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



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

It's simple, really.  IT'S BROKEN.  Any Epic Level Wizard with Empower Spell and Improved Spell Capacity can SLAUGHTER literally ANYBODY in one or two hits using Empower Spell with Vampiric Touch and/or Horrid Wilting.

IT'S BROKEN.

VERY VERY VERY BROKEN.

A Level 40 Wizard could obliterate a Level 80 Fighter with NO DIFFICULTY if Empower Spell is allowed to stack on top of itself.  I think I've proven my point.

I really don't care what the designers say about stacking Empower Spell, they OBVIOUSLY NEVER play-tested that, at least not at higher levels, so it turns out that they made a HUGE mistake saying that it was allowed.

This is even more broken than Harm!

Want more proof?  Observe my battle with Orcus . . . Xun Huo, DvR 2 Demigod, Level 40 Wizard vs. Orcus . . .

First, her stats:

Xun Huo
Goddess of the Arcane, Lady Sorceress, Mana Warlord
Demigod
Symbol: Crossed staves on top of an eye with a katana going through the middle
Home Plane: Prime Plane
Alignment: Neutral
Portfolio: Magic, Knowledge
Worshippers: Wizards, sorcerers, philosophers, sages, politicians, tacticians, artisans
Cleric Alignments: CN, LN, N, NG, NE
Domains: Magic, Knowledge, War
Favored Weapon: Katana

Xun Huo, Goddess of Magic: Female Demigod Wiz40; DvR 2; CR 34; Medium-Size Outsider; HD 40d4+680; hp 840; Init +17; Spd 60 ft.; AC 51 (touch 49, flat-footed 38); Atk +58/+53 melee (1d10+15/19-20/x2 crit, katana) or +70 ranged (1d8+15/19-20/x2 crit, light crossbow); SA Domain powers, salient divine abilities, spell-like abilities; SQ Summon familiar (toad), immunities, DR 37/+4, fire resistance 22, godly realm, teleport without error at will, familiar (felines), divine aura 20 ft. (DC 26); SR 50; AL N; SV Fort +60, Ref +56, Will +60; Str 30, Dex 30 (36), Con 32 (44), Int 37 (49), Wis 32, Cha 26 (38). 5'5", 121 lb., Com 85.

Skills and Feats: Concentration +102, Craft (weaponsmithing +66, Gather Information +27, Knowledge (politics) +64, Knowledge (war) +64, Knowledge (arcana) +104, Spellcraft +104, Knowledge (planes) +57, Iaijutsu Focus +72, Tumble +71, Jump +26, Balance +29, Diplomacy +28; Scribe Scroll, Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana), Weapon Focus (katana), Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Forge Ring, Energy Substitution (acid), Energy Admixture (acid), Improved Spell Capacity, Spell Mastery, Epic Spellcasting, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, Improved Metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Forge Epic Ring, Magical Artisan (forge epic ring), Efficient Item Creation (forge epic ring), Enhance Spell, Multispell, Intensify Spell.

Salient Divine Abilities: Arcane Mastery, Divine Spellcasting, Divine Blast.

Possessions: Souldrinker Blade {Souldrinker Katana}, Light Crossbow +10 of Acidic Splash, 50 Crossbow Bolts +5, Robe of Protection {Robe of Armor +10, Resistance +5}, Xun Huo's Outfit, Heward's Handy Haverack, Portable Hole, Rod of the Epic Spellcaster, Staff of Rapid Barrage (50), Brooch of Dumb Luck +20 {+20 luck bonus to saves}, Martial Vest +20 {+20 luck bonus to attack}, Headband of Epic Intellect +12, Boots of Swiftness, Bracers of Epic Health +12, Cloak of Epic Charisma +12, Ring of Elemental Immunity (sonic), Spikard {described below}. 328,970 gp, 5 sp. Load: 40 lbs.

