Empowered Bite Of the Werebear?!

[durza120]

I just realized this, but couldn't you empower Bite of the...? This seems too good to be true.

The incredible plus 16 to strength is now +24?! Not to mention the plus 8 to AC a +12.

Couple that with a rod of Persistent spell and empowered Bull strength?(+6 STR) My MT sors/cleric has a strength of 12, but add 30 to that and 12 to his 20 AC and now i'm up there with our fighters.

Is there any flaw in this? Or some reason why it can't be done? Because this seems seriously overpowered.

 

[humble minion]

Doesn't Empower only work with variable numeric effects? The spell gives a flat bonus, so I don't think it would work.

 

[shilsen]

What humble minion said. You don't get any benefits from empowering a spell with a fixed effect. So an empowered Bite of the Werebear provides the same bonuses as a normal Bite of the Werebear, and an empowere Bull's Str provides a +4 enhancement bonus to Str.

Also note that the Bite of the X spells provide enhancement bonuses to stats, so they don't stack with Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance and the like (which also provide enhancement bonuses).

 

[Hypersmurf]

So an empowered Bite of the Werebear provides the same bonuses as a normal Bite of the Werebear...

With the possible exception of the damage from the bite and claw attacks, depending on your DM.

-Hyp.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

With the possible exception of the damage from the bite and claw attacks, depending on your DM.

-Hyp.

In these cases, I like to draw a distinction between the direct effect of the spell and the indirect effect of the spell. For example, if one Empowers a polymorph, is the [variable, numeric] damage of all the attacks of the creature into which you have polymorphed incrased by 50%. IMHO, no. The direct effect of the spell is to change the caster's form. The result of the change of form - the indirect effect of the spell - is to enable the caster to use the form's physical abilities, such as movement types and physical attack forms.

Or another example - spells that set things alight, e.g. lightning bolt. The electricity damage (nd6, when n = caster level, max 10) inflicted by an Empowered lightning bolt is increased by 50% (i.e. nd6 x 1.5). However, an object which catches alight as a result of being hit by a lightning bolt still only suffers 1d6 fire damage per round - not 1d6 x 1.5. Simply because the lightning bolt is Empowered doesn't make the resulting (non-magical) flames burn any hotter.

So IMO only the direct effect of the spell can be Empowered.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Hypersmurf]

In these cases, I like to draw a distinction between the direct effect of the spell and the indirect effect of the spell.

I tend to do something similar... but my line is whether or not the variable amount is defined in the spell text.

Summon a monster that hits someone? The damage is defined elsewhere - it's not empowered. Cast Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, and it bites someone? The only place the damage dealt is located is the spell text - it's empowered. Cast Shillelagh, and hit someone? The damage is stated in the spell text, but it's not defined there - it's merely repetition of the damage for a Huge quarterstaff, say, which is defined in the Equipment chapter - not empowered. The 3E version of Shillelagh, on the other hand, which stated a 1d10 damage rather than basing it on the size of the weapon, I'd have allowed to be empowered.

In the case of Bite of the Werebear, it seems to me that the damage is defined by the spell, not imported from elsewhere, so I'd allow it to be Empowered.

But it's not clear, which is why I noted "depending on your DM".

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Gimme doublewielding empowered Flameblades and I'm happy.