-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!
- Thread starter HEL Pit Fiend
- Start date
Jondor_Battlehammer
First Post
ugh..
four things, Hel Pit...
1) 17.5 is rounded down, so it is 17 + 17, ect. Yes, it is only one point.
2) Horrid wilting is not THE choice spell. Going against a cold based creature is just one reason to use a 20 dice fire ball over a 25 dice non elemantal spell.
3) Learn when I am using sarcasm.
4) I'm wondering why, out of all the quotes from me you have posted, you have yet to respond to this one.
This has turned into more of a calculation battle and an attempt to prove others wrong, so I officially quit this thread. My opinion is that MM feats were a new toy with a lot of luster, so they kept making them, even when some of their uses may be redundant or less than useful. BUT, I do see a use for all of them. Maybe it's just me.
As to stacking, Petrosian said it well. It is hard to discuss rules when we are not playing by the same ones.
four things, Hel Pit...
1) 17.5 is rounded down, so it is 17 + 17, ect. Yes, it is only one point.
2) Horrid wilting is not THE choice spell. Going against a cold based creature is just one reason to use a 20 dice fire ball over a 25 dice non elemantal spell.
3) Learn when I am using sarcasm.
4) I'm wondering why, out of all the quotes from me you have posted, you have yet to respond to this one.
This has turned into more of a calculation battle and an attempt to prove others wrong, so I officially quit this thread. My opinion is that MM feats were a new toy with a lot of luster, so they kept making them, even when some of their uses may be redundant or less than useful. BUT, I do see a use for all of them. Maybe it's just me.
As to stacking, Petrosian said it well. It is hard to discuss rules when we are not playing by the same ones.
Last edited:
Marshall
First Post
Re: ugh..
But 17.5 +17.5 = 35. Round that down if you want, but he is just as right as you are.
With all due respect to Petrosian, but there has to be a rule. The FAQ is not Official Errata, according to itself, unless it states otherwise. The clarification on stacking metamagic is not pointed to as errata and is pointed to as being an off the cuff ruling. Wether the ELH points to a rethinking of that ruling or just poor design is a matter were still waiting to hear about.
Jondor_Battlehammer said:
But 17.5 +17.5 = 35. Round that down if you want, but he is just as right as you are.
With all due respect to Petrosian, but there has to be a rule. The FAQ is not Official Errata, according to itself, unless it states otherwise. The clarification on stacking metamagic is not pointed to as errata and is pointed to as being an off the cuff ruling. Wether the ELH points to a rethinking of that ruling or just poor design is a matter were still waiting to hear about.
IceBear
Explorer
Geesh...the *OFFICAL* FAQ isn't errata - it's rule clarifications.
The passage in the rule books just state that a spell can have multiple metamagic feats applied to them. The examples all show different feats, but what the FAQ did was to clarify that they don't have to be different feats.
I'm sorry but if you don't want to use this clarification (and I'm not saying that isn't a bad choice) you don't have to, but that's more of a house rule than allowing it. The official rules state you can have multiple feats on the spell and the offical webpage with the offically scantioned clarifications say that these feats can be the same. To me that's pretty offical.
Based on the precendent of the other sourcebooks where they *clearly* flag rule changes as being offical errata, I'm not going to read too much into how a poorly thought out feat is written without seeing something similar in the ELH.
IceBear
The passage in the rule books just state that a spell can have multiple metamagic feats applied to them. The examples all show different feats, but what the FAQ did was to clarify that they don't have to be different feats.
I'm sorry but if you don't want to use this clarification (and I'm not saying that isn't a bad choice) you don't have to, but that's more of a house rule than allowing it. The official rules state you can have multiple feats on the spell and the offical webpage with the offically scantioned clarifications say that these feats can be the same. To me that's pretty offical.
Based on the precendent of the other sourcebooks where they *clearly* flag rule changes as being offical errata, I'm not going to read too much into how a poorly thought out feat is written without seeing something similar in the ELH.
IceBear
Last edited:
Greetings people!