Epic Spells: Peripety, Epic Mage Armor, Destroy {descibed below}, Mass Frog, Verdigris, Superb Dispelling, Explodet {descibed below}, Epic Counterspell, Epic Spell Reflection, Hellball, Kinetic Control.

Spell Prepared (4/9/9/9/8/8/8/8/7/7/7/7/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/3): [Base DC 27]; 0--Daze (4); 1--Magic Missile (9); 2--Magic Missile [Empower] (9); 3--Fireball (3), Slow (3), Vampiric Touch (3); 4--Fireball [Maximize] (4), Vampiric Touch [Maximize] (4); 5--Cone of Cold (4), Fireball [Enhance, Maximize] (4); 6--Disintegrate (8); 7--Finger of Death (2), Fireball [Enhance, Energy Admixture (acid), Maximize, Empower] (3), Cone of Cold [Enhance, Maximize] (3); 8--Cone of Cold [Enhance, Energy Admixture (acid), Maximize] (2), Fireball [Enhance, Energy Admixure (acid), Maximize, Empower x2] (3), Horrid Wilting (2); 9--Horrid Wilting [Maximize] (3), Meteor Swarm (4); 10--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize] (2), Meteor Swarm [Maximize] (3), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x5] (2); 11--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower] (2), Magic Missile [Maximize, Empower x9] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x6] (3); 12--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x2] (2), Magic Missile [Maximize, Empower x10] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x7] (2); 13--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x3] (2), Meteor Swarm [Intensify] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x8] (2); 14--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x4] (3), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] (2); 15--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x5] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x10] (3); 16--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x6] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] (1); 17--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x7] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x12] (2); 18--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x8] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x13] (1); 19--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] (2); Epic--Destroy (4), Epic Mage Armor (1), Explodet (2), Kinetic Control (3).

Spikard: SR 50, +5 resistance bonus to save, +5 deflection bonus to AC, "Haste" continuous, "Fly" continuous, Spellcraft +40, Knowledge (arcana) +40, Concentration +40, Iaijutsu Focus +40, Tumble +40. GP Value: 1,360,000.

Destroy:
Transmutation
Spellcraft DC: 49
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 12,000 ft.
Target: One creature, or up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes
To Develop: 441,000 gp; 9 days; 17,640 XP. Seed: destroy (DC 29). Factor: 1-action casting time (+20 DC).

The target of this spell explodes, taking 20d6 points of damage. If the target is reduced to -10 hit points or less (or a construct, object, or undead is reduced to 0 hit points), it is utterly destroyed as if disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust.

Explodet:
Transmutation
Spellcraft DC: 69
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 12,000 ft.
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes
To Develop: 621,000 gp; 13 days; 24,840 XP. Seed: destroy (DC 29). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), change target to area of 20-ft. spread (+10 DC), increase damage die to d8 (+10 DC).

This spell causes a massive explosion, dealing 20d8 points of damage to everything within the area. Those reduced to -10 hit points or less (or constructs, objects, or undead reduced to 0 hit points) are utterly destroyed as if disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust.

Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus. Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor. Balor tries to full attack and misses.

Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage. Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.

Round 3: Xun Huo casts a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] for over 800 damage, then casts a Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] to finish him off, obliterating him.

Now, the battle:

Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus. Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor. Balor tries to full attack and misses.

Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage. Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.

Round 3: Xun Huo casts a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] for over 800 damage, then casts a Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] to finish him off, obliterating him.

If that doesn't do it for you, just check now the fact that any spell with enough Empower Spell stacked on top of it will beat ANY Epic Spell PERIOD.  My Horrid Wilting does over 1300 poinds of damage, whereas Destroy can only do 120 MAXIMUM.

If anybody can offer ANY counter-proof that shows Empower Spell to not be broken, let them speak now.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 19, 2002)

It seems that the problem can be summed up in one word.

Epic.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

Of course.  I know that.

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.

Seriously, people, you will have problems if you allow stacking Empower Spell.  I've actually play-tested this  so I know what I'm talking about here.


