is one of the most bizarrely confusingly-worded feats in the book, and everyone seems to have universally agreed to ignore it as much as possible. It seriously just needs an errata.
The idea of rolling dice you then don't use is a bit unintuitive, too. "Okay, so that's 20, then roll 4d4+4, add half of that to the 20, and then put the roll itself aside."
20 + 2d4+2It doesn't make much difference in the example given, but it is actually .5(4d4 + 5) and NOT 2d4 + 2.
This really only becomes important when you have an odd number of dice, eg, at 9th level 5d4, you can't roll 2.5 dice. Although from a purist perspective, rolling more dice, then halving the result, is more likely to end up with an average result than rolling half the number of dice.
I was just about to correct Graystone myself of this common misconception, but I see I've been beat to it.
Also, it is important, as it changes the odds of getting certain values when you change the method up.
20 + 2d4+2it is actually .5(4d4 + 5) and NOT 2d4 + 2.
First it'd be '.5(4d4 + 4)' not ".5(4d4 + 5)"
Secondly you can take "half the normally rolled result" as roll it and take half or halving the number of normally rolled dice. As you say though there isn't an easy way to 1/2 an odd number of dice so option 1 should be taken. For an even number though, either one is correct.
Ravingdork: It shifts odds VERY little and shifts them for everyone so I see little issue with that. The "the +50%' isn't clearly defined as the rolled number halved or half dice rolled. +50% dice works as well in that sentence as +50% rolled damage. It just says half without saying if that's dice or damage.
Ravingdork: It shifts odds VERY little and shifts them for everyone so I see little issue with that. The "the +50%' isn't clearly defined as the rolled number halved or half dice rolled. +50% dice works as well in that sentence as +50% rolled damage. It just says half without saying if that's dice or damage.
The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.
|
The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.
So long as you do the math right the min, max, average, and distribution of values would be exactly the same. I suspect the Devs just figure it is easier to tell people to do the full roll than explain how to handle 0.5(5d4 + 5) (i.e. rounddown(2d4 + 0.5(1d4) + 2.5, 0)).
The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.So long as you do the math right the min, max, average, and distribution of values would be exactly the same. I suspect the Devs just figure it is easier to tell people to do the full roll than explain how to handle 0.5(5d4 + 5) (i.e. rounddown(2d4 + 0.5(1d4) + 2.5, 0)).
No, the developers want something that works with both even and odd numbers of dice. Halving dice simply does not work with an odd number of dice. To get it to work is far more complicated than simply halving the result of the total.
The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.So long as you do the math right the min, max, average, and distribution of values would be exactly the same.
Nope. Consider 2d4. One time in 16, you will roll a 2, twice in 16 you will roll a 3, both of which round down to 1 when halved.
If you roll half the dice (1d4), you'll get a 1 25% of the time instead of 19% of the time. Similarly, you'll roll a 4 25% of the time on one die, but only 6% on two dice halved (because 7 rounds down to 3 instead of up to 4). Basically, rolling the dice and halving the result gives you a result with a smaller variance and a negative bias compared to if you roll half the dice.
That...is an unnecessarily complex way of doing things. But I guess 20+7=27 is correct.
Correct. And the only feats that do NOT stack logically, which is why they very specifically write the example out.
All other meta feats stack and modify one another normally.
==Aelryinth
Ravingdork: It shifts odds VERY little and shifts them for everyone so I see little issue with that. The "the +50%' isn't clearly defined as the rolled number halved or half dice rolled. +50% dice works as well in that sentence as +50% rolled damage. It just says half without saying if that's dice or damage.The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.
They haven't been very clear if it's NOT in the text or the FAQ. If they cleared it up in forum posts then that's pretty meaningless as those are officially un-official... What they actually officially say are things like "+50%" which doesn't seem to mesh with your thinking "game developers have been clear on this time and time again".
As for house-ruling... Not following non-binding intent isn't a house-rule. If it's was in a book/FAQ/errata, you might have a point.
|
|
Nope. Consider 2d4. One time in 16, you will roll a 2, twice in 16 you will roll a 3, both of which round down to 1 when halved.
Huh. Good point. The rounding really does a number on the distribution;
.5(2d4) 1d4
1 3/16 4/16
2 5/16 4/16
3 7/16 4/16
4 1/16 4/16
In this case, the 1d4 seems more logical, but with more dice the differences would decrease.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A simple problem has turned into quite a debate!
-Roll the damage (4d4+4)
-Divide the result by 2, rounded down
-Add the maximized value (20)
A simple problem has turned into quite a debate!
-Roll the damage (4d4+4)
-Divide the result by 2, rounded down
-Add the maximized value (20)
That method produces impossible results because the rounding is being performed out of its proper order. The most damage that any one Empowered Maximized missile can deal is 7 points, but under your method four missiles will sometimes deal 29 or 30 damage. The damage from each individual missile needs to be halved and rounded down before combining them. Rounding down half the total never results in a rounding loss of more than half a point, but rounding each of the four individually can result in a loss of up to two points.
