What Empowered value gets multiplied?

[Hypersmurf]

Out of curiosity, Hypersmurf, if a player tried to use this trick in a game you ran, what would you do?

Well, there are two sorts of rules lawyers.

There are the ones who seriously want to exploit loopholes; and there are the ones for whom the finding of the exploit is the enjoyable part, and who recognise that actually exploiting it can be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game itself.

Now, the way not to deal with either sort is to say "You're wrong". That will raise all sorts of competitive instincts, and you'll end up locked in a debate you probably won't be able to conclusively win.

The way to deal with the second type is to agree with them. "Ha - I never noticed that. That's very clever. But... no. Not in my game."

Call it a house rule, if it'll make them happy. And it will - you've recognised that they've found something in the rules that is more powerful than it initially appears (or, quite likely, was intended to be). That's all that's really important - they don't actually want to use that interpretation to break the game.

The first type, however, are more problematical. A pat on the head won't be enough; you'll have to clearly state that you don't intend to allow this, and as DM you're ruling against their interpretation. Which may lead to a sullen player, and claims of 'nerfing', or 'bias'.

But then, the first type aren't people I'm interested in playing with anyway.

----

But those are generalities. In this specific instance? I don't think I'd actually mind using this interpretation of Ray of Enfeeblement. I'm kinda attached to it, though, I guess

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Well, there are two sorts of rules lawyers.

There are the ones who seriously want to exploit loopholes; and there are the ones for whom the finding of the exploit is the enjoyable part, and who recognise that actually exploiting it can be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game itself.

Hmm. On that note, maybe I'm wierd, but what I would identify as a rules lawyer would be something like this:

A player who remembers existing rules other people forget. A player who maintains consistency at the game table and helps the DM with an occasional oversight. A player who assists his party by reminding the DM of an honest rule he's forgetting, to the benefit of the party.

Frankly, I would identify both types of players you list as "rules barrators". But then in general think "rules lawyers" have an undeservedly bad name. (Same as I'd subscribe to the hacker/cracker distinction.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barratry&db=*

 

[Hypersmurf]

A player who remembers existing rules other people forget. A player who maintains consistency at the game table and helps the DM with an occasional oversight. A player who assists his party by reminding the DM of an honest rule he's forgetting, to the benefit of the party.

I've reminded the DM of an honest rule he's forgetting the the detriment of the party on occasion, too... but I guess that falls under 'maintaining consistency'.

None of that requires any lawyering, though. That's just 'knowing the rules'.

Proper lawyerin' requires interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

I've reminded the DM of an honest rule he's forgetting the the detriment of the party on occasion, too... but I guess that falls under 'maintaining consistency'.

LOL! I do that all the time. Mind you I try and keep it fare for both sides. Sometimes it's to the benefit of us players, sometimes to our detriment. But by being fair and maintaining consistency, at least the DMs involved know that I'm not just trying to get an unfair advantage for the PCs.

Funny thing is, the other players gave me a nickname: 'Master of Synergies', as I can extract the maximum bonus for a given situation. Mind you, one of the players can't even remember how to calculate the bonus from Smite Evil, so they make me look good. Actually, I just remember most of the relevant rules in a given situation - they're just forgetting to apply all of them. And I'm no min-maxer either. Compared to other rules geniuses and min-maxers on this board, I am next to nothing. The rules are there for a reason and need to be applied uniformly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Mind you, one of the players can't even remember how to calculate the bonus from Smite Evil, so they make me look good.

Heh.

I remember a game earlier in the year where one of the players wanted to know if he got "+2 for flanking".

Not only was he using a ranged weapon... but he and his ally were standing side-by-side...

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

I remember a game earlier in the year where one of the players wanted to know if he got "+2 for flanking".

Not only was he using a ranged weapon... but he and his ally were standing side-by-side...

ROFLMAO!!! Though I shouldn't laugh too hard, as I do have the occasional gaffe myself.

 

[dcollins]

None of that requires any lawyering, though. That's just 'knowing the rules'.

Like a lawyer knows the law.

 

[Marshall]

oh, and (d4+1) is a variable number, it just so happens that number is somewhere between 2 and 5 Or, by the other way, the total number from all of the dice is the variable. I merely like to think of a spell doing a certain amount of damage and then that being multiplied, makes it easier.

Scion has the answer here. The d4+1 in MM is NOT the same as the d8+1/CL in CLW.

 

[apsuman]

Scion has the answer here. The d4+1 in MM is NOT the same as the d8+1/CL in CLW.

Well, they are different spells, cast by different classes. However, they benefit form Empower just the same. The PHB says something (re: Empower) along the lines of "Cures half again as many hit points..." It doesn't says "Cures half again as many hit points except for the level dependant pertion of the cure spell..."

 

[Scion]

Scion has the answer here. The d4+1 in MM is NOT the same as the d8+1/CL in CLW.

I am not sure which part of my post confused you, let me know so that I can clarify it

The total range for the spell based on all modifiers gives its random result. There are issues of course with some definitions of 'random' and 'constant', but I do believe that the 'total random result' is what the designers were after.

(d4+1)*1.5
(d8*#)*1.5
(d10+#)*1.5

etc sorry for the confusion. I always apply the multiplication at the very end, after the total damage is calculated, this makes it easiest for me and I believe it follows what is said in the books the best. IMNSHO of course