----------



## IceBear (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis, I know that you personally have a beef with Empower stacking with itself, and yes, it is powerful and makes some other feats obsolete, but I still believe that by the *rules* it's allowed.  You make a very good case for a *house rule* to ban it from a game, but in my opinion that's what it is - a house rule.

IceBear


----------



## Kalanyr (Aug 19, 2002)

Actually I'd say the problem is that Improved Metamagic isn't balanced relatively with all metamagic feats, eg Twin Spell with Improved Metamagic x1 costs 6 levels for 2 spells, Empower Spell with Improved Metamagic costs 4 levels for the equivalent, Improved Metamagic should probably be a function of the base cost not a flat -1. 

Oh, Intensify and Enhance spell suck compared to Empower, why would you take them ? Maximise at least has some use pre-Improved Metamagic.


----------



## hong (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Of course.  I know that.
> 
> Given the choice of eliminating Epic Levels or stacking Empower Spell, however, I think the answer is all too obvious . . . *




The epic level rules are b0rken?

Well, duh.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 19, 2002)

Yeah, I also think it's mainly a problem with Improved Metamagic.

Also in your example, Orcus seemed completely outmatched anyways, he didn't even hit once, did stupid actions, so he deserved to die this way or any other.

And why is Destroy an epic spell? Looks more like a 7th level spell to me (well except for the range maybe).
Isn't it possible to metamagic those epic spells as well?

Oh, and you didn't even try the Enhanced, Maximized, 14x Empowered Flame Arrow, that already has a base damage of 40d6 (not bad for a 3rd level spell ).

I don't know what Enhance does (don't have the ELH yet), but even without that, just Maximized and 14x Empowered it would deal 1220 damage on average on a failed save. Add whatever Enhance does to it, and the damage might become pretty obscene! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 19, 2002)

Let's see:

You fought against the Creature Catalog Orcus. He obviously uses none of the options presented in D&DG and ELH. That could be regarded as a problem.

Iaijutsu Focus. I think it's rather powerful, and I would be cautious using it.

Orcus _forgets_ that his opponent is a deity?

19th level spell slots. Anything that uses such a spell slot is likely to be powerful.

Plus, you're a god with the Divine Spellcasting SDA and a truly high Int. A mortal spellcaster would have to burn 10 feats for the spell slots alone.

Finally, you are effectively a 48th level character against a 32 CR NPC.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's simple, really.  IT'S BROKEN.  Any Epic Level Wizard with Empower Spell and Improved Spell Capacity can SLAUGHTER literally ANYBODY in one or two hits using Empower Spell with Vampiric Touch and/or Horrid Wilting.
> 
> IT'S BROKEN.
> 
> VERY VERY VERY BROKEN.*




Oh sure, talk in capitals and we'll believe you. 

I've heard the same thing about nearly everything - it's broken because in just the right circumstances it's powerful.  In fact, it wasn't that long ago that the theory in the vogue was that Improved Metamagic was much weaker than Automatic Quicken Spell and Multispell!

The problem with Empower Spell is that the DC is too easy.  A x9 Empowered _horrid wilting_ has a DC in the mid-20s - easy to save against (not to mention Mettle-able).

What about just taking the Int feat for more spells and better DCs?  Surely someone finds that broken...


----------



## Petrosian (Aug 19, 2002)

I too have playtested with multiple empowers. it works fine in my games so far.

We are not at epic levels and so we dont have to use gods in our examples.

multi-empower is not a problem. 

given your example hinges on epic level stuff AND empower... my guess would be that its the epic side that is broken (if for no other reaosn than IF epic did not take into account simple things like multi-empower then it is broken.)

your mileage may vary and if so, if it pleases you, you should use whatever house rules you need to fix the problem in your games.

for me, i just keep chalking the "epic this is broken" threads like this one up as "glad we dont play epic" material.


----------



## Corwin (Aug 19, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I also think it's mainly a problem with Improved Metamagic.
> *




Before Improved Metamagic even came out, there was the Incantatrix PrC from T&B.

