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

[Thanee]

1) Single die Empower rounds up instead of down. Hence, D4: 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 5, 4 to 6. This results in 60% instead of 40% increase, but since it is one die, it really doesn't break anything.

1) Spells like Empowered Endurance which should gain at least one extra point, even it you roll a one.

Uhm... d4+1 has a minimum of 2, which times 1.5 results in 3, which is one extra point above 2 already.

Empower does not only work on the d4, but on the d4+1!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Flame Arrow doesn't do 40d6 damage, it does 4d6 damage.

Regardless, I like non-elemental spells. Especially when fighting demons.

Err, it does 4d6 per arrow, times 10 arrows at 40th level!

Of course, non-elemental damage has its benefits!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Storm Raven]

Given the choice of eliminating Epic Levels or stacking Empower Spell, however, I think the answer is all too obvious . . . DON'T ALLOW STACKING EMPOWER SPELL.

So, when there is a resonance that develops between a core rule (like Empower Spell) and an optional rule (like the entire Epic Level Handbook), and that resonance creates something that might, tangentially be unbalancing in pretty limited circumstances for a minute category of characters, your choice is to advocate abandoning the core rule? That maks no sense at all. Thank you for making this point early, so I can know to ignore everything you say in the future.

 

[hong]

Empower does not only work on the d4, but on the d4+1!

Um, is there a cite for that?

 

[AEtherfyre]

Y'know, if Empower works on the entire variable and not just the dice, I'd think that it should be +3 spell levels where maximize should be +2, as it is now far superior.

Maximize increases the average effect of the variable factor by a bit less then 1.5; the only reason it costs more is because it's a sure thing where Empower still has a fairly low minimum. If Empower includes the non-variable part of the random value, it's doing a lot more than Maximize, as opposed to a little bit more.

(Just think of the power of an Empowered Spell Turning!)

 

[James McMurray]

Um, is there a cite for that?

PHB, in the Empower Description.

 

[apsuman]

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

A balor has 110 hp, so that is EASILY enough.

Orcus as 1150 hp, so it takes only one or two spells to kill him. Enhance Spell is a HUGE factor in it.

I do not consider it rude when a person says that they do not know something (say ENHANCE) for the knowledged person to explain what it (say ENHANCE) does.

g!

 

[hong]

PHB, in the Empower Description.

D'oh.

 

[KarinsDad]

Uhm... d4+1 has a minimum of 2, which times 1.5 results in 3, which is one extra point above 2 already.

Empower does not only work on the d4, but on the d4+1!

Uhm... you only multiply the variable portion of the die, not the fixed portion.

d4 has a minimum of 1, which times 1.5 results in 1.

And yes, I know the example in the PHB is misleading, but the rule is:

"All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half."

And yes, I also realize that a lot of people do not play it that way. They read the sentence "An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate." as indicating that the feat actually affects the non-variable portion of the result.

For example, Empowered D8+5 Cure Light Wounds becomes 9 to 19 points of curing. And, that is ok, if that is how you read the feat.

But, there are many ways to interpret it. We have always used the strict interpretation (#1 below), however, as per my earlier post, we decided to go with yet another interpretation. So, several interpretations are:

1) half variable portion of each die round down
2) half variable portion of total dice round down
3) half entire portion (i.e. variable plus fixed) of each die round down
4) half entire portion of total dice round down

But, now that I have thought about it some more, maybe I will go with #4 which ends up really combining my #1 and #2 from my earlier post due to the +1 fixed portion on most single die spells.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

And yes, I also realize that a lot of people do not play it that way. They read the sentence "An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate." as indicating that the feat actually affects the non-variable portion of the result.

That's because it does indicate that. The magic missile example in the text of the feat makes that unequivocally clear. It leaves no room for other interpretations (which is exactly the sort of useful thing examples are for, I might add).