|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK my brain is not working well this evening and the portion that does math seems to be on strike so is this correct?
If a 10th lvl Magus casts an Intensified Shocking Grasp (2nd lvl spell) while using the Empowered Magic Arcana (or a Rod of Empower) delivered with the Spellstrike ability wielding a Keen Scimitar.... and crits... the damage would be 20d6 x 1.5 + Weapon Damage? So 30-180 + Weapon Damage.
EDIT ELABORATED: Wait, how are you making it Intensified? For a spontaneous spellcaster, applying a metamagic feat is a full-round action. Can only use a spell of 1 standard action with spell combat.
Magi are not spontaneous casters.
|
I would apply the metamagic in whatever fashion benefited the caster most.
In this case, it would appear Intensified>Empowered which, gives us...
5d6 (base) + 5d6 (Intensified) + 5d6 (Empowered) x 2 Critical = 30d6 Electricity + Weapon Damage
With Magical Lineage (Shocking Grasp), this is possible with a level 1 spell slot if using a Metamagic Rod (Empower). Pretty good for a 1 trick pony :)
However, I prefer a Maximize effect instead of Empower, as it does more damage consistently in my experience.
|
|
I would apply the metamagic in whatever fashion benefited the caster most.
In this case, it would appear Intensified>Empowered which, gives us...
5d6 (base) + 5d6 (Intensified) + 5d6 (Empowered) x 2 Critical = 30d6 Electricity + Weapon Damage
With Magical Lineage (Shocking Grasp), this is possible with a level 1 spell slot if using a Metamagic Rod (Empower). Pretty good for a 1 trick pony :)
However, I prefer a Maximize effect instead of Empower, as it does more damage consistently in my experience.
Hrmmm, I never considered that order, but I see your point. Without the crit the math would be 15d6 so it only makes since the crit would double that. Though the answer is the same as mine I arrived there incorrectly.
Also yes Maximize is better than Empower, but Magi get the Empower Arcana at 6th level and Maximize at 12th. If using a rod it is 9000gp vs 14000 gp. Empower is a little more economical. So at 12th level you can cast the above combo 4 times with just a second level spells lot AND a Maximized version 4 times a day. That solves the one trick pony problem. Not to mention you could Empower and Maximize the same combo. OK now I am just rambling. Thanks for the replies.
|
|
I'm not sure if there are specific rules on how metamagic stacks in Pathfinder, but in 3.5, metamagic feats only affect the base spell, and that's probably how I'd run it. In this example, that would mean:
[ 5d6 (shocking grasp) + 50% (empowered) ] + 5d6 (intensified) , or in rough equivalents, 12d6 (24d6 on a crit).
If it were maximized instead, I would say:
30 (5d6 maxed from shocking grasp) + 5d6 (intensified), or 60 + 10d6 on a crit.
Again, this is just how I'd personally run it, using the 3.5 ruling since I haven't seen one for Pathfinder.
|
|
Actually it wouldn't be 15d6, but 10d6 + half the rolled result.
So a x2 critical hit with an intensified, empowered shocking grasp would be 20d6 + half the rolled result + 2x weapon damage.
That's interesting, but not how the feat is worded.
You can increase the power of your spells, causing them to deal more damage.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half.
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Level Increase: +2 (an empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.)
Variable numeric effects specifically implies a dice increase, not a flat +50% to what is rolled.
Now, for applying Maximize Spell...
Your spells have the maximum possible effect.
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.
Level Increase: +3 (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.
...the waters get muddied due to the bolded part which flies in the face of how Empower Spell works normally. Perhaps it's a special case for interactions with Maximize Spell? The wording is ambiguous here because the last part can be interpreted your way or mine.
For my games however, I will continue to rule in the most beneficial way for the caster.
|
That's interesting, but not how the feat is worded.** spoiler omitted **
Variable numeric effects specifically implies a dice increase, not a flat +50% to what is rolled.
Description of the Maximize Spell metamagic =
"An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result."
Also : here.
|
|
Description of the Maximize Spell metamagic =
"An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result."
Also : here.
I did an edit to my last post, but I think he got it wrong. That is not what the text says...
|
|
I did an edit to my last post, but I think he got it wrong. That is not what the text says...Description of the Maximize Spell metamagic =
"An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result."
Also : here.
Actually, the Maximize text doesn't include any "Special :" mention about the interaction with Empower, which means this isn't how the feat works in only specific cases. James Jacobs only made it more official in this answer to someone else's question.
I found it when looking myself how the feat was actually intended to work, since the wording wasn't clear enough. The final number you get when rolling the dices is indeed a "variable, numerical effect" of casting the spell.It could be argued that JJ's answer was only an opinion, even if he was pretty clear about the issue ; but this doesn't change the fact it concords with what is already written in the raw.
|
|
Actually, the Maximize text doesn't include any "Special :" mention about the interaction with Empower, which means this isn't how the feat works in only specific cases. James Jacobs only made it more official in this answer to someone else's question.