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.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 19, 2002)

Corwin said:
			
		

> *Before Improved Metamagic even came out, there was the Incantatrix PrC from T&B.*




FRCS, maybe.  Not T&B.  And at the risk of starting on this old theme again, FRCS is not exactly your one-stop shopping center for balanced rules.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's simple, really.  IT'S BROKEN.  Any Epic Level Wizard with Empower Spell and Improved Spell Capacity can SLAUGHTER literally ANYBODY in one or two hits using Empower Spell with Vampiric Touch and/or Horrid Wilting.
> 
> IT'S BROKEN.
> 
> ...




Well, no.  Not really.  How could a level 40 wizard obliterate a level 80 fighter with no difficulty?

*



			I really don't care what the designers say about stacking Empower Spell, they OBVIOUSLY NEVER play-tested that, at least not at higher levels, so it turns out that they made a HUGE mistake saying that it was allowed.

This is even more broken than Harm!

Want more proof?
		
Click to expand...


*
Well, some would be nice.

If the only thing you can pull out is a god going up against a level 30ish NPC then you really don't have any PROOF.  Especially if Orcus is played like an INT 6 Barbarian that casts spells.



g!


----------



## Corwin (Aug 19, 2002)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> FRCS, maybe.  Not T&B.
> *




Ack. My bad. That's what I get for posting when I don't have my books with me to check things like that.

Oh well. Point still stands. Our house rule was a good fix for us.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus. Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor. Balor tries to full attack and misses.
> 
> Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage. Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.
> *




What CR is Orcus, anyway?  Where are the stats for him?  If he's not CR 60 or so, of *course* a 40th level Divine Rank 2 creature is going to wipe the floor with him.  That's like saying Weapon Specialization plus Great Cleave is broken because it lets you go through kobolds like a lawnmower - of course you can, they're not meant to be a significant challenge at that level.

How do you get CR 34 out of a 40th level wizard (CR 40) plus divine ranks?  I don't own Deities and Demigods but I find it hard to believe that divine ranks would actually reduce your CR...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Round 3: Xun Huo casts a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] for over 800 damage, then casts a Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] to finish him off, obliterating him.
> *




I get 457 hp average for the vampiric touch.  Enhance adds only 5d6 to the vampiric touch, because it's 1d6 per *two* caster levels. That gives you 90+105d6 damage - not even enough to get 800 on a maximum roll.

Shouldn't Orcus have some spell resistance, by the way?  Admittedly, with more than a +40 to your caster level check you are likely to blow through it, but it ought to be considered.

I also note that your magic item prices are way, way off - I checked only the spikard, but a +40 to *one* skill costs 320,000gp (enhancement bonuses of greater than +30 are epic, and x10 cost).  Remember to *double* the cost of everything after the first magical property (DMG 246, Adding New Abilities) - so the +40 to the skills costs almost 3 million gp alone, and that's without adding in the permanent spell effects or the Spell Resistance.

So basically you've proven that Empower Spell (plus extra magic items plus Divine rank plus epic levels) lets you wipe out a significantly weaker foe (who had apparently been _feebleminded_ judging from his behavior) much faster than she otherwise could.  Um, congratulations?

Regarding epic spells vs. metamagiced regular spells: yes, your empowered horrid wilting can beat a Destroy.  On the other hand, the wizard with Epic Spellcasting had to spend a total of one (1) feat on it, while you spent...well, I have no idea how you got 19th level spells, but normally that'd cost 10 feats, plus your 3 improved metamagics, plus your empower, plus your maximize, plus your enhance...so what did the guy with Epic Spellcasting do with his other 15 feats?  You need to consider that when comparing the two...

J


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 19, 2002)

I rate this troll an 'A-'.  The minus for all those caps.

