Can You Empower Claws of the Beast?

[Vegepygmy]

Instead, decide if a summoned monster is an effect of a summon monster spell. If so, it qualifies for the empowering by the feat.

That's only half the test.

Yes, a summoned monster is an effect of a summon monster spell. But it's not a "variable, numeric" effect (though the number of monsters you summon is), and thus cannot be empowered.

 

[Artoomis]

But how is the power description 'reminding' you of an amount of damage that isn't defined anywhere else in the rules?

The power text isn't reminding you about the damage; it's defining the damage, based on the amount of psionic energy expended.

-Hyp.

I do not agree. The fact that this can be augmented is not a convincing argument. What if the augment created more claws?

It is, of course, a DM's call and the game won't break either way.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not agree. The fact that this can be augmented is not a convincing argument. What if the augment created more claws?

If the augment created more claws and did not increase the damage of the claws, a character could still Empower the power since the power still has a variable numeric effect within it.

You gain two natural attacks with your claws, each dealing 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if you are Large, or 1d3 if you are Small) plus your Strength bonus.

So, a small creature could Empower it to D3 + 50%, a medium to D4 + 50%, and a large to D6 + 50%.

 

[KarinsDad]

Perhaps you can only Empower Claws of the Beast if you augment it at least one time. I get this from reading the first line.

Err, no. Claws of the Beast has a variable numeric effect regardless of augmentation.

 

[Artoomis]

If the augment created more claws and did not increase the damage of the claws, a character could still Empower the power since the power still has a variable numeric effect within it...

You are mixing apples and oranges.

The "augmenation" argument should be kept completely seperate form the "variable numeric effect already exists" argument.

The former says "variable numeric effect exists" because of the way it can be augmented, regradless of whether you consider the "variable numeric effect" to exist already or not.

The latter argument says a "variable numeric effect" already exists and no further arguments need be done.

Mixing the two arguments together will only cause confusion.

My statement was a counter only to those who think "variable numeric effect" exist because of the way it can be augmented, regardless of whether you consider the "variable numeric effect" to exist already or not.

 

[KarinsDad]

My statement was a counter only to those who think "variable numeric effect" exist because of the way it can be augmented, regardless of whether you consider the "variable numeric effect" to exist already or not.

The augmentation issue is just icing on the cake for the Pro Empower camp.

The main issue is that the damage is defined in the power and nowhere else, just like Flame Blade.

The Augmentation issue just adds more different ways to define the damage.

Claws of the Beast is not much different than Flame Blade. You create a weapon. It does x damage. The arguments against CotB all appear to be bizarre direct vs. indirect (not defined in the rules) or it creates claws, it does not create damage positions.

From a RAW perspective, these same arguments would then have to apply to Flame Blade.

Would they apply to Flame Blade for you? If so, why? If not, why?

 

[Artoomis]

...The main issue is that the damage is defined in the power and nowhere else, just like Flame Blade....Would they apply to Flame Blade for you? If so, why? If not, why?

Flame blade damage is different. It's an energy effect. Heck, it's even a touch attack - very differnt.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Flame blade damage is different. It's an energy effect. Heck, it's even a touch attack - very differnt.

What about Empowering Call Weaponry?

 

[KarinsDad]

Flame blade damage is different. It's an energy effect. Heck, it's even a touch attack - very differnt.

Different how?

It's a weapon. It uses an attack roll to hit. Just like Claws of the Beast.

So what if it goes against touch armor? So what if it is energy damage?


It's still mechanically used as a weapon. You can still do full round attacks with it, Whirlwinds, Charges, etc. If weapon attacks are "indirect" for CotB, why would they be "direct" for Flame Blade?


The problem with this POV is that one has to start creating even more house rules to support it when other similar spells/powers are discussed in order to filter out some and allow in others.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The idea that you, KD, and others have that only those variable numeric effects listed in the spell description are empowered is completely unfounded.

Now, your rule of only empowering those variables listed in the spell description are empowered will at least make things consistent.

Right - and I've never pretended otherwise I think it's necessary to draw a line somewhere (to avoid the summoned monsters with max hit points and damage rolls issue), and I've an aversion to 'lines' based on 'common sense', because if there's one thing that's consistent about common sense, it's that everyone draws the line in a different place!

I just don't agree that the faithful hound, the claws, awaken, reincarnate, targeted dispel magic, and other spells should be empowered.

Targeted Dispel Magic as in the duration? I don't have a problem with that.

Reincarnate I don't consider to be a numeric effect. There is no number that varies as an effect of the spell; you always come back in one form. The form varies, but that's not a numeric variable.

Faithful Hound and Awaken I consider to be artefacts of where the line is drawn. If Faithful Hound were outlined in the Monster Manual, and the spell description said "... conjures a Faithful Hound (see MM p87)...", Empower would have no effect on it with the line drawn in the same place. Awaken, similarly, could be reworded to avoid the problem. But a couple of spells in the PHB with issues, I can live with.

Claw of the Beast I don't consider to be a problem.

-Hyp.