324 réponses à ce sujet

[MagicalMaster]

Pstemarie wrote...

You've got the calculations for DnD rules correct behavior wrong on some of those examples. The calculations, assuming a 40th level caster (per your example) should be...

3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
4. Inflict Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
6. Finger of Death (3d6 +25) * 1.5
9. Circle of Doom (1d8 +40) * 1.5

Read the FAQ. The value of the variable is what is multiplied by Empower Spell. You don't just multiply the die roll in these cases, as the value of the variable is the die roll + X amount per caster level. This is how Empower Spell works in DnD and how it should work in NWN.

Thank you!  Another voice of sanity!

Shadow, MAGIC MISSILE scales with caster level if you didn't notice.

The formula is ((casterlvl + 1)/2) + ((casterlvl + 1)/2)d4.  It's 1d4+1 at level 1, 2d4 + 2 at level 3, and so on.

I mean, you'd agree that a spell that does (1d6 + 1) per caster level (so 4.5 average damage) should get the full 50% bonus, right?  (1d6 + 1) * 1.5 * caster level

The whole idea is X = formula.  X is the variable that can change.  It doesn't matter if the formula is 10d6 or 2d6 + 12 or (1d6 + 1) per level or 3d6 + 2 per level, all of those have an X value that varies and thus the X value should get a 50% boost.

Pstemarie wrote...

This is the main reason I STOPPED using CPP - too many changes that no longer reflect the PnP rules upon which the game is based. Instead they reflect ONE person's view of how NWN should work. Granted, I could easily overwirte those changes via my module scripts, but why would I want to. Such an endeavor is a colossal waste of time for me - time that can be better spent doing other things.

Precisely.  Both of us would be willing to use the CPP, but not when we have to waste our time overwriting stuff Shadow changed.  It's just not worth it.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Then you perhaps noticed that compiling scripts with NWNTX sometimes changes their behavior, throws errors etc. Builder must fix this. NWNX often totally changes game, our linux geek on Arkhalia installed nwnx_defense and this changed lot of things that wasnt even documentet anywhere - we had to modify the plugin itself to get rid of them (pickpocket DC change in particulary).

I haven't noticed anything with NWNTX, it's possible I just lucked out or something.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

No I see a strong consistency. And even if it wouldn't been consistent, and even if the adding everything into empower calculation was more consistent solution it wouldnt changed anything. I already explained why I did what I did and how is this supposed to work in DnD rules.

No, see above.

WebShaman wrote...

It is not, however "utterly broken", or any such nonsense. It is just a Base Class that is centered around using a Bow. I find it to be a better Archer, because one doesn't have to be an Elf, and one doesn't have to have any Arcane elements (re: Sorc, Wiz, Bard, etc).

That makes it an easier to access archer, not a better archer.  You pretty much said "Why go Arcane Archer when Bowman is better?" which absolutely implies the Bowman is more powerful.

WebShaman wrote...

Now you are just trolling us. You know as well as I do about the HiPS Queue tactic. So Spot/Listen won't really help here. It still ends up in the queue being emptied, so that the opponent just stands there, ready to be HiPSed again. It really comes down to either giving everything perma True Sight or getting waxed. It is something that has been discussed ad infinitum! That, and Dev Crit, of course.

Define "HiPS Queue tactic" because perhaps I don't.

I'm used to people doing something like...

1. Sneak up on opponent
2. Do opening flurry from stealth
3. Immediately click someplace else (or hit "stop attack") to clear the queue and the hit HiPS
4. This causes mob to lose track of you, usually before responding at all
5. Go back to step 2 and repeat until they're dead

And that tactic definitely doesn't work on mobs with high Listen/Spot, I went and tested it before I posted it.  They'll just ignore the fact I hit HiPS and keep attacking me.  Even fiddled with adjusting Dex and Wis scores on my character and the enemy with Debug mode for different scores of detect/stealth.

WebShaman wrote...

As I never said anything about balance related to anything in regards to what you mention, I'll just let your Straw Man burn.

Are you claiming you never said, and I quote:

"As for Mods, unbalance, yadda yadda yadda. The ONLY place where this matters in in Multiplayer (Online)."

I took this to mean "It doesn't matter if the PRC (or anything else) unbalances a single player module or game because you can cheat anyway, it only matters in a multiplayer environment."  Did you mean something else?

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 10 février 2014 - 11:35 .

[Shadooow]

Sandrax wrote...


