Triple-empowered Bull's Strength?

[Hammerhead]

Umm?

Empower multiplying dice is the same as it multiplying damage, but it's easier to roll more dice and then add, than to multiply.

Let's take an Empowered Fireball:

15d6 averages at 52.5

10d6 averages at 35 times 1.5 = 52.5

It's (10)(3.5)(1.5) no matter which way you order it.

 

[James McMurray]

Its easier to roll 50 dice and add then it is to roll 25 and multiply by two?

 

[jgbrowning]

metamagic feats

i must just be an old fuddy-duddy but i dont let the same feats stack.

just not a |) 0VV3R GaM3R i guess....
|

joe b.

i'd just maximize and empower a magic missle to 20th and do 250hp damage, no save. if i did my PoWeR GaMeR math right...

 

[Hammerhead]

Its easier to roll 50 dice and add then it is to roll 25 and multiply by two?

No, but it's easier to roll 15 dice than to roll 10 and multiply by 1.5. I think an Empowered fireball cast at level 10 is more likely than a 2x Empowered Horrid Wilting cast at level 25.

 

[Squire James]

Excuse me, but this is my first "dissect other post" post. I hope it isn't TOO annoying!

I'm pretty sure you misread empower. It doesn't multply the damage dice, turning 10d6 into 15d6, it multiplies the total damage.

No, I just used the increased number of dice to compare them to existing spells without some sort of "doubling" mechanic (like Meteor Swarm). I apologize for not stating that I was doing that.

For instance, Delayed Blast Fireball with it's 20d8 damage empowered 5 times to make it a 17th level spell (I'm just supposing since my books are not out), that it will do 20d8 x 3.5 damage.

Average damage of 80 x 3.5 would give you 280 damage.... not as insane as 150d8 for 600 damage... Hell your horrid wilting at 25d8 averages 100 damage x 6.5 gives you 650 damage... but your talking a 20'th level slot...

I won't say your houserule is a bit much, but with the rarity of feats, your hurting your wizards.

I always tended to assume feats did NOT stack unless otherwise noted. So the "house rule" part of my system is allowing someone to take Empower Spell more than once at all! I'm pretty sure the core D&D rules never intended Empower Spell to be anything more than a simple +50% add to variable effects (and only the DICE on variable effects, so those +1 per die bonuses on Magic Missiles and Bull's Strength are not affected, BTW, but like many others I tend to let this part slide).

My contention is that Empower Spell, being the only metamagic feat that can be efficiently "self-stacked" like this, is too powerful in itself to allow +50%, +100%, +150%, or more to spell damage. It mostly invalidates Twin Spell (that "mostly" in there because Twin Spell has some other uses like forcing 2 saving throws), and almost completely obliterates the Intensify Spell epic feat. All this for something a Wizard can take at 3rd level (and can start employing at 5th)?

A level 20 Wizard has 11 feats (don't forget those bonus feats every 5 levels), 12 if he's human. He can easily afford to have Empower Spell x7 and 4-5 more feats if that's what he wants to concentrate on. Sure, he's probably a bit less versatile than that same guy with Greater Spell Penetration, Persistent Spell, Greater Spell Focus, etc. It's a fair price to pay for all that potential power IMO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Only if all you ever used Twin Spell on was spells with variable effects and always wanted to affect the same area/target.

Well...you always have to affect the same location or target with Twin Spell, also - that's part of the feat's description.

But like you said, you can Twin a dominate person or a hold monster, giving them twice the chances to fail their save. Twin is even better on certain spells with random components, because it will also double any bonuses whereas Empower will only double the random portion. (A 2xEmpowered magic missile will give the 9th level caster 5 missiles doing 2d4+1 each. A Twinned magic missile will give the 9th level caster 10 missiles doing 1d4+1 each. shocking grasp, Evard's black tentacles, mirror image, cure X wounds...anything that does xdy+z.)

J

 

[James McMurray]

Missed the part about having to have the same target (don't own TnB).

Empower also affects the plus (check its description). Howver, it isn't 2d4+2 per missile, its 1d4+1 + (that x .5) + (that x .5). You end up doing less if you roll an odd amount.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My contention is that Empower Spell, being the only metamagic feat that can be efficiently "self-stacked" like this, is too powerful in itself to allow +50%, +100%, +150%, or more to spell damage. It mostly invalidates Twin Spell (that "mostly" in there because Twin Spell has some other uses like forcing 2 saving throws), and almost completely obliterates the Intensify Spell epic feat. All this for something a Wizard can take at 3rd level (and can start employing at 5th)?

First, empower spell is certainly not the only metamagic that can be efficiently self-stacked. Enlarge spell self stacks quite efficiently with spells like burning hands, cone of cold, or lightning bolt whose area of effect is dependant upon their range. Extend spell also stacks very efficiently with itself when used on long duration buff spells (For example, a 5x extended bull's strength cast by a 14th level sorceror would give 1d4+1 str for 70 hours. Similarly, the same sorceror can also cast a 2x extended Energy Buffer for a duration of 72 hours.

Empower Spell certainly sounds like it can be a problem when combined with the Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic. But that's a problem with Improved Metamagic and the Incantatrix not with Empower spell.

Regarding the other metamagic feats (Twin spell, Intensify spell, etc), there are other reasons to take them (Twin spell, for example, works on a wide variety of spells that Empower doesn't help--a Twinned slow, for instance would take out mass haste on round one and then slow the party's foes on round 2--it's more of a feat for use with "save or screw" or "save or die" spells than damage dealing ones). Intensify Spell is a product of a different mindset than Empower Spell much like Maximize Spell is. Both give statistically inferior but nonvariable results trading potential maximum effectiveness for guaranteed effectiveness.

Regarding the comparison of metamagic enhanced spells with other spells of the same (effective) level, there are two things to consider. First, the metamagicked spells ought to be better in some situations. If they weren't, no one would ever use metamagic feats; they'd just prepare higher level spells in those slots. Second, metamagic enhanced spells have lower save DCs so there's a tradeoff. A 17th level wizard with a 26 int and greater spell focus: evocation could toss a double empowered cone of cold for 15d6x2 damage instead of a meteor swarm (24d6 damage in a small area--significantly less to most targets). Of course, the DC for the cone of cold would be 27 whereas the meteor swarm could effect one target without a save and would have a DC 31 save for the other targets. In many instances, the cone of cold will be better but there's still plenty of reason for the character to know meteor swarm (in this case, the reasons are called rogues, paladins, monks, and bards).

 

[Ferret]

Missed the part about having to have the same target (don't own TnB).

Empower also affects the plus (check its description). Howver, it isn't 2d4+2 per missile, its 1d4+1 + (that x .5) + (that x .5). You end up doing less if you roll an odd amount.

I'm confused....Why not 1d4+1 X1.5?

And about how you work out what you double tripple slit on the rocks multiplier is

 

[AEtherfyre]

Umm?

Empower multiplying dice is the same as it multiplying damage, but it's easier to roll more dice and then add, than to multiply.

Let's take an Empowered Fireball:

15d6 averages at 52.5

10d6 averages at 35 times 1.5 = 52.5

It's (10)(3.5)(1.5) no matter which way you order it.

Eh, not quite. The average is the same, but 15d6 is going to be closer to 52.5 more frequently than (10d6x1.5). There are 6^15 possibilities for the first, and only 6^10 for the second. Not really important, but there is a difference; the second is more likely to do maximum or minimum damage.