The giveaway is you have Orcus forget he is fighting a god is rather too fabulously stupid to believe.  But that is really just a feint to distract us from the fact that Orcus conveniently stand around two rounds gettting beat up without bothering to do anything useful.  Not bad that.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Aug 19, 2002)

As others have mentioned, this is a horrible example and doesn't really prove or disprove anything about the Empower Spell feat.


----------



## AuraSeer (Aug 19, 2002)

Apparently the troll-- er, I mean the OP-- forgot to mention that Orcus got hit with _Feeblemind_ in round 0, and that's why he was so stupid. I mean really, summoning a CR 18 Balor to help against a diety? Who does that? That's like a casting _Summon Monster I_ when you're fighting a great wyrm.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 19, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *That's like a casting Summon Monster I when you're fighting a great wyrm. *




That's a bad thing? Hmm...maybe that explains why I keep getting my a$$ kicked.


----------



## gamecat (Aug 19, 2002)

damn kreynolds. Where does post 4000 go?


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 19, 2002)

gamecat said:
			
		

> *damn kreynolds. Where does post 4000 go? *




I guess it goes right here.


----------



## Al (Aug 19, 2002)

If you want us to take this thread seriously, you should probably post stats for Orcus.

At the moment, your analysis is very fatally flawed.

Doesn't Orcus have SR?
Doesn't Vampiric Touch have a touch attack?
Doesn't Horrid Wilting have a Fort save?
Doesn't Orcus have a double-digit Intelligence score?

As for Empower beating any Epic Spell Period, I beg to differ.  For one, anyone with Hide Life will laugh as you hit him with 99999999999999 points of damage, so Empower won't help you no matter how silly the numbers are.  Epic Spells can be easily used to pump up DCs.  Take Slay, slap on 10000XP burn and 100d6 backlash (no problem due to Hide Life), and boost the save DC by 100.  That is in an epic spell.


----------



## Metalsmith (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's simple, really.  IT'S BROKEN.  Any Epic Level Wizard with Empower Spell and Improved Spell Capacity can SLAUGHTER literally ANYBODY in one or two hits using Empower Spell with Vampiric Touch and/or Horrid Wilting.
> 
> If anybody can offer ANY counter-proof that shows Empower Spell to not be broken, let them speak now. *




EEECHHH!

His whole post reads like that crazy 

Time Cube Website.

Really Empower spell is NAZI Like EVIL and EDUCATORS ARE EVIL FoR No UnDerStAnDiNg EMPOWER SPELL!! Listen to ME cause I'M Using CAPITAL Letters and Own a PET Tarantula. EMPOWER spell OWNS you!  Let THEM speak NOW!! PRONOUNCE you Man and Wife!!  


Metalsmith


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 19, 2002)

Oh, by the way, admidst all this talk about Maximized, Empowered spells, you are remembering that metamagic effects apply separately to the _base_ spell, right?  So a Maximized, Empowered spell (for example) does (maximum normal damage) + 0.5 x (normally rolled damage), not 1.5 x (maximum normal damage).

This gets to be a pretty significant difference once you Empower a half-dozen times or so.


----------



## Jalkain (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				Metalsmith said:
			
		

> *
> 
> EEECHHH!
> 
> ...




Wow!  Just read the Time Cube home page for the first time, and it changed my life.  I don't think I will ever stop laughing!

Fave quote:

'There is no God in 2 x 4x4 
femininity and masculinity 
2 sex Cube hemispheres, as 
life is a 2-Cube crap-game. '

My search for a new sig. is finally over!


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Anubis, I know that you personally have a beef with Empower stacking with itself, and yes, it is powerful and makes some other feats obsolete, but I still believe that by the *rules* it's allowed.  You make a very good case for a *house rule* to ban it from a game, but in my opinion that's what it is - a house rule.
> 
> IceBear *




Well of course!  Don't get me wrong, I do realize that it IS allowed, according to the designers, even though the book and the errata don't really say so.

Either way, I'm not contesting it being a rule now.

I'm saying the rule is very bad and that Empower Spell is very broken.