Maybe I missed it in 8 pages of a monk thread but I'm really surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the 10 attacks per round monk yet?

Its a kama monk that uses ranger. The third class is often given a cleric to piggyback the wisdom stat and provide buffs. A caveat is the ease it can be dispelled, which drastically drops its AB below other melees.

It has been quite popular on many arena-type servers historically. Unfortunately, it is a "One Trick Pony" type of build, relying on the buffs and the attack swarm. It lacks the versatility that some other builds get, often relegating it to a 2nd rate build. Most of your 1st rates tend to take specific advantage of a particular server's balance decisions, often resulting in rage quitting when the module builder decides to make adjustments.

Thats normal. I mean it not possible in PnP where monk attacks works differently but this is how Bioware decided the monk will work. Most arenas disabled kamas and the problem was gone . If you feel the same you can too.

One other possibility retaining kamas is to move kamas in the baseitems.2da to another position. This will disable the UBAB feature, however at the same time also weapon feats to work.
Or you can disable dualwield with kama in baseitems.2da (and it would not required hak pack).

This is problem only in certain types of environment though imo. For example on Arkhalia (high magic, epic action, lvl 40 focused) nobody uses kamas and those who do scrapped that character already... It doesnt pay off because of low critical and critical threat and a generaly bad weapon blueprints we have in out world (which is intentional).

[WebShaman]

That makes it an easier to access archer, not a better archer. You pretty much said "Why go Arcane Archer when Bowman is better?" which absolutely implies the Bowman is more powerful.

Better is not equal to more powerful, though I am sure one might be able to build it so, considering it is a base class, so one could mix in other classes to make it even better (perhaps even AA...right?)

No, Better is not equal to more powerful, not always.

It is better because then I can choose what race I wish to be. Because I don't have to have any Arcane spellcasting elements (which means using up a class slot, precious in NWN). Etc, etc.

That doesn't necessarily equate to more powerful.

I know that unless one has True Sight on, if one is using the HiPS exploit, that one looses targeting. There was one PW where I used to play on where this exploit was used by m0bs in one area. Only TS helped - no listen or spot or combo thereof helped to get around the loss of targeting.

I personally don't play HiPSers, so you would have to ask one of them about the details. I only had to deal with this problem as a PW Staff member.

And I will say it again, for the record books - there is no cheating in a closed SP environment. It is a given, as it is impossible to cheat on oneself by definition (the only exception being having split-personality disorder).

What I meant is that anyone can change anything in a Mod themselves, even if it is with a little override. So though one may try to make encounters challenging, balance with vanilla NWN is a pretty difficult thing, in and of itself, due to AA and WM and HiPS (among other headaches). I prefer challenging to the term balance, personally, unless we are talking about MP stuff.

Then it gets complicated.

[Shadooow]

Pstemarie wrote...
You've got the calculations for DnD rules correct behavior wrong on some of those examples. The calculations, assuming a 40th level caster (per your example) should be...

3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
4. Inflict Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
6. Finger of Death (3d6 +25) * 1.5
9. Circle of Doom (1d8 +40) * 1.5

Read the FAQ. The value of the variable is what is multiplied by Empower Spell. You don't just multiply the die roll in these cases, as the value of the variable is the die roll + X amount per caster level. This is how Empower Spell works in DnD and how it should work in NWN.

Well, Ive read the FAQ, all five of them. There is nothing that supports your and MM's opinion on this. There are several answers that indirectly supports mine. Anyway - this was already explained and Im not going to repeat all the 8 pages of debate about it again. Some peoples simply wants to see this overpowered and thus they will see it despite the all logic in universe.

This is the main reason I STOPPED using CPP - too many changes that no longer reflect the PnP rules upon which the game is based. Instead they reflect ONE person's view of how NWN should work. Granted, I could easily overwirte those changes via my module scripts, but why would I want to. Such an endeavor is a colossal waste of time for me - time that can be better spent doing other things.

Im sorry to hear that changes like empower magic calculation forced you to uninstall patch. Its a surprise because its not even changing gameplay but if you know better there is nothing I can do.

Perhaps if you told me which changes let you to this decision it could make the CPP better. But I guess you no longer care...

You also spend a lot of time spinning hyperbole about what BioWare's intent was behind things such as the inconsistency in how Empower Spell is applied. You don't seem to consider that BioWare - or Floodgate, which also did coding for SoU, might just have gotten it wrong in some cases. To me its pretty simple - when you find a perceived error, check the original source and use that as the basis for your fix. Why try to second quess a 3rd party interpretation?

