PROOF that Empower Spell should not be allowed to stack with itself!

[Uller]

Ummm guys? We've been over this in SOOOO many other "broken" threads...A straight up duel between two PC characters is in no way a valid arguement to prove that something is broken...

Sure...a wizard (or a sorcerer or cleric) can lay the smack down on ANY other class in straight up fight beyond 7th level or so if the spell caster is fresh and prepared for that exact fight. That's always been a fact in D&D. Stacking empower hasn't brought anything new there. An 11th level wizard prepared for killing fighters should be able to kill or incapacitate an 11th level fighter in a duel situation in about a round or two...without stacking metamagic feats...

For instance: 11th level Specialist necromancer with 22 Int and a spell focus feat. Assume he casts lots of buff spells prior to combat like fly, improved invisibility, stone skin, etc...

Round 1: Haste followed by Disintegrate
Round 2: Disintegrate, Disintegrate

After two rounds, the fighter is likely dead. DC would be 23. Fighter with a 22 con would have a +13 or so Fort save...chances of making ALL THREE saves is roughly 15%. Even if he makes all three, he's lost 52 hitpoints which isn't trivial for an 11th level fighter (131 on average with a 22 con).

Or if the fighter can't fly...Telekinesis (poor weak willed fighter...). Lift him up 200 feet. Drop him. 20d6 damage. Repeat until dead.

There are many many ways for a wizard to mash a fighter or equal level with only a couple spells. No fighter can prepare for every possible magical attack.

The disadvantage that the wizard has is he runs out of smack down spells eventually (even quickly), where the fighter can deal the same damage round after round as long as he stays alive. So...yes! It is valid for the fighter to teleport away, heal and come back. As long as he does so before the wizard can reprepare his best spells, he's got a MAJOR advantage.

The point of game balance is not how well one character can destroy another character. It is whether or not all characters can affect the game in a meaningful way. I'm running a 15th level game right now and I'm finding the archer types to be the most effective combatants. The wizard is great for gathering info and moving the party around and what not, but can't be counted on to smack around powerful opponents too much because they all have all sorts of crazy resistances and immunities (but none are immune to those pesky +5 arrows and swords!)

So the best we can see one of these spells do is a couple hundred hitpoints of damage without Improved Metamagic. Are you going to go up and deliever an empowered Vampric touch on a Great Wyrm Red Dragon? I think not (that's what harm is for ) Seems Improved Metamagic is the culprit here...otherwise empower is fine.

 

[Anubis]

kreynolds

What's your problem, kreynolds? Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?

I have not once said that I am always right and everybody else is always wrong, and I always offer in-game proof with my examples and statements. They are all valid examples because I have actually played this in the game. Who are you to just toss aside my arguments without proper consideration?

I have considered both sides of this many times. I have even posted things that ended up helping the other side, hurting my arguments. Yet you sit there and insult me like that?

I had respect for you, kreynolds, but unless you apologize for those abusive flames, that respect will be gone. You flame me because I am passionate, nothing more, and that is wrong. Yes, I debate in a very heated fashion. I have not ONCE, however, insulted anybody, and although I have an urge to insult you right now, I respected you for too long to do that. Not to mention the fact that this is a game, and I'm not about to start a flame war about a game.

Am I passionate? Duh. Am I think-headed? Sometimes. Am I sure of myself? You bet. I do deserve respect, though, because no matter how stubborn toward my point I am, I still show the rest of you proper respect.

You should take a lesson from UK, man. He's very respectful all the time, and he has my utmost respect for what he's contributed to this community. You could learn a lot from him, as could we all.

 

[Anubis]

The Verdict

After careful consideration, I have made a decision regarding stacking Empower Spell.

Verdict: Not guilty. Stacking Empower Spell, although it works very well in duels and with preparation, does not unbalance a normal game consisting of many encounters and a full party.

What swayed me?

1) Empower Spell doesn't significantly increase damage until very high levels.

2) At high levels, spellcasters do have a huge advantage.

3) Improved Metamagic does seem to cause more problems than Empower Spell, especially when you consider possible damage when using Maximize Spell, Intensift Spell, and Enhance Spell.