If a house rule is needed, so be it.  Perhaps a better idea would be to hammer this fact into the heads of the designers so that they can change it.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I also think it's mainly a problem with Improved Metamagic.
> 
> Also in your example, Orcus seemed completely outmatched anyways, he didn't even hit once, did stupid actions, so he deserved to die this way or any other.
> 
> ...




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

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


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Let's see:
> 
> You fought against the Creature Catalog Orcus. He obviously uses none of the options presented in D&DG and ELH. That could be regarded as a problem.
> 
> ...




Iaijutsu Focus was NOTHING in this battle.

You're missing the point, however.  Even without Divine Spellcasting, this chick can blow lots of stuff apart with little effort, all due to Empower Spell.

The point is that even a 19th level spell should NOT be doing enough damage to kill even a Greater Deity in a single hit.  (That Horrid Wilting does 1300+ damage, Boccob has less then 1000 HP.)


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh sure, talk in capitals and we'll believe you.
> 
> ...




You fail to reaize that very few people have Mettle (Templars only) and that at very high levels, save almost never miss to begin with, making the DC a moot point.

Regardless, Vampiric Touch doesn't get a saving throw, AND it gives the user HP!  And how often does an Epic Character miss a TOUCH ATTACK?!  Please . . .

At high levels, save DCs are nothing because everything wil be saved against anyway.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> Well, no.  Not really.  How could a level 40 wizard obliterate a level 80 fighter with no difficulty?
> *




Well, how about the fact that the Level 80 Fighter would only have about 1000 HP, and could be taken out in one to three hits by the Level 40 Wizard, whereas the Level 80 Fighter would have to hit probably 20+ times to kill the Level 40 Wizard.



			
				apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, some would be nice.
> 
> ...




Actually, the way Orcus acted was a moot point, because going back over the fight, I saw that since Xun Huo won initiative, she could have killed him in a single hit with that Horrid Wilting.


----------



## Catalyst (Aug 19, 2002)

Here's a thread that started out about Enhance Spell's usefulness (or lack thereof), and I asked about Empower. Towards the end of page one and most of page 2 (don't worry, that's the entire length) there is a lot of number crunching that shows multiple Empowers is only one way to massive damage, and not even necessarily the best way at Epic Levels.

Pre Epic Levels, who cares? If Empower _is_ truly abusable, it's only post-Epic (as the original poster has mentioned).

http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> What CR is Orcus, anyway?  Where are the stats for him?  If he's not CR 60 or so, of *course* a 40th level Divine Rank 2 creature is going to wipe the floor with him.  That's like saying Weapon Specialization plus Great Cleave is broken because it lets you go through kobolds like a lawnmower - of course you can, they're not meant to be a significant challenge at that level.
> 
> How do you get CR 34 out of a 40th level wizard (CR 40) plus divine ranks?  I don't own Deities and Demigods but I find it hard to believe that divine ranks would actually reduce your CR...
> *




Read UK's article in Asgard 6.  CRs are broken after Level 20 and are thus calculated differently.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> I also note that your magic item prices are way, way off - I checked only the spikard, but a +40 to one skill costs 320,000gp (enhancement bonuses of greater than +30 are epic, and x10 cost).  Remember to *double* the cost of everything after the first magical property (DMG 246, Adding New Abilities) - so the +40 to the skills costs almost 3 million gp alone, and that's without adding in the permanent spell effects or the Spell Resistance.
> *




Not that the extra +10 matters in most of the skills in this fight, but thanks for pointing that out.  I didn't see that before, and that was gonna be the next thing I claimed was broken, using my character as an example.  Thanks for that, I'll reduce the stuff to +30.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 19, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *I rate this troll an 'A-'.  The minus for all those caps.
> 
> The giveaway is you have Orcus forget he is fighting a god is rather too fabulously stupid to believe.  But that is really just a feint to distract us from the fact that Orcus conveniently stand around two rounds gettting beat up without bothering to do anything useful.  Not bad that. *




Actually, that was a mistake in typing on my part.  He didn't forget, he never knew in the first place!