Oh yes I do. I didn't before and I was doing changes based on DnD but then dislikers like MM showed up and told me: "NWN is only based on these rules, so Bioware changed lots of things to suit better this game and that was their intend, you cannot change these things because thats how Bioware meant it to be." Aka the "Bioware's intent" argument. And they are (The Krit, Whizard) actually correct. CPP cannot change things that aren't broken to suit PnP implementation. It would seriously changed behavior of the game and caused more peoples to have a reasonable objections towards the CPP. Therefore I took a closer look to the possible intent behind a Bioware's implementation of things and took that into consideration.

Funny is that now when I does that it doesnt suit the other part of the NWN community.


Anyway, thats the whole reason why I didnt proposed my own vision of how Empower
metamagic should be calculated (based on my interpretations of DnD rules - which seems to differ from others) but Bioware's based on their function
EmpowerOrMaximize. Everyone who knows scripting can take a look on that
function (its in x0_i0_spells) and tell me what has been Bioware intent.

MagicalMaster wrote...

Shadow, MAGIC MISSILE scales with caster level if you didn't notice.

The formula is ((casterlvl + 1)/2) + ((casterlvl + 1)/2)d4.  It's 1d4+1 at level 1, 2d4 + 2 at level 3, and so on.

I
mean, you'd agree that a spell that does (1d6 + 1) per caster level (so
4.5 average damage) should get the full 50% bonus, right?  (1d6 + 1) *
1.5 * caster level

The whole idea is X = formula.  X is the
variable that can change.  It doesn't matter if the formula is 10d6 or
2d6 + 12 or (1d6 + 1) per level or 3d6 + 2 per level, all of those have
an X value that varies and thus the X value should get a 50% boost.

LOOOOL. This is all over again. You dont understand and you never will because you dont want to. Nobody disagrees that the +1 in Magic Missile shouldnt be empowered according to the DnD rules. But thats a direct bonus to the dice in order to achieve the 2-5 damage. The +X per level is something totally different and its not a variable!:alien:Its a static linear bonus actually. But given you never understand that I no longer cares. Given you have no interest in CPP anyway, and you wouldnt use it even if I changed this behavior to what you do think its correct.

The closure is that this is something that a quite large part of the DnD and NWN community sees differently. Thats why I provided solution based on Biowares latest possible intent (MaximizeOrEmpower) in a first place. If even that doesnt satisfy peoples (those who uses CPP or those who would like to use it but dont want because of this) I can change it to the logical interpretation of the DnD rules. I hope that what we can agree is that vanilla behavior in which one spell calculates this, other that and third even combines both ways to produce ultra wrong result is not optimal.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 11 février 2014 - 01:19 .

[Aelis Eine]

Edit: According to the PHB it multiplies everything, but according to the PHB we should be able to cast Empowered Elemental Shield for (1d6 + Casterlevel) x 1.5 reciprocal damage and Empowered Acid Sheath for almost double that per hit.

All I can say is I don't think Wizards was actually thinking ahead but dem's the roolz.

Personally, Shadoow's interpretation is more in line with how Empower should perform vis-a-vis Maximize, but I'm not Hasbro's CEO.

Modifié par Aelis Eine, 11 février 2014 - 07:29 .

[Shadooow]

Aelis Eine wrote...

Edit: According to the PHB it multiplies everything, but according to the PHB we should be able to case Empowered Elemental Shield for (1d6 + Casterlevel) x 1.5 reciprocal damage and Empowered Acid Sheath for almost double that per hit.

But really, neither PHB shows an example of empower calculation with the +X/Ycaster level. Only one example is there and thats magic missile. But an Elemental shield (Fire shield) is a good example why it cant be correct. But that will never persuade disbelievers right? MM would even want to empower greater magic weapon (LINK).

[WhiZard]

Empyre65 wrote...

Wouldn't the second bonus attack be at -3 instead of -5 because Monk?

Nope, off-hand and bonus attacks are at a -5 progression always (despite what the character sheet reports). -3 only applies to the main-hand progression. (Although since bonus attacks do not suffer the -2 penalty for dual wield it would come out at 3 less than the first main-hand attack).

In general the comparison is (assuming +40 normally for a nice number)

+38/+35/+32/+29/+26/+23/  +40  /+38/+33 without FOB and

+36/+33/+30/+27/+24/+21/  +38/+33  /+36/+31 with FOB

Modifié par WhiZard, 11 février 2014 - 04:27 .