I am disappointed that so many of you judged me, however. You insult me and put me down simply for my passionate method of debating, and that simply isn't right. I thank those of you you maintained a respectful attitude during this debate. To the rest of you, including kreynolds (see above for my full opinion on that matter) and ESPECIALLY James McMurray, you need to mature a bit and not throw insults around in a gaming environment, as it only makes you look childish.

I debated using reasonable examples and was proven wrong, and I freely admit that. Throwing insults, however, and telling me my arguments were "baseless" (which obviously was not the case to any ogical person) had no effect whatsoever except to upset me, as I thought this was a gaming COMMUNITY, not a political convention.

 

[Uller]

Re: kreynolds

What's your problem, kreynolds? Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?

Kr gets under the skin of yet another enworld denizen...It's sad really...

 

[kreynolds]

Re: kreynolds

What's your problem, kreynolds?

I'm sorry? I don't follow.

Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?

Disrespecting? Insulting?

I have not once said that I am always right and everybody else is always wrong, and I always offer in-game proof with my examples and statements. They are all valid examples because I have actually played this in the game. Who are you to just toss aside my arguments without proper consideration?

Actually, the primary thing you provided was an argument based upon house rules, so it isn't valid at all. It doesn't really matter how great you think those house rules are. They're still house rules, and there is a separate forum for that.

I have considered both sides of this many times. I have even posted things that ended up helping the other side, hurting my arguments. Yet you sit there and insult me like that?

Oh! I see! No, no, no. That wasn't intended as an insult at all, not a personal one anyway. I apologize if it seemed like that, but it wasn't intended. It's more just a poke.

I had respect for you, kreynolds

Well...I can't see why, but OK.

but unless you apologize for those abusive flames, that respect will be gone.

I wasn't flaming you, and if you took it that way, then I apologize. I just like those feats because I find them funny, and they are meant as satire. If you took it personal, which you obviously did, all I can say is...damn...that's not what I intended.

You flame me because I am passionate, nothing more, and that is wrong. Yes, I debate in a very heated fashion. I have not ONCE, however, insulted anybody, and although I have an urge to insult you right now, I respected you for too long to do that. Not to mention the fact that this is a game, and I'm not about to start a flame war about a game.

Am I passionate? Duh. Am I think-headed? Sometimes. Am I sure of myself? You bet. I do deserve respect, though, because no matter how stubborn toward my point I am, I still show the rest of you proper respect.

Like I said, insulting you wasn't my intent, and I'm pretty surprised that you're taking it this badly, but again, my bad. Although, I can't help but wonder if you are taking those feats as an insult because of my comments against your argument in the house rules thread.

You should take a lesson from UK, man.

Uhhh...right.

He's very respectful all the time

Nobody's perfect, and some people take things way too seriously.

and he has my utmost respect for what he's contributed to this community.

You lost me.

You could learn a lot from him, as could we all.

That's debateable. It depends on your perspective.

I get the feeling that you are more than a little upset that I, and a few others, completely debunked your argument because you were using a set of house rules created by someone that you respect a great deal. Perhaps in your eyes, having those house rules thrown right out the window in a rules thread is disrespectful to said individual. Please understand that it was not disrespect, as those house rules simply do not belong in this discussion in the first place.

One last time, please understand that I intended no direct malicious insult. If you read those feats over again, I'm sure you'll find that they're pretty rediculous and can't even really be literally applied to you at all, nor could they be applied to most people.

It is quite obvious that you are truly upset, and I'm pretty sure that you're not B.S.'ing me. So, I will apologize for two things:

1) I sorry that my post offended you so badly (though why, exactly, I'm not entirely sure).

2) I'm sorry you got upset.

It was my attempt to inject a little reprieve into this dying thread. Perhaps that was a bad idea. But please, try not to take things so seriously or personally. I don't "flame" people without good reason, and in this case, I had no reason to "flame" you, which is why I didn't.

However, given all the pieces of this puzzle (the house rules, your tremendous respect for the author of those rules, your apparent insulting from my feats, your staunch defense of your argument that isn't based upon the rules, etc), I find your reaction confusing. Nevertheless, I apologize for any permanent harm I might have caused you.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: The Verdict

I debated using reasonable examples

That's debateable. Really, it is.

Throwing insults, however, and telling me my arguments were "baseless" (which obviously was not the case to any ogical person) had no effect whatsoever except to upset me, as I thought this was a gaming COMMUNITY, not a political convention.

