What Empowered value gets multiplied?

[Nail]

My justification is a WOTC customer service responce.

Not the best justification, but the only one, since the magic missile example seems to contradict it.

As you note: Not the best justification.

The "magic missile example" is very clear. Very clear indeed; custserve, OTOH, is not clear....and even contradictory. They've contradicted the FAQ, the Sage, and the RAW on more than one occasion.

Setting that aside: Empower is not broken with the generally agreed interpretation of adding the constant to the variable before Empowering. Go ahead and try it out! All the chesse that was associated with it in 3.0e is gone, as far as I can see.

But I'm open minded: Convince me there are many Empowered spells that are way off base (using Core rules, obviously). Let's see 'em!

 

[Hypersmurf]

My justification is a WOTC customer service responce.

Not the best justification, but the only one, since the magic missile example seems to contradict it. If it involves caster level, that is not part of the variable. But if it is a specific number, then that is part of the variable.

Actually, the CustServ response is based on the premise that the example is wrong.

"Where it comes to our rulebooks, I've come to rely on the text description rather than the examples, because the examples are so often so wrong. Usually either the designer writes it without looking at it from every possible angle, or one part gets changed in development but not the other (sigh). With magic missile, the only variable numeric effect is the 1d4 part of the 1d4+1. If the designer really wanted the non-variable portion of the damage to be multiplied, the feat should have ben worded something more like "all numerical effects and modifiers are increased by one-half."

He says "Caster level isn't empowered."
We say "But what about the Magic Missile example? It says the +1 is empowered."
He says "The example is wrong - I don't think the +1 should be empowered either."

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Although the example they give in the feat text might have been clearer had they chosen (say) CLW, the text above the example seems pretty clear to my friends and I (although evidently not to all people!)

"An empowered spell deals have again as much damage as normal, cures half as many hit points, affects half as many targets, and so forth, as appropriate".

If they had meant to exclude the caster level variable which is part of all cure spells, I would have expected them to mention it here.

(My current favourite empowered spell is empowered false life, but I'm really looking foward to marrying Stoneskin with empowered fire shield, or catching a bunch of undead in an empowered wall of fire when I'm 12th level (4d6+24)*1.5 or the rough equivalent of 6d6+36 to all undead you catch in the wall without a saving throw. Nice)

 

[Nail]

Classy and concise, Hyp. Good job.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The "magic missile example" is very clear. Very clear indeed; custserve, OTOH, is not clear....and even contradictory. They've contradicted the FAQ, the Sage, and the RAW on more than one occasion.

WOTC Customer service is, unfortunately, not something I've trusted ever since two consecutive emails to them garnered me two contradictory answers to a question.

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if a CustServ answer is a reasonable thing to base an argument on. Even the Sage can get a bit loopy at times, but CustServ has never been very reliable. I have asked them about four questions over the last year, and when they reply they always seem to be answering a question that resembles mine, but is not actually mine. So I never get a straight answer. Then they get snippy when I write back and say, "well, that's fine, but what about the issue I had with rule X?"

The answer you get from CustServ depends on who you wind up talking to, what day of the week it is, whether they've recently had coffee or a messy break-up or a birthday party, and the position of Jupiter relative to Mercury.

That much said, I do have to agree that for the number of spell levels the metamagic feat requires it makes more sense that Empower does not increase the non-random modifiers. But only by comparison with Maximize. OTOH, the text says "variable, numeric effects," and IMO, that should include the non-random portion. They are variable, but vary by level rather than randomly. All told, it's just a poorly written piece of text.

 

[tensen]

The answer to the various questions... will it really affect game play that much on either ruling... no. So if you chose to accept the Customer service ruling then it makes it easier for game play than to continue arguing over it.

Do I believe that the magic missile example should stay... yes. (What real difference does the .5 extra in damage make?)

Do I believe caster level should be added after the multiplier.... I sort of waver two ways. This would be my ruling at my game table.

EM=Empowered Multiplier
CL=Caster Level

Total= ( [EM * (3d8)] + Maximum Bonus[(EM *1 * CL)] )


The Maximum Bonus is in theory intended to fit with the level dependant damage maximum, it could be ruled be a DM that since it is being cast as a higher level spell slot, then the damage max may be higher... but for effective purposes all other things are still set to the original level of the spell, so the maximum should not change either.


However for an official rules argument. With magic missile you can figure out an average amount of damage on the result, with spells that involve CL, the average shifts each level. The starting average isn't even the same the first time different classes are able to cast the spell.

Roughly looking at the randomization (okay a couple of those are 1 point off at the top number)

Bard 3d8 + (7-15) = 3d8 + 6 + 1d8
Cleric 3d8 + (5-15) = 3d8 + 4 + 1d10
Druid 3d8 + (5-15) = 3d8 + 4 +1d10
Paladin 3d8 + (14-15) 3d8 +13 + 1d2
Ranger 3d8 + (14-15) 3d8 + 13 +1d2

But what is the goal is the argument?
To prove one way or the other is better? or to prove the particular method?
End result is.. if the character didn't get healed enough there are likely 2 options... 1 in combat, they likely get trashed by their foe. (The DM can do this with or without the healing to the PC.) 2... not in combat, or at least away from the fight... the healer just casts the next healing spell to fix the damage.

 

[Nail]

Er....??

Uhm, Tensen: I missed your point, even after a re-read. Come again?

 

[Marshall]

He says "Caster level isn't empowered."
We say "But what about the Magic Missile example? It says the +1 is empowered."
He says "The example is wrong - I don't think the +1 should be empowered either."

-Hyp.

If custserv had a brain they would have said that the +1 from MM isnt caster level. Its a d4+1, or the way you write 2-5.

Now CLW is a d8 + CL. Written like that, its easy to see that only the d8 would be affected by Empower. AFAICT, that is the intention of both the feat and the MM example and the FAQ.

Wether its necessary to make the distinction is another story. It was with 3.0 Simulacrum, but in 3.5 they took the variable out of every spell that is not direct attack.

 

[apsuman]

The answer to the various questions... will it really affect game play that much on either ruling... no. So if you chose to accept the Customer service ruling then it makes it easier for game play than to continue arguing over it.

Do I believe that the magic missile example should stay... yes. (What real difference does the .5 extra in damage make?)

Do I believe caster level should be added after the multiplier.... I sort of waver two ways. This would be my ruling at my game table.

EM=Empowered Multiplier
CL=Caster Level

Total= ( [EM * (3d8)] + Maximum Bonus[(EM *1 * CL)] )

The +1 per caster level is really no different than the 1d6 per caster level that sorcerers get for shocking grasp.

The cleric can maxes out at +5, the sorcerer maxes out at 5d6, both are level dependent.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now CLW is a d8 + CL. Written like that, its easy to see that only the d8 would be affected by Empower. AFAICT, that is the intention of both the feat and the MM example and the FAQ.

Except that, using MM example that you agree with (1d4+1 is the same as writing 2-5), 1d8 + 1/CL (Max 5) is really just the same as writing:

2-9 for a 1st-level Cleric
3-10 for a 2nd-level Cleric
4-11 for a 3rd-level Cleric
5-12 for a 4th-level Cleric
6-13 for a 5th- or higher-level Cleric

I see how it's possible to come to your conclusion, but I don't see how it's reasonable.