[rogueknight333]

WebShaman wrote... 
I know that unless one has True Sight on, if one is using the HiPS exploit, that one looses targeting. There was one PW where I used to play on where this exploit was used by m0bs in one area. Only TS helped - no listen or spot or combo thereof helped to get around the loss of targeting.

I personally don't play HiPSers, so you would have to ask one of them about the details. I only had to deal with this problem as a PW Staff member.

I am familiar with a phenomenon that might be what you are thinking of. If a PC is attacking and his target uses HIPS, he loses targeting (even if his Spot/Listen is high enough that he can still see the target) and has to manually click again to keep attacking. A problem for a PC who does not know this happens. since he might spend some time just standing and getting attacked before he realizes what is going on, and tedious for one who does know, since he has to keep clicking on the target over and over to keep attacking. As far as I have been able to determine (though I do not know everything) AI-controlled NPC mobs are not affected by this issue - if they can detect the PC they will keep attacking.

Modifié par rogueknight333, 11 février 2014 - 04:41 .

[Shadooow]

rogueknight333 wrote...

WebShaman wrote... 
I know that unless one has True Sight on, if one is using the HiPS exploit, that one looses targeting. There was one PW where I used to play on where this exploit was used by m0bs in one area. Only TS helped - no listen or spot or combo thereof helped to get around the loss of targeting.

I personally don't play HiPSers, so you would have to ask one of them about the details. I only had to deal with this problem as a PW Staff member.

I am familiar with a phenomenon that might be what you are thinking of. If a PC is attacking and his target uses HIPS, he loses targeting (even if his Spot/Listen is high enough that he can still see the target) and has to manually click again to keep attacking. A problem for a PC who does not know this happens. since he might spend some time just standing and getting attacked before he realizes what is going on, and tedious for one who does know, since they have to keep clicking on the target over and over to keep attacking. As far as I have been able to determine (though I do not know everything) AI-controlled NPC mobs are not affected by this issue - if they can detect the PC they will keep attacking.

Yes, this indeed often happens. A keen senses feat prevents this though (which turned the elf to be the only playable race on PvP servers where this was issue even with HIPS disabled). Problem is that the spot/listen check happens only each 6/3seconds and not continuously therefore for a second you will lose the target from vision and game will cancel the attack/spellcast action.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 11 février 2014 - 04:42 .

[Shadooow]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But really, neither PHB shows an example of empower calculation with the +X/Ycaster level. Only one example is there and thats magic missile. But an Elemental shield (Fire shield) is a good example why it cant be correct. But that will never persuade disbelievers right? MM would even want to empower greater magic weapon (LINK).

Some more thoughts about this that could possibly change yours view:

1: A spell can be either both maximized and empowered or not affected by either. (disagrees anyone?)
2: A spell with only +X per Y caster level such as Divine Favor cannot be empowered/maximized. (disagress anyone? - PS do not get fooled by fact that this spell in example does no damage, empower spell affect even boosts and while there isn't a damaging spell like this in NWN in DnD rules there surely will be)
3. A spell that would dealt 2 damage +1 per caster level (max 10) cannot be empowered/maximized. (disagrees anyone? -> still no variable numeric effect).

Thus. When you answer on these three thoughts. Question is. If you agree with whats written above, why would be spell that dealts 1d8 damage +1point per caster level (max +5) be different?

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 11 février 2014 - 07:04 .

[WebShaman]

Thank you rogueknight333 and ShaDoOoW, for your insights here.

For a minute there, I thought maybe I was getting senile.

[Pstemarie]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Well, Ive read the FAQ, all five of them. There is nothing that supports your and MM's opinion on this. There are several answers that indirectly supports mine. Anyway - this was already explained and Im not going to repeat all the 8 pages of debate about it again. Some peoples simply wants to see this overpowered and thus they will see it despite the all logic in universe.

Five FAQS - LMAO. There is only ONE FAQ for the 3.5 Rules (the rules you keep citing) and ONE FAQ for the 3.0 Rules. Both can be found here - www.wizards.com/default.asp - and there are plenty of references to Empower Spell and how it should work in the 3.0 FAQ to support what I (and others) have stated above. However, in typical ShaDoOoW fashion you ignore what's right in front your nose and make obscure references to other FAQs but never followup with proof. Then when proof is offered up to your counterclaim you label it as either "trolling," dismiss it, or ignore it completely. The bottomline here is whatever other FAQs you are looking at - my quess would be Wikis or SRD files - are not the official primary source and thus don't matter. They don't matter because there is no way to guarantee that the information on them is the most up to date.

