Lesser Vigor (2 Yes votes as modified)

[Ferrix]

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

Bold mine. It does not say deals Xd6 damage where X equals caster level or 10 (whichever is less), but has a maximum of 10d6.

You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability to avoid death. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 +1 per caster level (maximum +10).

From False Life, 1d10 + 1 per caster level with a maximum of +10. However, empowered it gives (1d10+1 per caster level) * 1.5.

Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total).

From Mirror Image, creates 1d4 images + 1 per 3 caster levels with a maximum of eight images.

If you follow the logic of the FAQ for Lesser Vigor, no metamagic feat could overcome the maximums listed within the spells, as they are listed in the same way. "Spell has effect with numeric effects XdX + X per X caster levels (maximum X)."

The FAQ listing is arbitrary. Thus my thoughts is to allow metamagic feats to surpass any listed maximum within the spell as that is the point of metamagic feats (to break some of those restrictions and limitations).

 

[Patlin]

Maybe the FAQ writers and I have the same mental illness, it just doesn't seem arbitrary to me. I rephrased the fireball spell for purpose of comparison, but 10d6*1.5 is still 10 dice, not breaking the maximum. We appear to agree on how that works.

Likewise, no disagreement on false life. [1d10+(maximum 10)]*1.5 is how it works when empowered.

I remain convinced however, that an empowered mirror image by the RAW produces a maximum of 8 images, rather than 12.

I will however once again stipulate that the LEB judges can resolve this however they want. If theyt don't one way or the other, individual DMs will.

 

[Ferrix]

I'll pose it this way then, does it become subject to abuse if we allow metamagic feats to break such supposed maximums?

Does an 18th level wizard having 12 mirror images rather than a maximum of 8 cause distress in you? It doesn't cause me any distress.

You can also look at the math this way for mirror image.

Mirror Image
X = (1d4+1/3 CL or 8 maximum)

Empowered Mirror Image
X = 1.5*(1d4+1/3 CL or 8 maximum)

Also... it wouldn't be a rule 0, since the errata doesn't state either way, it would be an interpretation by the Judges (as the FAQ is an interpretation by some WotC authors).

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't consider the Mirror Image to be a problem Empowered, but I do consider the Vigour to be a problem Extended (especially the non-lesser ones which start giving you tons of healing when extended). Then again, I think the Vigour spell line, while a fine idea in concept, has struck the wrong balance with the cure spells (it lasts a bit too long and thus cures a bit too much--it should be more without being so overwhelming in my opinion)

 

[Ferrix]

What would be a balanced change to the spells themselves that would put them in the range you are suggesting Rystil?

 

[Rystil Arden]

What would be a balanced change to the spells themselves that would put them in the range you are suggesting Rystil?

You could shave a few rounds off the duration, but perhaps more interesting would be making the duration variable (which leaves Empowering and Maximising open, although Extending is still more like Twinning and thus far superior). Another thing we have to mention, by the way, is that Vigour spells are not effected by Augment Healing (if we allow AH), since they don't heal HP damage directly, they just grant Fast Healing.

A vigour that lasted for 2d6+level rounds (max 15) could be interesting--it even gives a strong reason to Extend even if you listened to the FAQ (which is being a bit silly here, I admit, though I find it to be more balanced than allowing it). Plus it would make even higher levels than 5 significant, as you began to remove the variability until it was just always 15. The good thing about 2d6 is that it converges with high probabiltiy just barely under the total maximum of a very lucky (or Maximised) Cure spell.

 

[Ferrix]

You could shave a few rounds off the duration, but perhaps more interesting would be making the duration variable (which leaves Empowering and Maximising open, although Extending is still more like Twinning and thus far superior). Another thing we have to mention, by the way, is that Vigour spells are not effected by Augment Healing (if we allow AH), since they don't heal HP damage directly, they just grant Fast Healing.

A vigour that lasted for 2d6+level rounds (max 15) could be interesting--it even gives a strong reason to Extend even if you listened to the FAQ (which is being a bit silly here, I admit, though I find it to be more balanced than allowing it). Plus it would make even higher levels than 5 significant, as you began to remove the variability until it was just always 15. The good thing about 2d6 is that it converges with high probabiltiy just barely under the total maximum of a very lucky (or Maximised) Cure spell.

The problem with making it a variable is the times you end up rolling two 1's at 1st level, it takes you 3 rounds to heal 3hp of damage. True 2d6 is better than say 1d10 or 1d12, but still not particularly a fun chance to take.

I would say something like 5 + 1d6 + level (maximum 15) would be better.

And yes, Augment Healing (while not approved yet) does not affect the Vigor line of spells.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The problem with making it a variable is the times you end up rolling two 1's at 1st level, it takes you 3 rounds to heal 3hp of damage. True 2d6 is better than say 1d10 or 1d12, but still not particularly a fun chance to take.

I would say something like 5 + 1d6 + level (maximum 15) would be better.

And yes, Augment Healing (while not approved yet) does not affect the Vigor line of spells.

Well, that's only a 1 in 36 chance, with a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a total of 7 and a nearly 50% chance of rolling between 6 and 8. 5 + 1d6 + level has way too high of an average--you almost might as well not be taking anything away at that point (33% chance to be as good or better than the normal spell). 3 + 1d6 + level would be fine though, though I like 2d6 better.

 

[Ferrix]

Well, that's only a 1 in 36 chance, with a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a total of 7 and a nearly 50% chance of rolling between 6 and 8. 5 + 1d6 + level has way too high of an average--you almost might as well not be taking anything away at that point (33% chance to be as good or better than the normal spell). 3 + 1d6 + level would be fine though, though I like 2d6 better.

3 + 1d6 means it has a 16% chance to be at best 1 point less effective than the base spell. Not cool.

The average or base should be at the minimum, 8.

My suggestion drop it to 8 rounds + 1 rnd per level (max 15 rnds). No dice rolling, like the spell is intended.

Or just leave it as is, which I'd prefer even more.

Regarding extending it, perhaps just have the extend apply to the level increase. So at max you get an extra 5 rounds out of it.

10 + (1 rnd / level up to 5) max of 15, or extended, 10 + (1 rnd/level up to 5) x2 or up to 20.

 

[Rystil Arden]

3 + 1d6 means it has a 16% chance to be at best 1 point less effective than the base spell. Not cool.

You forget, then. I'm trying to nerf the spell's effects at low levels because I think the balance is wrong. I would be okay with 6 + 1 round per level max 15 also. That's a significant advantage in healing, particularly at higher levels (The sweet spot is probably closer to 6.5, but that isn't possible with a flat-rate).