Can You Empower Claws of the Beast?

[farscapesg1]

Voted yes.

This thread is more active than the WOTC one

Here is my response to the comparison of Summon Nature's Ally on the WOTC boards;

Hmm, okay here's my opinion (for what it is worth).

Empowering Summon Nature's Ally does not empower the animals damage. The reason for this is the spell "creates" a creature (or variable number of creatures, depending on level) that come into existance. These creatures statistics are not part of the spell, but are found in another source, already defined.

Claws of the beast "creates" claws for the manifester, but the claw damage is directly modified by the expenditure of additional power points, and the damage for these claws is specifically detailed in the spell description. Therefore, since the expenditure of additional power points directly increases the damage caused by the claws, they would be subject to enhancement from the Empower Power feat, IMO.

If the power had instead simply stated that the power manifests claws appropriate to the manifester's size and not given a table as part of the spell description, then the Empower Power ability would not work IMO.

In fact, the ability to grow "larger claws" is where the whole thing breaks down. If they had not made the the power augmentable, then there wouldn't be any question in my mind. How exactly is a medium-sized character wielding claws that are 7 times his normal size. That claw would be at least twice as big as the character himself

The key factor, for me at least, is the ability to augment the damage based on the expenditure of additional power points.

Then of course is the response that the spell had to list the damage because there is no generic claw damage for creatures of a certain size. To this I say ...

Not true. Table 5-1 on page 296 of the Monster Manual gives damage for bite, claw, gore, sting , slam, tentacle, and tail attacks.

An example of this is the Jaws of Death feat for the warforged in Races of Eberron. That feat specifically states that for warforged larger or smaller than Medium, look at the table for bite damage.

Granted, that book was published after Expanded Psionics, so I probably need to look at books published before Expanded Psionics for a 100% compatible comparison

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Sure it does. The spell (or power) description defines the effect and Empower only works on the effect.

Stating that the spell description does not define the effect of the spell is erroneous.

Effectively what you are stating is that the damage of the claws is not an effect of the power. The fact that it can be augmented is just one point that disagrees with that.

I disagree. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that the claws are direct.

You admitted yourself that direct is not a game definition. Hence, what is direct? Can it mean something different for different people? If so, then it can be a reasonable interpretation that the claw damage is a direct effect.

The power states that the claws do that damage. How much more direct do you need that the power stating it?

Using a direct/indirect system, I still like to follow RAW. If it is written in the spell or power, it is direct. If not, it is indirect.

That is a different definition of direct and indirect than you are using. It is still reasonable, even if you disagree with it.

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.

The poll proves nothing other than which people voted which way.

Ad Populum opinions mean very little. I created the poll not to see the ratio (I could have guessed that), rather to see how certain specific people would vote (and I am still waiting for one person).

 

[Nail]

For the record: No, empower does not increase damage on Claws of the Beast.

The spell creates claws. Those claws do damage based on size, not Caster level, energy damage, or the like. The damage caused is not based on the power of the spell. Therefore no empower.

Psionic aumentation, FWIW, is the psion's ability to get many different spells with one power...so it's not the same as Empower.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Sure it does.

No, it doesn't.

The spell (or power) description defines the effect and Empower only works on the effect.

The summoned monster is an effect, so therefore the Empower should work on it. There are variable numeric effects associated with the summoned monster. Nothing about Empower Spells says "only the variable numeric effects identified in the spell description are empowered."

Stating that the spell description does not define the effect of the spell is erroneous.

I agree with that. Good thing I never said that. What's the name for the logical fallacy where you attribute the wrong position to your opponent? I can't remember it off-hand, but this is an example of that.

You admitted yourself that direct is not a game definition. Hence, what is direct? Can it mean something different for different people? If so, then it can be a reasonable interpretation that the claw damage is a direct effect.