Bunch of other stuff then a note about MoximizeOrEmpower...

 

The x0_i0_spells library is a morass of errors and is one of the first things that scripters look at when they need to "fix" spells. All of a sudden you seem to have gone to the BioWare "can't make an error and this is the way they intended it" camp - kind of odd considering that your patch, before wandering off track, was all about fixing errors BioWare made. With this in mind, and given the evidence presented in the official FAQ, why is it so difficult for you to except that the function might be wrong?

Modifié par Pstemarie, 11 février 2014 - 12:07 .

[Pstemarie]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But really, neither PHB shows an example of empower calculation with the +X/Ycaster level. Only one example is there and thats magic missile. But an Elemental shield (Fire shield) is a good example why it cant be correct. But that will never persuade disbelievers right? MM would even want to empower greater magic weapon (LINK).

Some more thoughts about this that could possibly change yours view:

1: A spell can be either both maximized and empowered or not affected by either. (disagrees anyone?)
2: A spell with only +X per Y caster level such as Divine Favor cannot be empowered/maximized. (disagress anyone? - PS do not get fooled by fact that this spell in example does no damage, empower spell affect even boosts and while there isn't a damaging spell like this in NWN in DnD rules there surely will be)
3. A spell that would dealt 2 damage +1 per caster level (max 10) cannot be empowered/maximized. (disagrees anyone? -> still no variable numeric effect).

Thus. When you answer on these three thoughts. Question is. If you agree with whats written above, why would be spell that dealts 1d8 damage +1point per caster level (max +5) be different?

1. TRUE

2. TRUE - The bonus provided by this spell is a static bonus that increases with level. It does not have a "variable, numeric effect."

3. TRUE - The amount of damage is static (i.e. it does not allow for a variable range and therefore, by definition, lacks a "variable numeric effect").

However, spells that deal 1d8 +1 point per caster level (max +5) - to use your example - provide a variable numeric effect. The variable is the damage. Since the value of the variable is 1d8 +1 per caster level, then the correct formula to use for Empower Spell would be (1d8 + 1 per caster level) * 1.5.

Its simple algebra really. Let D represent some damage that has a variable numeric effect. Let E represent the value of D * 1.5. Thus our formula for Empower Spell looks like this...

E = D * 1.5 or E = 1.5D

Using your example from above and assuming a 5th level caster...

D = 1d8 + 5

Inserting the value of D into our formula for Empower we come up with...

E = (1d8 + 5) * 1.5  

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Modifié par Pstemarie, 11 février 2014 - 12:25 .

[Shadooow]

Pstemarie wrote...
Five FAQS - LMAO. There is only ONE FAQ for the 3.5 Rules (the rules you keep citing) and ONE FAQ for the 3.0 Rules. Both can be found here - www.wizards.com/default.asp - and there are plenty of references to Empower Spell and how it should work in the 3.0 FAQ to support what I (and others) have stated above. However, in typical ShaDoOoW fashion you ignore what's right in front your nose and make obscure references to other FAQs but never followup with proof. Then when proof is offered up to your counterclaim you label it as either "trolling," dismiss it, or ignore it completely. The bottomline here is whatever other FAQs you are looking at - my quess would be Wikis or SRD files - are not the official primary source and thus don't matter. They don't matter because there is no way to guarantee that the information on them is the most up to date.

With this in mind, and given the evidence presented in the official FAQ,
why is it so difficult for you to except that the function might be
wrong?

I dont see that proof anywhere. The DnD manual neither 3.5FAQ tells any more than the description of the feat in NWN. I guess you will have to specifically point me to the exact line because I can't see it.

And I was of course overexaggerating, by the FAQs Ive ready I meant: v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ, Main D&D FAQ, Epic Level Handbook FAQ and of course all eratas to be sure so three not five. There is no proof in either, one answer in Maind DnD FAQ (3.0 yes but this havent changed) suggest that +1/level is not variable but its not added to the dice for that spell so it cannot persuade you.

Ive already checked this two years ago with around twenty of the discussions on the DnD forums, unofiicial forums and even pathfinder on this matter. I even contacted a czech DnD community (www.d20.cz) and asked about their opinion on this (same as mine btw).

