Maximized spell, then rolls a crit

Dimwhit · Mar 10, 2005

In this instance, I'm of the mind that the max damage is doubled. I just don't see anything in the books (or even my common sense) that says otherwise. I'm always willing to be proved wrong, though.

Epametheus · Mar 10, 2005

I'd go with max damage, doubled. Someone critting with a maximised disintegrate should be a thing of horror.

Mercule · Mar 10, 2005

The spell is maximized. That means that all random bits are assumed to come up heads. So, if you roll it twice, the second batch with come up heads, too. I'm actually very surprised there's much discussion about this. *shrug*

Woludn't matter to my group, though. We long ago decided that the extra damage roll was a waste. We roll once and double (trebble, quadruple, etc.) the applicable results.

Caliban · Mar 11, 2005

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
So what you're saying, Caliban, is that every metamagic feat is applied to the base spell only, except when they're not?

No, that's not at all what I said, despite the attempts of some people to twist my words to that effect.

Bad form on your part.

What I'm trying to say is that the feats don't "see" each other when they modify the spell (with the exception of Heighten spell).

Empower doesn't care that the spell was Maximized. It still only increases the variable damage by 50%.

Widen doesn't care that the damage type was changed by Energy Substitution. It just increases the area.

Twin Spell doesn't "see" that the base spell is also being modified by the Maximize feat. It just creates another casting of the base spell. I believe you would need to apply Maximize twice to get both the original and duplicate Maximized.

Squire James · Mar 11, 2005

Hypersmurf said:
Probably someone else. My position has always been that Maximize and Empower specify that when used together, each affects the base spell... but that's not stated anywhere in the rules for any other combination of metamagic feats.

-Hyp.

Perhaps because the books offered their example and didn't feel the need to repeat it for the 15 billion cases that would come up in play. Kinda like they don't necessarily need to repeat the fact that 1000 XP are required to gain 2nd level.

It a grey area in the rules. There's literally nothing in the rules defining what happens to a Maximized spell that crits. It is natural for some people to look at the "Empowered Maximize" rule because it is the only other place additional modifiers to a Maximized spell are discussed. It is also natural to think such things are too difficult and just double the max. Neither can claim the RAW is on their side. It is my personal opinion that rolling the crit damage is probably closer to the designer's intent, but I know nothing of intent.

BTW, it is also my personal opinion that arguing with Caliban about D&D rules is like arguing with Michael Jordan about how to play basketball. While you are free to do so, and he's not always correct, he is correct often enough that I think arguing with everything he says just makes a person sound like a dork.

UltimaGabe · Mar 11, 2005

Squire James said:
There's literally nothing in the rules defining what happens to a Maximized spell that crits.

Well, unless you count the sentence that states, "All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized." That sentence alone seems quite clear- or, at the very LEAST, it is a guideline of what happens to a maximized spell that crits. To say that there's "literally nothing in the rules defining what happens to a Maximized spell that crits" is completely incorrect, because the BASE RULE states just that. Unless, of course, you consider a crit to not be a "variable, numberic effects".

KarinsDad · Mar 11, 2005

Squire James said:
It a grey area in the rules. There's literally nothing in the rules defining what happens to a Maximized spell that crits.

I beg to differ.

The rules are crystal clear.

"MAXIMIZE SPELL [METAMAGIC]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized."

"If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit."

Either way you look at it, it is double maximum damage.

You can maximize it and then double it (double maximum), or you can roll double damage and then maximize the variable numeric effect (double maximum).

There are no rules counter to this tmk.

Caliban · Mar 11, 2005

For what it's worth, I think that most likely a crit with a maximized spell would do double max damage.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Mar 11, 2005

Caliban said:
No, that's not at all what I said, despite the attempts of some people to twist my words to that effect.

Oddly enough, it is what you said. You did it right here:

Caliban said:
Each feat affects the base spell, they do not affect the other feats.

Given that, Hyp asked some good questions.

What's "the base spell" when it comes to fireball?

SRD said:
Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
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.

So, according to your earlier statement, if I Energy Admixture a fireball with Cold, and then Widen it, they each apply separately to the base spell.

Therefore, there'd be an energy admixture in an area "20-ft.-radius spread," because it applies to the base spell, and then there'd be fire damage in a 40-ft.-radius spread, because Widen doesn't know (or care!) that the original spell was Admixtured.

If what you want to argue is that what you originally said isn't what you really meant, then it's OK to come out and say that without comments like:

Caliban said:
These are silly questions Hype.

Of course they might be considered silly questions - but they are not without purpose, given your original position.

Caliban said:
Bad form on your part.

Oh, righto, old bean! Bad form all 'round, I'm sure.

And I'd do a quick house-check before I started tossing stones, Caliban. Your house is looking pretty transparent from here.

Caliban · Mar 11, 2005

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Oddly enough, it is what you said. You did it right here:

No, not really.

Given that, Hyp asked some good questions.

I don't think so. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. Or maybe you honestly misunderstand me and choose to attack that which you don't understand.

Hype should know better, since we've had this discussion before, and he trotted out those same questions. They didn't challenge my position then, and they don't challenge my position now. They challenge a position that I don't actually hold.

What's "the base spell" when it comes to fireball?

The fireball spell as printed in the PHB.

So, according to your earlier statement, if I Energy Admixture a fireball with Cold, and then Widen it, they each apply separately to the base spell.

Therefore, there'd be an energy admixture in an area "20-ft.-radius spread," because it applies to the base spell, and then there'd be fire damage in a 40-ft.-radius spread, because Widen doesn't know (or care!) that the original spell was Admixtured.

No, not at all. That would require that the feats be aware of the effect of the other feats, and modify their effect based on that. Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

If what you want to argue is that what you originally said isn't what you really meant, then it's OK to come out and say that without comments like:

I meant what I said, but apparently you don't understand what I meant by what I said.

If your having trouble understanding, try asking me to explain what I mean in more detail instead of making a personal attack. You'd be suprised how effective that can be when trying to understand an opposing viewpoint.

Of course they might be considered silly questions - but they are not without purpose, given your original position.

They seem to be pretty much without purpose to me, since the don't actually address my position. The interpretation of the rules they are challenging is not the one I'm using, and never has been.

Oh, righto, old bean! Bad form all 'round, I'm sure.

I generally consider it offensive and childish to falsely attribute things to me that I never said. In more diplomatic terms, bad form. Please don't do it.