Mechanically, the simplest method for with an Empowered Maximized Magic Missile spell is probably this:
(1) For each missile roll a die.
(2) For every die that comes up even you deal 6 points of damage.
(3) For every die that comes up odd you deal 7 points of damage.
This works because under the correct method of rounding each Empowered Maximized missile has a 50% chance of dealing 6 points of damage and a 50% chance of dealing 7 points of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you spend this much metamagic on magic missile is the real question no one has answered.
Because there's a magic book that lets you freely enhance evocation spells with maximize, and stuff. And if you are fighting incorps, well, force damage is the only 100% reliable method for killing them sometimes.
Gisher, your method is akin to taking each die of a fireball, dividing it in two, and then adding THOSE up.
As long as all the magic missiles hit the same target, you can just add them all up because it's all the same spell.
==Aelryinth
Because there's a magic book that lets you freely enhance evocation spells with maximize, and stuff. And if you are fighting incorps, well, force damage is the only 100% reliable method for killing them sometimes.
Gisher, your method is akin to taking each die of a fireball, dividing it in two, and then adding THOSE up.
As long as all the magic missiles hit the same target, you can just add them all up because it's all the same spell.
==Aelryinth
I wouldn't use this method for a fireball, because there is only one fireball. There are four magic missiles. The rounding should be applied to each.
It's still one spell, and the rounding applies to the spell when it hits something.
==Aelryinth
I think Gisher's position is not supported by rule, but it's not unreasonable.
Expect table variation.
It's still one spell, and the rounding applies to the spell when it hits something.
==Aelryinth
If we apply your method then the spell can do a maximum of 28 points of damage hitting four different targets but up to 30 point of damage if they all strike the same target. That is inconsistent.
Rounding always is.
Kindly note that if you are an arcane thief (prc name?) who can backstab with spells, your backstab only applies to one missile of a magic missile spell, but to ALL targets hit by your fireball.
That's not logical or consistent, either.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you spend this much metamagic on magic missile is the real question no one has answered.
When you're a one-armed Magus fighting Witchfires, you do what you have to do.
How is this such a long thread. An Empowered/Maximized missile is 7 damage. Maximize is the best you can roll...so a 4, then empower adds 50% to ROLLED damage, so add 2, then all missiles add 1. All that math people are trying to add means nothing, it is still 7 per missile. Also, what a waste for a 5th lvl spell anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this such a long thread. An Empowered/Maximized missile is 7 damage. Maximize is the best you can roll...so a 4, then empower adds 50% to ROLLED damage, so add 2, then all missiles add 1. All that math people are trying to add means nothing, it is still 7 per missile. Also, what a waste for a 5th lvl spell anyway.
If you take 5 minutes to read the thread, the answer to your question is there.
Hint: It involves the way you're doing it not being correct, as someone informed me.
Why would you spend this much metamagic on magic missile is the real question no one has answered.
1. Like I said in the first post, the Empower is from a class ability.
2. Magic Missile is the gift that keeps on giving, being more effective against incorporeal creatures and always hitting.
3. A low-level spell is obviously easier to put metamagic on than a high-level spell.
When you're a one-armed Magus fighting Witchfires, you do what you have to do.
;(
Rounding always is.
To be technical, it isn't always inconsistent.
But my issue is not that a rounding rule can sometimes produce results that appear illogical (like poll results that seem to add up to more than 100%). Rather it is that you are rounding using a different order of operations depending on the target. Regardless of the target, the spell produces four different missiles. My line of thought was that the most consistent approach is to apply the same methodology regardless of which target each missile hits.
But if I understand your position correctly, this situation is somewhat analogous to firing arrows at multiple targets with DR or firing them all at one target using Clustered Shot. If I fire four arrows at four targets with DR, then I have to apply the DR to each arrow. But, with Clustered Shot, if I fire all four arrows at one target with DR, I only apply the DR once to the total damage. I get different mathematical results, because the rules demand that I apply the operations in different orders.
Similarly you seem to be saying that the four magic missiles would have the rounding rule applies separately if fired at separate targets, but if fired at a single target the damage would be combined before rounding because the rules demand that I apply the order of operations in a different way. I need help understanding which rules are requiring that change.
You said that it should work this way because all of the missiles are created by one spell, but I am wondering if this interpretation is specific to magic missile. If I fired multiple rays from an Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray at the same target, would you combine the ones that hit before rounding down? To me it seems that since each ray required a separate attack roll, each attack that hits should be rounded individually and then combined. Is Magic Missile a special case because the missiles don't require attack rolls, and therefore are treated as one effect rather than four?
Kindly note that if you are an arcane thief (prc name?) who can backstab with spells, your backstab only applies to one missile of a magic missile spell, but to ALL targets hit by your fireball.
That's not logical or consistent, either.
I agree with that. But I don't believe that the existence of illogical and inconsistent rulings means that I should stop trying to apply reason or logic to other rules elements.
Yeah, I'd combine them all before rounding down, because they all come from one spell. Those .5 dmg notes are still there, you just ignore them for convenience.