There is no official clarification for this and the DnD community is divided in 50:50 to the two camps: those who wants to empower be extremely powerful and imbalanced and those who not. The feat description neither the example used for the calculation doesn't disproving any of the interpretations.

So in the end it turns into the question: Did WotC designed the empower to be broken, or they never meant the +x/caster level to be added into calculation? Because, if you don't add this everything works fine.

Keep in mind that the level cap in DnD isnt set. You can as well be lvl 80 sorcerer.

So, did they intented that a level 80sorcerer casting empowered Slay living spell deals (3d6 + 80) 1.5 damage (124-147) versus that same caster casting a maximized version of the same spell sacrificing spells one slot above dealing 98 damage?

Argument of your camp is that its meant to be simple, and that my camp is overcomplicating it. Of course we do because we just don't believe this was meant to be and the spell description allows a secondary interpretation which fixes everything. Thus we assume that this intepretation is what WotC meant.

 
The x0_i0_spells library is a morass of errors and is one of the first things that scripters look at when they need to "fix" spells. All of a sudden you seem to have gone to the BioWare "can't make an error and this is the way they intended it" camp - kind of odd considering that your patch, before wandering off track, was all about fixing errors BioWare made.

Nope I am definitely not member of the "Bioware cant make an error" camp. But given to the fact that half peoples wants empower broken and other not, I choosed the second best approach and just unified it per Biowares (latest) intent. Really, the MaximizeOrEmpower function cannot be interpreted differently. There is no error in it, its an intent. Intent that doesnt correspond with the spell description, but that doesnt mean the function itself is broken.

Anyway, when did you become to be an expert on scripting and DnD? More importantly, and its a question that buggs me for year, when you started to feel this disgust to my personallity? I mean, week ago I called you a troll in the other thread (apology for that) but you got me in the ignore list for more than year and I don't remember anything I could possibly do to you. All you say is that I'm not mature given my passion in this kind of debates and how seriously I take it. But then all my submissions on vault has bunch of 1 votes from annonymous new users (Im probably recordman in that :happy:).

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 12 février 2014 - 02:03 .

[Pstemarie]

I had typed something else here in response to your question about why I dropped you from my friends list and blocked you, but it was somewhat nasty and really beneath me - so...

In any event, I really don't really owe you and explanation. Nor do I need to justify any decision I make to you. I'm done with any further discourse and really see no point in continuing this (or ANY further) conversation with you. Unfortunately, you have debating an issue confused with riduculing and attacking people, making ANY discussion with you an exercise in futility, and, quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time than feed a troll. 

Modifié par Pstemarie, 12 février 2014 - 11:14 .

[WhiZard]

Looking through your three sources, and none seem to give the interpretation that +1 per caster level should not be included.

The MainDnD suggests that since there is a variable aspect to the damage of magic missile that the entire damage be multiplied by 1.5 (that is the 1d4 + 1).

The 3.5 MainDnD includes that d20 from skill checks (perhaps extended to attack rolls and saving throws) is never considered variable (imagine if an empowered fireball multiplied the targets saving throw by 1.5 since he rolled a d20).

Epic level seems to have no information of interest.

Looking at the 3.0 SRD

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

This seems to indicate that if a variable affects the amount damage, then all the damage is multiplied by 1.5. If a variable affects the amount of healing, then all healing is multiplied by 1.5. If a variable affects the number of targets, then the number of targets is multiplied by 1.5. So not just the variable is multiplied by 1.5 but everything that is an effect of the variable.

[Shadooow]

WhiZard wrote...

Looking through your three sources, and none seem to give the interpretation that +1 per caster level should not be included.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And I was of course overexaggerating, by the FAQs Ive ready I meant: v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ, Main D&D FAQ, Epic Level Handbook FAQ
and of course all eratas to be sure so three not five. There is no
proof in either, one answer in Maind DnD FAQ (3.0 yes but this havent
changed) suggest that +1/level is not variable but its not added to the
dice for that spell so it cannot persuade you.

which I meant this:

Since an empowered spell affects half again as many
targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level
wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three
missiles?
Because the Empower Spell feat increases a spell’s variable,
numeric effects. In the case of magic missile, that’s the spell’s
damage, not the number of missiles. A spell such as sleep, on
the other hand, truly affects a variable number of targets: 2d4
HD worth of creatures. An empowered sleep spell affects 2d4
times 1.5 HD worth of creatures.

