Can You Empower Claws of the Beast?

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, although Im not sure how I'd empower such a thing. Probably (1d8 * 1.5) - 6

Remember, the example of Magic Missile in the PHB says to roll 1d4+1 and multiply the result by 1.5.

It's not (1d4 x 1.5) + 1; it's (1d4+1) x 1.5.

So we would roll 1d8-6 (minimum 1), and multiply the result by 1.5.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

"How many rays is a creature struck by?" "It depends on the roll." The number of rays from the Prismatic Spray that strike each creature is numeric and variable. Depending on what is rolled, that number might be one or two.

If the spell stated "Each creature is struck by a number of rays equal to 1d8-6 (minimum 1 ray); determine the colour of each ray by rolling 1d7", would you agree that the number of rays is a variable numeric effect?

Except that the spell does not have an equation of D8-6 minimum 1 for number of rays which could then be Empowered.

You added this to illustrate your POV.

But, the spell does not state this equation. You are adding an equation that the spell itself does not explicitly state.


Unlike all other uses of Empower, rolling an 8 and increasing it to 12 does nothing for Prismatic Spray since the D8 roll determines variable numeric selection of effect, not variable numeric effect.

You are adding a sentence in order to get the result you want. But, the only D8 roll in Prismatic Spray determines selection of effect and that D8 does not subtract 6. The fact that the number of rays can be increased is irrelevant since that is an effect. Two rays.

Your point was imaginative, but it does not follow the standard use of Empower (increasing the result of the die roll by 50%).

In order for your interpretation to work, you have to add a D8-6 minimum 1 equation to the spell description which is not there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except that the spell does not have an equation of D8-6 minimum 1 for number of rays which could then be Empowered.

No, it doesn't. But I roll a d8, and randomly determine whether one ray or two rays strike a target. The number of rays striking a target is variable and numeric; it is randomly determined.

Your point was imaginative, but it does not follow the standard use of Empower (increasing the result of the die roll by 50%).

The standard use of Empower does not increase the result of a die roll; it increases the result of a variable numeric effect.

Let's say I have a spell that summons a variable number of flumphs. There is a percentile roll with a table; on a roll of 01-80, it summons 2 flumphs; on a roll of 81-95, it summons 3 flumphs; and on a roll of 96-00, it summons 4 flumphs.

Is the quantity of flumphs summoned variable and numeric? Forget the number showing on the percentile dice; that's not what gets multiplied by 1.5. What gets multiplied is "How many flumphs?"

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

The standard use of Empower does not increase the result of a die roll; it increases the result of a variable numeric effect.

Could you give an example (other than your Prismatic Spray one or your fake one) where Empower does not increase the result of a die roll?

How can it not be considered standard to increase a die (or dice) roll(s)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Could you give an example (other than your Prismatic Spray one or your fake one) where Empower does not increase the result of a die roll?

I'll have to go looking, though I can't guarantee I'll find one. 3E tried its best to get away from lookup tables

How can it not be considered standard to increase a die (or dice) roll(s)?

Because that's not what the feat says it does.

"All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half." Not "All die rolls are increased by one half".

If a spell said "Flip a coin; on heads, the spell deals 10 damage, on tails, the spell deals 20 damage", that's a variable numeric effect, despite there being no die roll.

If a spell said "Draw a card; the spell deals damage equal to the number on the card (A = 1, J, Q, K = 10) of a type dependent on the suit (Hearts = Fire, Diamonds = Cold..." etc, the damage is a variable numeric effect, despite there being no die roll.

Just because most of the spells in the PHB use a die roll plus modifiers to directly calculate the result of a variable numeric effect doesn't mean that's the only way, and Prismatic Spray uses another one - effectively, a weighted lookup table (just like the flumph example).

If the 'fake example' existed, would you consider the number of flumphs to be Empowerable, based on the text of the feat?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll concede the point.

However, PS is a strangely worded spell anyway. 7 rays can hit dozens of character. In fact, the same ray can hit the same character twice without bouncing off of anything else. That spell needs a rewrite.

 

[Nail]

No. Technically it is still a Fireball, just with the electricty descriptor. If you were a Wizard and did this, you wouldn't suddenly have a spell called "electricity ball" in your spellbook, would you? No, you'd still have the fireball spell.

Not if it did electricity damage (without a metamagic feat applied to it).

 

[Nail]

Back on topic:

I think I'm going to have to concede the argument. Claws of the Beast has a spell effect that is variable and numeric, and so it is empowerable.

It's not as obvious as damage from a fireball (or Orb of Force), but the conclusion must be the same.




Win some, lose some......

 

[starwed]

I think I'm going to have to concede the argument. Claws of the Beast has a spell effect that is variable and numeric, and so it is empowerable.

I'm still not convinced, and I'm about to try at length to unconvince you as well.
The summary
The effect of the power is (claws which deal 1d4 damage.) The damage range (1d4) is a property of the claws, and is not itself variable.

The argument:
One way to read the power is that, at the moment of casting, you roll a d4, and that's how much damage the claws do with each attack. That is not how anyone I know would play it.

Yet there is nothing in the specific language of the power that makes this clear. The reason no one plays this way is that they already implicitly understand what a damage roll associated with an attack means: every time you attack, you roll that particular combination of dice to find the base damage dealt.

Hyp mentioned that he doesn't like using common sense as a rule in this case. But here, we're already using our common sense to make a judgment on what "claws ... dealing 1d4 damage" actually means.

Once you've made that judgment, the "1d4 damage" bit ceases to be a variable, numeric effect of the power. Despite the fact that it is a numerical range mentioned in the power's description (and not directly referred to elsewhere in the rules), it is not parsed as a direct effect of the power. Rather, we have understood the claws as weapons which deal a certain dice range of damage, in exactly the same way we would have read a spell which created "a dagger dealing 1d4 damage." And as with the dagger, we know that the die specified is not itself a variable numeric effect, but rather a damage range which the claws themselves posess.

Hyp''s rule of thumb would argue that in the case of a spell creating a dagger, because the damage dealt by a dagger is specified elsewhere in the rules, we know it not to be an effect of the spell.

I am arguing that, implicit in how most people would parse claws of the beast, we understand the damage range in exactly the same way. We have categorized the claws as a weapon with a particular damage range, and inherent in that categorization is the categorization of the damage range as a property of the weapon in question. Despite the fact that this particular weapon is not mentioned elsewhere in the rules, we have extrapolated the behavior of the claws from our knowledge of how other weapons function. The damage range of the claws exists in the broader framework of the rules, and in that framework the damage dealt by any one attack is not an effect of the spell. Rather, it is the damage range itself which is the effect, and this range is not variable.


Now, if you roll the 1d4 when the power was manifested, and have the claws deal exactly that much damage with each attack, then I would agree that the claws could be empowered/maximized/whatever. Anyone been playing it this way? ^_^

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, if you roll the 1d4 when the power was manifested, and have the claws deal exactly that much damage with each attack, then I would agree that the claws could be empowered/maximized/whatever.

So what's your take on, say, Spiritual Weapon? Empowerable? Deals an exact amount of damage determined at casting time with each attack, or rolls damage for each attack?

Same question for Flaming Sphere. Same question for Wall of Fire.

-Hyp.