Dude! You flat out claimed, that by the rules, Vorpal only functions on the original threat range of the weapon, and by the rules, as has been confirmed, you're wrong. You then threw a fit when I illustrated that. I never questioned the balance of Vorpal functioning on the fully modified threat range of a weapon. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in your assumption.

You also used house rules to determine your character's CR in relation to a monster's CR that was also determined by the very same house rules, house rules that directly conflict with those found in the core rules, thus completely imbalancing the fight in your example. That right there disqualifies the bulk of your argument.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: kreynolds

I'm sorry? I don't follow.



Disrespecting? Insulting?



Actually, the primary thing you provided was an argument based upon house rules, so it isn't valid at all. It doesn't really matter how great you think those house rules are. They're still house rules, and there is a separate forum for that.



Oh! I see! No, no, no. That wasn't intended as an insult at all, not a personal one anyway. I apologize if it seemed like that, but it wasn't intended. It's more just a poke.



Well...I can't see why, but OK.



I wasn't flaming you, and if you took it that way, then I apologize. I just like those feats because I find them funny, and they are meant as satire. If you took it personal, which you obviously did, all I can say is...damn...that's not what I intended.



Like I said, insulting you wasn't my intent, and I'm pretty surprised that you're taking it this badly, but again, my bad. Although, I can't help but wonder if you are taking those feats as an insult because of my comments against your argument in the house rules thread.



Uhhh...right.



Nobody's perfect, and some people take things way too seriously.



You lost me.



That's debateable. It depends on your perspective.

I get the feeling that you are more than a little upset that I, and a few others, completely debunked your argument because you were using a set of house rules created by someone that you respect a great deal. Perhaps in your eyes, having those house rules thrown right out the window in a rules thread is disrespectful to said individual. Please understand that it was not disrespect, as those house rules simply do not belong in this discussion in the first place.

One last time, please understand that I intended no direct malicious insult. If you read those feats over again, I'm sure you'll find that they're pretty rediculous and can't even really be literally applied to you at all, nor could they be applied to most people.

It is quite obvious that you are truly upset, and I'm pretty sure that you're not B.S.'ing me. So, I will apologize for two things:

1) I sorry that my post offended you so badly (though why, exactly, I'm not entirely sure).

2) I'm sorry you got upset.

It was my attempt to inject a little reprieve into this dying thread. Perhaps that was a bad idea. But please, try not to take things so seriously or personally. I don't "flame" people without good reason, and in this case, I had no reason to "flame" you, which is why I didn't.

However, given all the pieces of this puzzle (the house rules, your tremendous respect for the author of those rules, your apparent insulting from my feats, your staunch defense of your argument that isn't based upon the rules, etc), I find your reaction confusing. Nevertheless, I apologize for any permanent harm I might have caused you.

It was the "feats" that upset me, not the debating. The debating is a debate, plain and siple. I simply felt that the "feats" were uncalled for, and they seemed like a personal shot.

I will accept your apology, however, as I am reasonable and understand that different people have varying levels of "humor", and mine is quite low. I have no real sense of humor that I am aware of when it comes to stuff like that. (Comes from being picked on in school because I liked staying inside and playing D&D and video games instead of going out and playing football and basketball. I'm sorry, I just find intellectual stimulation more rewarding than physical stimulation, unless the physical stimulation is ***, you know what I'm talking about!)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Now if only the other guy would do the same . . . Ah well . . .

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: The Verdict

That's debateable. Really, it is.



Dude! You flat out claimed, that by the rules, Vorpal only functions on the original threat range of the weapon, and by the rules, as has been confirmed, you're wrong. You then threw a fit when I illustrated that. I never questioned the balance of Vorpal functioning on the fully modified threat range of a weapon. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in your assumption.

I'm sure that I heard SOMEWHERE that it was either in the errata or the FAQ. Mayb even the DMG, something about not being able to stack Keen and Vorpal, or something to that effect. Don't have it right in front of me at the moment.

If those were incorrect assumptions, then fine. I feel it is debatable, however, seeing as I'm not discussing the rules, but rather the balance OF those rules.