So yes, there is no proof in any of the DnD official FAQ, that (+x/caster level) doesn't get added into empower calculation. There is no proof of opposite either.

The description can be interpreted in two ways. One of that way does empower spell feat overpowered and broken, the other doesn't.

Anyway, on a page 3 or somewhere there I was claiming there is a proof in FAQs. Since I was wrong (said that because I was quite sure about it, but was 2years Ive read it) you can now start lynching me and my project. Go ahead.

[MagicalMaster]

More later, been tied up in other thread, but...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Since an empowered spell affects half again as many targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three missiles?

Because it deals (Caster level + 1)/2 + ((Caster Level + 1)/2)d4 damage as I mentioned earlier.  1d4 + 1 is basically the same as 1d6 except it's less random.  1d2 + 2 would be less random still.  But all are meant to do 3.5 damage per caster level (or per two levels for Magic Missile).

Same reason an Empowered IGMS doesn't fire off 30 missiles doing 10.5 damage each but rather 20 missiles for 10.5 damage each.

Same reason Empowered Flame Arrow doesn't fire off 15 arrows for 21 damage each.

The total damage gets multiplied in all of these situations by 1.5.

[Aelis Eine]

Evard's does Empower twice for 2.25x effect though.

[Pstemarie]

WhiZard wrote...

Looking at the 3.0 SRD

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

This seems to indicate that if a variable affects the amount damage, then all the damage is multiplied by 1.5. If a variable affects the amount of healing, then all healing is multiplied by 1.5. If a variable affects the number of targets, then the number of targets is multiplied by 1.5. So not just the variable is multiplied by 1.5 but everything that is an effect of the variable.

Finally, a third voice of reason. While I normally don't hold the SRDs to be a reliable source (becasue the online versions sometimes are inconsistent), I was able to find the official WotC 3.0 SRD on a disk and it does read exactly as you typed.

As I stated earlier, it's simple algebra. As noted in WhiZard's post, the actual variable is NOT the die roll, it is the FULL value of whatever variable numeric effect is being enhanced by Empower Spell. Sometimes this makes Empower Spell better than Maximize, but usually only when the die roll is greater than the average roll. So, why does Maximize Spell cost an extra spell slot over Empower Spell? Maximize Spell guarantess that the variable numeric effect will be the maximum value. With Empower Spell you could still roll all 1s - unlikely, but possible. Furthermore, many of the spells that have variable numeric effects have a level cap.

Thank-you for the find, WhiZard.

Modifié par Pstemarie, 13 février 2014 - 11:47 .

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

More later, been tied up in other thread, but...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Since an empowered spell affects half again as many targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three missiles?

Because it deals (Caster level + 1)/2 + ((Caster Level + 1)/2)d4 damage as I mentioned earlier.  1d4 + 1 is basically the same as 1d6 except it's less random.  1d2 + 2 would be less random still.  But all are meant to do 3.5 damage per caster level (or per two levels for Magic Missile).

Same reason an Empowered IGMS doesn't fire off 30 missiles doing 10.5 damage each but rather 20 missiles for 10.5 damage each.

Same reason Empowered Flame Arrow doesn't fire off 15 arrows for 21 damage each.

The total damage gets multiplied in all of these situations by 1.5.

Ok *this* is why I wrote you are totally off and some other things.

Ill try to be more polite this time.

You are wrong. The reason why this is not empowered was even explained in the quote I posted, quote from DnD FAQ. Magic Missile has two effects, damage and number of missiles. Damage is variable but number of missiles not.

Also the 1d4+1 isn't 1d4(+1 per level (max +1)) - I suggest to read this about dices. The "1d4+1" is one numerical value same as 2d3, 1d8, 10d6 etc.

WhiZard wrote...

This seems to indicate that if a variable
affects the amount damage, then all the damage is multiplied by 1.5.
If a variable affects the amount of healing, then all healing is
multiplied by 1.5. If a variable affects the number of targets, then
the number of targets is multiplied by 1.5. So not just the variable is
multiplied by 1.5 but everything that is an effect of the
variable.

Indeed thats what it seems to indicate. Same as the fact that empower outshines maximized indicate this is not correct .

I still think that the other interpretation of this is possible despite the extended description you've found.

Btw, different matter but check how the +x/level is treated in the Enlarge spell feat not sure what it does imply though.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 13 février 2014 - 12:39 .

[WhiZard]

Aelis Eine wrote...