Although this discussions seems and have seemed a bit agitated, I just wanted to contribute with some probability distributions, which may be appropriate for determining the reliability of metamagic feats.
First:
2x Empowered Fireball (to use THE example) does not equal an Enhanced Fireball.
The latter is the more reliable, due to the fact that the probability distribution for each sum is narrower, according to this formula (I won't derive the formula here, as that would do nothing to further the discussion):
Probability for p, points, throwing n s-sided dice:
(1/s^n)*Sum[k=0,Int[(p-n)/s],(Gamma[n+1]*Gamma[p-s*k])/(Gamma[k+1]*Gamma[n-k+1]*Gamma[n]*Gamma[p-s*k-n+1)]
People earlier have spoken of the reliability of Intesify Spell and Maximise spell, but given that you use over 20 dice, this is hardly an issue, as the probability of getting far less than the average is diminutive. For example, getting a sum of 80 or higher using 25 8-sided dice, the probability is 0,998, which is a quite a large number.
Given as such, a combination would ultimately be preferable, as caster level may not be on par with the new and Enhanced Spell dice cap. As such, Improved Metamagic, Enhance Spell, and Empower Spell is the most lethal combination, especially at higher levels. The procedure is to Enhance a spell so that you get maximium potential of it, then Empower it. I believe many has said so before, but here it goes again.
When throwing many dice, the distribution approximates that of a gaussian distrubution, and the standard deviation when throwing n s-sided dice is: SQRT(n*(s^2)-n)/2*SQRT(3), and the average is (n+n*s)/2, and from here it might be beneficial to use the inverse gaussian distrubution for randomising the results, which is easier than throwing 40 dice if you have a calculator.
Although this discussions seems and have seemed a bit agitated, I just wanted to contribute with some probability distributions, which may be appropriate for determining the reliability of metamagic feats.
First:
2x Empowered Fireball (to use THE example) does not equal an Enhanced Fireball.
The latter is the more reliable, due to the fact that the probability distribution for each sum is narrower, according to this formula (I won't derive the formula here, as that would do nothing to further the discussion):
Probability for p, points, throwing n s-sided dice:
(1/s^n)*Sum[k=0,Int[(p-n)/s],(Gamma[n+1]*Gamma[p-s*k])/(Gamma[k+1]*Gamma[n-k+1]*Gamma[n]*Gamma[p-s*k-n+1)]
People earlier have spoken of the reliability of Intesify Spell and Maximise spell, but given that you use over 20 dice, this is hardly an issue, as the probability of getting far less than the average is diminutive. For example, getting a sum of 80 or higher using 25 8-sided dice, the probability is 0,998, which is a quite a large number.
Given as such, a combination would ultimately be preferable, as caster level may not be on par with the new and Enhanced Spell dice cap. As such, Improved Metamagic, Enhance Spell, and Empower Spell is the most lethal combination, especially at higher levels. The procedure is to Enhance a spell so that you get maximium potential of it, then Empower it. I believe many has said so before, but here it goes again.
When throwing many dice, the distribution approximates that of a gaussian distrubution, and the standard deviation when throwing n s-sided dice is: SQRT(n*(s^2)-n)/2*SQRT(3), and the average is (n+n*s)/2, and from here it might be beneficial to use the inverse gaussian distrubution for randomising the results, which is easier than throwing 40 dice if you have a calculator.
Screw it. Sage and Collins and them, they don't know the answer any more than we do, that's why they're being silent. They know that what they did breaks several feats, and now they're afriad to admit it.
Idiots . . .
Plain and simple, this all only works if you ban stacking the same Metamagic feats on top of themselves. That way, all the feats are useful.
As it is, Empower Spell ALWAYS wins unless you're using very low level spells.
Idiots . . .
Plain and simple, this all only works if you ban stacking the same Metamagic feats on top of themselves. That way, all the feats are useful.
As it is, Empower Spell ALWAYS wins unless you're using very low level spells.
Similar Threads