As for consistency...ugh.
For scorching Ray, as an example....Energy Resistance would apply against each Ray, BUT Spell Resistance applies against the whole spell.
Just, ugh.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, I'd combine them all before rounding down, because they all come from one spell. Those .5 dmg notes are still there, you just ignore them for convenience.
...
I'm confused again. You seemed to be saying it was wrong to round off individually, but now you seem to be saying that rounding off individually is correct but isn't worth the trouble. Those are two very different positions.
Ravingdork: It shifts odds VERY little and shifts them for everyone so I see little issue with that. The "the +50%' isn't clearly defined as the rolled number halved or half dice rolled. +50% dice works as well in that sentence as +50% rolled damage. It just says half without saying if that's dice or damage.The game developers have been clear on this time and time again: You don't halve the dice. You work the calculation. If you and others want to house rule it, that's totally fine, but that's simply not the way it is expected to be done.They haven't been very clear if it's NOT in the text or the FAQ. If they cleared it up in forum posts then that's pretty meaningless as those are officially un-official... What they actually officially say are things like "+50%" which doesn't seem to mesh with your thinking "game developers have been clear on this time and time again".
As for house-ruling... Not following non-binding intent isn't a house-rule. If it's was in a book/FAQ/errata, you might have a point.
If the designers were using the dice logic presented by some in this thread, then the FAQ's example would have been 3d8 instead of "+50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus."
I'm confused again. You seemed to be saying it was wrong to round off individually, but now you seem to be saying that rounding off individually is correct but isn't worth the trouble. Those are two very different positions.Yeah, I'd combine them all before rounding down, because they all come from one spell. Those .5 dmg notes are still there, you just ignore them for convenience.
...
Which is the wrong interpretation to take.
What YOU are saying is ignore all .5 dmg accumulations. You ignore .5 dmg when rounding down for convenience...but they are STILL THERE. So, if they happen 'independently', you still agglomerate them...and discard any .5's left over AFTER you agglomerate them.
==Aelryinth
I'm confused again. You seemed to be saying it was wrong to round off individually, but now you seem to be saying that rounding off individually is correct but isn't worth the trouble. Those are two very different positions.Yeah, I'd combine them all before rounding down, because they all come from one spell. Those .5 dmg notes are still there, you just ignore them for convenience.
...Which is the wrong interpretation to take.
What YOU are saying is ignore all .5 dmg accumulations. You ignore .5 dmg when rounding down for convenience...but they are STILL THERE. So, if they happen 'independently', you still agglomerate them...and discard any .5's left over AFTER you agglomerate them.
==Aelryinth
Well, that is interesting and would explain my confusion. Somehow I missed that part of the rules. Can you point me to the section(s) of the rulebooks that establishes that rule? (I'm finding the online search engines keep confusing "round" as in "round down" with the unit of time, "round.")
Sure. Look for the language in the meta section that says "take each die and increase by 50%, rounding down any extras, then add all the dice together."
Or, it might say: "Increase the damage of the SPELL by 50%." which means all at once, and then round down as appropriate once you've got a final number.
==Aelryinth
Sure. Look for the language in the meta section that says "take each die and increase by 50%, rounding down any extras, then add all the dice together."
Or, it might say: "Increase the damage of the SPELL by 50%." which means all at once, and then round down as appropriate once you've got a final number.
==Aelryinth
Do you mean this line in Empower Spell?
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half, including bonuses to those dice rolls.
I've already read that. I'm looking for the rules, or examples, that set forth the methodology that you described:
You ignore .5 dmg when rounding down for convenience...but they are STILL THERE. So, if they happen 'independently', you still agglomerate them...and discard any .5's left over AFTER you agglomerate them.
I've never seen anything describing these "virtual" half points before. The only rounding rule I can find is this one.
Rounding: Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.
That doesn't specify whether each ray should actually and permanently be rounded off when they hit or if the .5's still exist "virtually" to possibly be combined later. Any direction to rules regarding that would be very helpful.
I'm also curious how such "virtual" half-points work with a spell such as Frostbite. Like Scorching Ray each use requires a separate attack roll, but unlike Scorching Ray those attack rolls don't take place simultaneously. So if I made three touch attacks against one target with an Empowered Frostbite spell, when do you agglomerate them? Do you just hold on to those half-points until you have collected a pair and apply the extra point to the current attack? If you still have charges left for the next round, do the "virtual" half-points carry over? Even if they take place in different rounds, they all came from the same spell, so it would seem that they would carry over.
That method produces impossible results because the rounding is being performed out of its proper order. The most damage that any one Empowered Maximized missile can deal is 7 points, but under your method four missiles will sometimes deal 29 or 30 damage.
Darn those 1/2 points of damage stacking up! I see what you are saying. Depending on how the GM feels about it, I don't think the difference will always be worth worrying about. Am I surmising correctly that the "impossible result" will come up a few times out of a hundred? Some GMs will want the values determined separately for the sake of doing it right, some will want to save time and do it all at once.