Evard's does Empower twice for 2.25x effect though.

Evard's in NWN does not reflect the DnD version.  But looking at the NWN, the number of targets (summoned tentacles) is multiplied by 1.5, and their respective damage is multiplied by 1.5.  So long as their damage isn't combined into one source of total damage (as was fixed in the 1.69) there is no pertinent calculation which is multiplied by 2.25.  I could make the same argument with barbarian damage reduction if the tentacles deal damage to the barbarian, should I expect the actual damage dealt to the barbarian is multiplied by 1.5 (that is the damage reduction would come before the 1.5 multiplication)? Answer is no.  By limiting the sources to damage, healing and number of targets as calculated by the spell, there is no reason to assume other calculations involving the variable are to come out as 1.5 times normal.

[WhiZard]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Also the 1d4+1 isn't 1d4(+1 per level (max +1)) - I suggest to read this about dices. The "1d4+1" is one numerical value same as 2d3, 1d8, 10d6 etc.

We are talking 3.0 rules where die rules are established.  This isn't the days where a numerical range could be assigned five or more different probability distributions given the dice one was limited to.

Still I have not yet seen an instance quoted where 1d8 + 5 is treated any differently than 1d8 + 1 per caster level, or the like.  The DnD reasoning for magic missile, indicates the number of missiles isn't increased because there is no variable affecting the number of missiles.  If there were one would expect a total effect of 2.25 damage, although each application of damage would only be multiplied by 1.5.

Numerical means a value that is specifically indicated in the description.  E.g. each missile deals 1d4 + 1, means 1d4 + 1 is numerical.  If the target resisted one magical damage, then 1d4 +1 would still be numerical and the resistance would occur afterward, rather than the resistance coming before and 1d4 being numerical.  Because 1d4 is a variable, the entire 1d4 +1 will not be a constant number, and thus the total is multiplied by 1.5.

Modifié par WhiZard, 13 février 2014 - 05:06 .

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But an Elemental shield (Fire shield) is a good example why it cant be correct. But that will never persuade disbelievers right? MM would even want to empower greater magic weapon (LINK).

First of all, let's be clear: I do NOT think GMW should be Empowered.  Why?   Because the AB bonus interferes with things like Stoneskin and other types of damage reduction.

However, imagine GMW gave a 1d(casterlvl) bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say yes.

Now imagine GMW gave a casterlvl/2 bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say no.

Now, what's actually the difference between these?  The former is between by 0.5 damage per level and has random damage but the AVERAGE behavior of both spells is essentially the same.

Why, then, is it perfectly balanced to Empower the former spell but a balance problem to Empower the latter?

Regardless, though, I'm not even insisting that said spells be allowed to be Empowered but rather showing how it isn't a balance problem at all.

P.S. note that I am *not* claiming an Empoweed Acid Sheath doing 125 damage per hit is balanced, but that's a problem with the spell, NOT Empower.  If Acid Sheath did 1d6 +  (caster level)d3 you'd get the exact same result -- and presumably in that case you'd be perfectly fine with Empowering it for 125 damage per hit.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

You are wrong. The reason why this is not empowered was even explained in the quote I posted, quote from DnD FAQ. Magic Missile has two effects, damage and number of missiles. Damage is variable but number of missiles not.

Did you just, like, ignore the second of my post?

Quick quiz:

#1: A spell does (1d6 + 1) per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

#2: A spell does (1d6 + 1) damage per missile and fires one missile per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I suggest to read this about dices.

Did YOU read it?

The whole point of that article is how dice versus constants don't matter, ONLY what the resulting range is.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Indeed thats what it seems to indicate. Same as the fact that empower outshines maximized indicate this is not correct.

Hang on...you're fine with Empowering Magic Missile as (1d4 + 1) * 1.5, though?

You *DO* realize that's better than Maximize?  5.25 average damage Empowered compared to 5 average Maximized.  Edit: as Whizard pointed out, it's technically equal due to rounding.  Still means Empower is equal to Maximize.

If a spell is better Empowered than Maximize, that's a flaw in how the spell was written in a matter that doesn't allow Maximize to benefit it enough, it is NOT a problem with Empower.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 13 février 2014 - 09:57 .

[WhiZard]

MagicalMaster wrote...

You *DO* realize that's better than Maximize?  5.25 average damage Empowered compared to 5 average Maximized.

No, due to rounding, it is equal to maximize.  (Empower gets 3, 4, 6, or 7 which averages 5).