Can You Empower Claws of the Beast?

[diaglo]

Yes, which is why I voted no.

ditto

 

[glass]

Do you have another definition of effect?

Whats that in that can? Oh no, it's worms!


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

Whats that in that can? Oh no, it's worms!

I was actually being serious. What a spell does and how it does it would appear to be the very definition of what the effect is. Without that information (and some other like duration, range, SR, etc.), we would not have a common framework for playing the game.

To me, the easiest adjudication of Empower and Maximize is if there is a variable numeric effect within the spell or power description, then Empower and Maximize can be used. Otherwise, it cannot. Similar to Hyp's rule of thumb, but not identical. And for me, it appears to follow RAW the closest since we get the base effect from the spell or power description. That effect can be modified by external rules, but the spell or power description describes the effect.

This concept of adding other qualifiers (e.g. it is a natural attack) which are not defined within the rules seems a little odd. It seems to be based off some "similar rule" concept. Since natural attacks cannot be Empowered, neither can spells or powers that create natural attacks. Err, why not? It is an effect of a natural attack, not a normal natural attack. Psionic, not mundane. And it is also a Psionic power that can be augmented. By definition, it is something that can be improved upon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because the variable numeric portions of it are not specified within the "spell effect".

Sure they are. The hit points are variable and numeric. The monster is the spell effect. QED.

 

[Infiniti2000]

To me, the easiest adjudication of Empower and Maximize is if there is a variable numeric effect within the spell or power description, then Empower and Maximize can be used. Otherwise, it cannot.

Actually, I prefer the idea of using "direct" or "indirect" and is why I voted no. Although, it specifies the damage of the weapons, it's indirectly related to the spell/power. Although not 100%, adjudicating indirect vs. direct should be fairly easy and in the very few close calls, it's easy enough to make a one-time decision and stick with it (most likely usually in favor of yes because the cost is typically so high that it can't be game breaking).

 

[RigaMortus2]

Sure they are. The hit points are variable and numeric. The monster is the spell effect. QED.

But the numeric variables of the monster (HPs, ability scores, damage) are not listed under the spell description. You have to go to an exterior source (the MM) to get them. What would be maximized/empowered is the number of monsters summoned, since that IS under the spell description. Basically, if there is a numeric variable IN the spell description itself, it can be empowered/maximized. This may have strange effects for some spells, but oh well. No more strange than saying "because it is a natural attack it is not subject to max/emp even though it is an effect of a power that lists the numeric variables in the spell description".

Still on the fence about this one, I certainly can see both sides.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure they are. The hit points are variable and numeric. The monster is the spell effect. QED.

Nonsense. There is not a single variable numeric effect listed within that spell description:

This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st-level list on the accompanying Summon Monster table. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell.

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

This is called a red herring.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, I prefer the idea of using "direct" or "indirect" and is why I voted no. Although, it specifies the damage of the weapons, it's indirectly related to the spell/power. Although not 100%, adjudicating indirect vs. direct should be fairly easy

Indirect vs. direct are not game terms.

What one person defines as direct (i.e. the damage of the claws), another person defines as indirect (i.e. the damage of the claws).

 

[tomBitonti]

More data

Hi,

Some more data ... throwing in maximize ...

Some of the empower numbers are slightly high, as rounding effects
have not been factored in.

Base Table:

PP     S       M       L
==========================
 1    1d3     1d4     1d6
 3    1d4     1d6     1d8
 5    1d6     1d8     2d6
 7    1d8     2d6     3d6
11    2d6     3d6     4d6
15    3d6     4d6     5d6
19    4d6     5d6     6d6
==========================

Base Table (Avg Damage):

PP      S       M       L
============================
 1     2.0     2.5     3.5
 3     2.5     3.5     4.5
 5     3.5     4.5     7.0
 7     4.5     7.0    10.5
11     7.0    10.5    14.0
15    10.5    14.0    17.5
19    14.0    17.5    21.0
============================

Empowered Table (Avg Damage):

PP      S       M       L
============================
 3     3.00    3.75    5.25
 5     3.75    5.25    6.75
 7     5.25    6.75   10.50
 9     6.75   10.50   15.75
13    10.50   15.75   21.00
17    15.75   21.00   26.25
21    21.00   26.25   31.50
============================

Maximized Table:

PP     S       M       L
==========================
 5      3       4       6  
 7      4       6       8  
 9      6       8      12
11      8      12      18
15     12      18      24
19     18      24      30
23     24      30      36
==========================

Aggregate Table:

PP      S       M       L      Aug
===================================
 1     2       2.5     3.5      -
 3     2.5     3.5     4.5      -
 3     3       3.75    5.25    (E)
 5     3.5     4.5     7        -
 5     3.75    5.25    6.75    (E)
 5     3       4       6       (M)
 7     4       6       8       (M)
 7     4.5     7      10.5      -
 7     5.25    6.75   10.5     (E)
 9     6       8      12       (M)
 9     6.75   10.5    15.75    (E)
11     8      12      18       (M)
11     7      10.5    14        -
13    10.5    15.75   21       (E)
15    10.5    14      17.5      -
15    12      18      24       (M)
17    15.75   21      26.25    (E)
19    14      17.5    21        -
19    18      24      30       (M)
21    21      26.25   31.5     (E)
23    24      30      36       (M)
===================================
(E) Empower: +2PP
(M) Maximize: +4PP

 

[Infiniti2000]

But the numeric variables of the monster (HPs, ability scores, damage) are not listed under the spell description.

So what? What does being listed in the spell description have to do with anything?

There is not a single variable numeric effect listed within that spell description

Who cares? Wherever the variable numeric effects are listed is irrelevant to Empower Spell.

This is called a red herring.

No. It's called a misunderstanding. You think that Empower Spell requires something in the spell description and it doesn't.

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

Indirect vs. direct are not game terms.

I didn't say they were.

What one person defines as direct (i.e. the damage of the claws), another person defines as indirect (i.e. the damage of the claws).

I disagree. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that the claws are direct. But, like I said, even if you think they are then this could be one of those 'close calls'. I don't think it is, however, and your poll proves that.