Triple-empowered Bull's Strength?
- Thread starter malichai
- Start date
<I agree that it is the fault of the incantrix's overpowered Improved Metamagic feat. Note that the Epic feat requires a LEVEL 27 character to take, and then wonder why an Incantrix can take it about 10 levels earlier....>
I don't have to wonder why, I know. Forgotten Realms is broken. Period.
I don't have to wonder why, I know. Forgotten Realms is broken. Period.
Numion
First Post
Twin Spell vs. 2 x Empower
Actually I think it's kinda neat that 2 x Empower does the same thing as a single Twin Spell. After all, they both cost 4 levels. Both have their advantages: Twin Spell can more spells on a single target, which can be good sometimes, and Empower allows to make more damage on multiple foes.
The brokenness of Incantatrix is hardly a reason to disallow Multiple Empowering on a single spell.
Actually I think it's kinda neat that 2 x Empower does the same thing as a single Twin Spell. After all, they both cost 4 levels. Both have their advantages: Twin Spell can more spells on a single target, which can be good sometimes, and Empower allows to make more damage on multiple foes.
The brokenness of Incantatrix is hardly a reason to disallow Multiple Empowering on a single spell.
Thanee
First Post
Empower Spell multiplies the random portion by 1.5. If you Empower a spell X times you multiply the random portion by 1+(.5 * X), using the general D&D rule for multiple multipliers (i.e. each multiplier affects only the base, they are not applied in succession).
Just wanted to point that out, seeing so many wrong applications of Empower up there.
The formula works even more generic on various positive multipliers (greater than 1).
Given a base of B and a multiplier of M greater than 1, and X be the number of times the multiplier has to be applied to B, than the result will be B * (1+((M-1) * X)).
Bye
Thanee
Just wanted to point that out, seeing so many wrong applications of Empower up there.
The formula works even more generic on various positive multipliers (greater than 1).
Given a base of B and a multiplier of M greater than 1, and X be the number of times the multiplier has to be applied to B, than the result will be B * (1+((M-1) * X)).
Bye
Thanee
Last edited:
DM_Matt said:
Wow, there seems to be much discussion on this topic today.
I posted in another thread, but I'll reitterate here...
Before Improved Metamagic even came out, there was the Incantatrix PrC from FRCS.
As soon as one of our players started playing one, we quickly realized how "broken" that ability can be. So we house ruled a change.
Instead of reducing all metamagics by 1 (minimum 1). We changed it to total metamagics -1 (still minimum 1).
So a single Empower adds 1. Double Empower adds 3. Triple Empower is +5. Etc.
You net only an effective 1 point savings no matter what you apply.
When Improved Metamagic came out, we looked at it and all smiled, and agreed we'd do the same there.
Seems to work much better now.
Now it's a nice ability. Rather than a must-have "broken" one.
kreynolds
First Post
Squire James said:
As a DM that also has to take high-level gaming into account (I run 3 high level games and one epic), I'm affraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this.
Squire James said:
I'm following you here...
Squire James said:
I sure do. But it's not what you think. The Incantrix jacks up the rules, not the Empower Spell feat itself.
Squire James said:
I would agree, which is why I'm glad nobody has taken the Incantrix in any of my games. God forbid they do, because I won't let it in as is.
I thought about limiting the metamagic discount to only one feat per casting, so if you used three metamagic feats on a spell, you would get the discount for only one of the feats, but I worry that this might hamstring the class too much.
Last edited:
I see no problem with empower stacking with itself.
The incantrix is another matter altogether.
But, I decided to post because after reading this whole thread it seem slike everyone is mis-interpreting the empower feat.
I think it is very straightforward:
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. 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. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Simply put it add 50% to any randomly determined spell effect.
The +1 added to rolls is included in the empower.
Those magic missles would be doing (1d4+1) * 1.5
Take for example, an empower cure light wounds cast by a sixth level cleric. It would heal 1d8+5 (it's +1 per level, +5 max) puls 50% more, or more plainly, (1d8+5) * 1.5. That is the only way the feat leave for interpretation "cures half again as many hit points..."
The empower does not make a continuous range of effect. For example the empowered CLW above would have a range of (9,10,12,13,15,16,18, 19).
An empowered fireball would be 10d6 * 1.5, causing a large but not continus range (15-90). This is different from 15d6 because the more dice you have more of a regression to the mean you create. The empower emphasizes the randomess and is a slave to it, in many ways empower is the opposite of maximize.
And speaking of maximize, a maximied empowered fireball would be the same as an empowered maximized fireball and it would do 60 + (50% of 10d6), not a flat 90.
g!
The incantrix is another matter altogether.
But, I decided to post because after reading this whole thread it seem slike everyone is mis-interpreting the empower feat.
I think it is very straightforward:
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. 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. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Simply put it add 50% to any randomly determined spell effect.
The +1 added to rolls is included in the empower.
Those magic missles would be doing (1d4+1) * 1.5
Take for example, an empower cure light wounds cast by a sixth level cleric. It would heal 1d8+5 (it's +1 per level, +5 max) puls 50% more, or more plainly, (1d8+5) * 1.5. That is the only way the feat leave for interpretation "cures half again as many hit points..."
The empower does not make a continuous range of effect. For example the empowered CLW above would have a range of (9,10,12,13,15,16,18, 19).
An empowered fireball would be 10d6 * 1.5, causing a large but not continus range (15-90). This is different from 15d6 because the more dice you have more of a regression to the mean you create. The empower emphasizes the randomess and is a slave to it, in many ways empower is the opposite of maximize.
And speaking of maximize, a maximied empowered fireball would be the same as an empowered maximized fireball and it would do 60 + (50% of 10d6), not a flat 90.
g!
I have played a moderately high level incantrix (lvl 15) and I used the metamagic in the most powerful combination I could. Energy Admix, empower, quicken. You know what I learned? The barbarian was still killing more things than I was. There are too many ways to stop specific spells, or spells in general, such as SR, spell immunity, and disrupting spellcasters. My personal feeling on the incantrix is that it is a good class but not godlike.
As for stacking metamagic feats, I see it as perfectly in the rules, provided you have the spell slots. I would think of it as crafting an item with multiple uses. Expensive but potentially useful. If you can get a 3rd level spell to do more damage than an 8th level spell through use of feats and a 7th level class ability, ya you. I would say that a character that put that much effort into something should be able to pull it off. If you think that the class is too much, change it or don't allow it. You don't have to follow every rule, you know
As for stacking metamagic feats, I see it as perfectly in the rules, provided you have the spell slots. I would think of it as crafting an item with multiple uses. Expensive but potentially useful. If you can get a 3rd level spell to do more damage than an 8th level spell through use of feats and a 7th level class ability, ya you. I would say that a character that put that much effort into something should be able to pull it off. If you think that the class is too much, change it or don't allow it. You don't have to follow every rule, you know