You also used house rules to determine your character's CR in relation to a monster's CR that was also determined by the very same house rules, house rules that directly conflict with those found in the core rules, thus completely imbalancing the fight in your example. That right there disqualifies the bulk of your argument.

Here is where our primary disagreement is. Through playtesting, it seems pretty obvious that UK's system of determining CR is more balanced than the method described in the core rules. I'll let HIM debate that, however, and on a thread in the House Rules. He knows more about it than I do.

Thus, considering they're more balanced, they're more likely to give accurate results.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: kreynolds

I will accept your apology, however, as I am reasonable and understand that different people have varying levels of "humor", and mine is quite low. I have no real sense of humor that I am aware of when it comes to stuff like that.

Well, you gotta loosen up man. If I took stuff like that too seriously I'd be a basket case (Quiet Crothian and mikebr99! I know you fellas, and I know a comment is brewing. )

(Comes from being picked on in school because I liked staying inside and playing D&D and video games instead of going out and playing football and basketball.

Oh crap...I'm probably going to inadvertantly insult you again, and believe me why I say that I don't intend to, but I won't be held responsible for your quirks that developed due to actions that had nothing to do with me.

If there's one thing in this world that I can't stand more than anything else, it's being expected to walk on eggshells simply because there might be someone out there that would find my critiqueing of an apple pie personally insulting and permanently emotionally damaging.

I'm sure you can tell, I'm not very PC.

To help put this in perspective, I now know exactly where you're coming from. I was the day-care dork. I was the elementary school dork. I was the junior high dork. I was short and heavy, and had to wear glasses. But I'm not just talkin' about plain ol' glasses! Oh no! I'm talkin' about big ol' fat, thick coke-bottle glasses baby! I had braces for seven of my scholastic years. I had to wear a headgear during 6th and 7th grade (that most certainly does not help get the chicks ). My clothing was always at least a year behind in style than everyone else and I had a really bad haircut for half my life.

Then, suddenly, high school comes around. I weighed the exact same as I did before (165lbs) but I grew taller. I got bulkier, more athletic (I still don't know how). My dress completely changed from a year behind to "I don't give a damn". I wore the same thing every day: bluejeans, white t-shirt, black boots, black belt, black leather biker jacket (you know, the rebelious type ), but I did so for simplicity's sake. Also, due to reasons that I won't get into, because it would take too much time, I was constantly expressionless, except in the rarest of circumstances. Suddenly, I wasn't picked on anymore. I wasn't looked at funny anymore. I got chicks (how the hell did that happen!? ). But, the strangest thing? When I would walk through the halls, the crowds would part and let me pass, just like it does when the proverbial school bully would walk by, but I wasn't a bully. Never, not once, did I get in a fight at high school.

That's when I realized that poor treatment from adolescents is primarily driven by image. Somehow, my "image" was no longer objectionable, and people began to respect me, but they didn't even know me. How can someone respect you when they don't even know you? Took me a long time to figure that one out. Simple. They don't. It's about acceptance of others. By accepting one person, you might be accepted more by others. Conversely, by refusing to accept a different person, you very well might be accepted more by others. It's a game. It's not fun, I'll admit that, but it's just a game, and a child's one at that.

Long story short (though it might be to late), you gotta let go of that kind of crap. I got picked on just like you did, but I got over it. I don't need anyone else's respect or acceptance (with the exception of my father). I only need to respect and accept who I am. You should too. Just let it go and move on. Trust me, it's worth it. OK. The "Dr. Phil" session is over.

For those of you that fell asleep, you can wake up now.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: The Verdict

I feel it is debatable, however, seeing as I'm not discussing the rules, but rather the balance OF those rules.

Claiming a rule to be imbalanced and claiming a rule to be something that it's not are two completely different things, thus my reply to you about Vorpal.

Here is where our primary disagreement is. Through playtesting, it seems pretty obvious that UK's system of determining CR is more balanced than the method described in the core rules. I'll let HIM debate that, however, and on a thread in the House Rules. He knows more about it than I do.

Thus, considering they're more balanced, they're more likely to give accurate results.

It doesn't matter how "good" those rules are. It doesn't matter how "accurate" those rules might be. What does matter, however, is they are house rules, and an argument made in the rules forum has no ground to stand on if it is based upon house rules. That's all I'm sayin'.