I found it when looking myself how the feat was actually intended to work, since the wording wasn't clear enough. The final number you get when rolling the dices is indeed a "variable, numerical effect" of casting the spell.It could be argued that JJ's answer was only an opinion, even if he was pretty clear about the issue ; but this doesn't change the fact it concords with what is already written in the raw.
To be fair, James gets most things right, but he has had to reverse himself when getting a ruling wrong before (I forget the discussion that occurred on, but if I recall correctly, is in the same thread). I personally think he got the call wrong here. Adding +50% probably results in more average damage but the ruling is clunky IMHO. It is much cleaner to just add half the dice, and resolve it by rolling those dice, adding up the total rather than multiplication. Believe it or not, there are still some folks out there that have trouble with multiplication (and addition/subtraction for that matter lol). I know a few...
|
|
Also : here.
Am I going crazy? This post was present the first couple times I checked it, now it seems the post by JJ is missing. Perhaps I should restart my browser and see if it persists...
EDIT: Nope, still missing. What happened?
I would personally rule it as effectively 25d6.
10d6 from base and intensify mulitiplied by 2.5(base+.5 for empower+1 for the crit.) As empower and criting both multiple the base damage, and intensify increases the maximum dice you can roll, not the number you do which is still limited by your level.
But again that is just the way my brain wraps around this issue.
That's interesting, but not how the feat is worded.
Empower Spell:
You can increase the power of your spells, causing them to deal more damage.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half.
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Level Increase: +2 (an empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.)Variable numeric effects specifically implies a dice increase, not a flat +50% to what is rolled.
It depends on how you interpret "variable, numeric effects"...
The argument in favor of increasing the number of dice rolled goes as follows (and is entirely legit): The spell indicates an effect of dealing Xd6 damage, where X is a variable number, thus the number of dice is a variable, numeric effect and should be increased by half to determine damage output.
The argument in favor of increasing the damage value returned by an unmodified roll of Xd6 goes as follows (and is entirely legit): The spell indicates an effect of damage dealt valued in HP. The damage id obtained by way of a mechanic, in this case rolling Xd6. Rolling Xd6 returns a variable number, thus the damage value should be increased by half to determine damage output.
(There is a certain rationale that says that both of these arguments ought to be applicable, but this argument is commonly regarded as hax. ^_^;)
It all depends on what you consider to be the variable numeric effect of the spell. In my opinion, the second argument is better to use than the first, if only because the *reason* that the X in Xd6 can be considered "variable" is because it's based on Caster Level, which can vary. However, it doesn't always vary - a Shocking Grasp spell cast by a 1st level Magus on Tuesday will deal the same number of dice in damage as a Shocking Grasp spell cast by the same 1st level Magus on Friday, so while it's clearly a numeric effect, it's not always variable (based on caster level).
(Similarly, if a spell dealt 1d6+(1 per caster level) points of damage, would the (+1 per caster level) be increased by half, would the (1d6) be increased by half, or would the sum be increased by half (if the last solution is valid, it implies the correctness of the argument I labeled as "hax" earlier)?)
However, the result of a die roll is random and therefore always both variable and numeric. Thus, the logic for accepting the rolled damage value as the value to increase by half-again is, to me, more sound.
Umm... Isn't this one of this cases where it really doesn't matter?
10d6*1.5*2
Min 10*1.5=15*2=30
Max 60*1.5=90*2=180
10d6*2*1.5
Min 10*2=20*1.5=30
Max 60*2=120*1.5=180
15d6*2
Min 15*2=30
Max 90*2=180
Whether you are multiplying the dice result by 1.5 or the number of dice rolled by 1.5 it comes out pretty much the same until you run into rounding. I tend to prefer multiplying the result because you end up with a smoother boost that way since rounding 7*1.5 to 10 seems less awkward than rounding 7d6*1.5 to 10d6.
I'm fairly sure that the numeric variables statement is partially to prevent increase on static modifiers to healing and damage in spells like the cure series, but more importantly to prevent shenanigans like empowered bull's strength.
The question about metamagic stacking is more important, and I'm not sure whether it should be 10d6*1.5 or 5d6+(5d6*1.5), but I'd personally rule towards the former for simplicity's sake.
|
It all depends on what you consider to be the variable numeric effect of the spell. In my opinion, the second argument is better to use than the first, if only because the *reason* that the X in Xd6 can be considered "variable" is because it's based on Caster Level, which can vary. However, it doesn't always vary - a Shocking Grasp spell cast by a 1st level Magus on Tuesday will deal the same number of dice in damage as a Shocking Grasp spell cast by the same 1st level Magus on Friday, so while it's clearly a numeric effect, it's not always variable (based on caster level).
(Similarly, if a spell dealt 1d6+(1 per caster level) points of damage, would the (+1 per caster level) be increased by half, would the (1d6) be increased by half, or would the sum be increased by half (if the last solution is valid, it implies the correctness of the argument I labeled as "hax" earlier)?)
From the FAQ
Empower Spell (page 122): If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?
Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/08/11
So the whole result is +50% officially.