That depends on what's reasonable, which is an opinion. To me, a good indicator of reasonableness is an overwhelming majority. Despite the fact that I have said that the answer to your question is undeniably Yes, I answered No and I think others are answering No for the same reason. Even your arguments here show that you mis-worded the question. It's quite ironic because we're arguing about similar semantic errors in D&D rules, predicated on a question that is in error.

The power states that the claws do that damage. How much more direct do you need that the power stating it?

You're answering your own question here. What's doing the damage again? Spell->Claws->Damage is indirect. Spell->Damage is direct. Simple enough, n'est-ce pas?

Using a direct/indirect system, I still like to follow RAW.

This is nonsensical. We're talking about a non-RAW method to adjudicate the rules so how can you claim any particular method or rule of thumb is RAW? I didn't claim that indirect/direct is RAW, nor do I think that Hyp would claim his rule of thumb as RAW. It's a method to get an easy-to-understand and more importantly a consistent ruling.

Ad Populum opinions mean very little. I created the poll not to see the ratio (I could have guessed that), rather to see how certain specific people would vote (and I am still waiting for one person).

The answer should be 100% yes. Anyone answering no (like me) should point out that they're not answering the actual question and instead answering the underlying (intended) question.

 

[Artoomis]

For the record: No, empower does not increase damage on Claws of the Beast.

The spell creates claws. Those claws do damage based on size, not Caster level, energy damage, or the like. The damage caused is not based on the power of the spell. Therefore no empower...

An excellent way of looking at this and creates a nice rule of thumb for Empowering spells.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

Because that is where the variable numeric effects of the spell is listed?

For the record: No, empower does not increase damage on Claws of the Beast.

The spell creates claws. Those claws do damage based on size, not Caster level, energy damage, or the like. The damage caused is not based on the power of the spell. Therefore no empower.

So then you would agree that you can't empower the Orb spells then, right?

 

[farscapesg1]

You're answering your own question here. What's doing the damage again? Spell->Claws->Damage is indirect. Spell->Damage is direct. Simple enough, n'est-ce pas?

So then you would agree that you can't empower the Orb spells then, right?

Or Melf's Acid Arrow, since the spell creates an arrow of acid. The first sentence states that the spell creates an arrow of acid, while the third sentence states that the arrow deals the damage. So, you have the same Spell->Arrow->Damage relationship that would make it indirect, correct?

 

[Dracorat]

Because that is where the variable numeric effects of the spell is listed?




So then you would agree that you can't empower the Orb spells then, right?

I don't have the Orb spell on hand, but let's use Acid Splash as an example.

Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One missile of acid
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You fire a small orb of acid at the target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The orb deals 1d3 points of acid damage.

And the rules of instantaneous conjuration creation spells:

Creation

A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.

Under these rules, I would rule that an Empowered acid splash does an extra 50% damage. The damage was listed specifically within the spell.

So what's the difference between that and the claw?

The difference is that when I read the claw description, I read the damage listed there as the author being helpful in reminding you about what claw damage is.

If a player came to me and said "No, I really think the spell is specifically stating that the damage is a result of the spell" this would be a time I would give it to them.

But you did ask my opinion and there it is.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because that is where the variable numeric effects of the spell is listed?

So, the hit points and damage dealt by a summoned monster are static?

So then you would agree that you can't empower the Orb spells then, right?

No, I wouldn't.

Or Melf's Acid Arrow, since the spell creates an arrow of acid. The first sentence states that the spell creates an arrow of acid, while the third sentence states that the arrow deals the damage. So, you have the same Spell->Arrow->Damage relationship that would make it indirect, correct?

Using that same thought, there'd never be a direct effect because "Spell" becomes virtual. Is that what you're trying to get at? Perhaps, my original illustration wasn't the best and I am not adept enough at explaining it. I'll try again when I have more time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The difference is that when I read the claw description, I read the damage listed there as the author being helpful in reminding you about what claw damage is.

And being helpful about reminding you what claw damage is when you spend an extra 5 or 6 power points?

-Hyp.