As for doing nothing useful . . . He hasted himself, summoned a balor to help him, tried his Wand of Annihilation, and tried Energy Drain.  Not useful?  What else could he do?


----------



## Caliban (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, that was a mistake in typing on my part.  He didn't forget, he never knew in the first place!
> 
> As for doing nothing useful . . . He hasted himself, summoned a balor to help him, tried his Wand of Annihilation, and tried Energy Drain.  Not useful?  What else could he do? *





Admit it, this is just an excuse to brag about your character.


----------



## Metalsmith (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, how about the fact that the Level 80 Fighter would only have about 1000 HP, and could be taken out in one to three hits by the Level 40 Wizard, whereas the Level 80 Fighter would have to hit probably 20+ times to kill the Level 40 Wizard. *





I don't know why I'm playing this silly game, OH Yeah I'm Bored! 

Hmm Level 80 Fighter. That's just enough to have about 42 Epic Feats (are there that many feats in the game?)  

I think  Devestating Critical and Power Critical ought to do your spellcaster in one shot. It's a Fort Save DC 10 + 40 + Str Modifier (30 or so?) = DC 70-80. He'll spend his money on a magic item that makes him immune to all Non-Epic Spells. Of course with Epic Leadership He's prolly got a 40th level Wizard just like you on the payroll too. 

WAIT! I wanna be a DemiGoD too Dude! How many levels do I have to give up for it?

Sillyness.

Metalsmith


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 19, 2002)

This is kind of funny considering that just this last weekend, our group decided to house rule Empower to make it even more powerful:

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.

2) Multiple die Empower adds 50% of all the dice total round down. So, instead of D6: 1 to 1, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, 4 to 6, 5 to 7, and 6 to 9 for an average increase of 43% with D6, it basically becomes 50%-.

The main reasons for this are:

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

2) It took a long time to convert each die and add them up for things like Empowered Lightning Bolts and it resulted in somewhat less than a 50% increase anyway (unless you rolled all even numbers).


----------



## Forrester (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, how about the fact that the Level 80 Fighter would only have about 1000 HP, and could be taken out in one to three hits by the Level 40 Wizard, whereas the Level 80 Fighter would have to hit probably 20+ times to kill the Level 40 Wizard.
> *




Show me an 80th level fighter with only 1000hp, and I'll show you the worst constructed munchkin fighter in the history of the world. 

An 80th level fighter is going to have a Con of at least 30; probably more like 40 or 50 w/magic items. Hell, he's gotten +20 to stats just from leveling normally. 

He's got at least 20hp/level -- 1600hp minimum. Probably closer to 2000+. And his Fort save mocks you.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 19, 2002)

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



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Read UK's article in Asgard 6.  CRs are broken after Level 20 and are thus calculated differently.
> *




Last time I checked, UK and Asgard weren't official D&D by any stretch of the imagination.  If you're going to argue about the rules as they are, it behooves you to use the rules as they are, and not some set of house rules that you happened to like.

Wasn't UK's system developed before the ELH?  I would think that adding in that book would change things.  And did whoever statted Orcus use his method of figuring CR or not?  If you're not looking from a level playing field, you're going to get skewed results.

Anyway, assuming that you're using the Creature Catalog version, I'd like to note that you're a 40th level character with divine rank 2 (what's the ECL on that?) going up against a CR32 monster - and a CR32 monster that didn't have the benefit of using the ELH like you did.  You _should_ wipe the floor with him, with minimal expenditure of resources - you're not even going to get any XP from him because his CR is 8 less than your character level (without even taking the divine rank into account).

Next time try picking on someone your own size - it's more likely to be a reasonable fight.  I'll note for a start that a wizard with Epic Spellcasting could seriously ruin your day by bouncing those megaspells right back at you...

J


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 19, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, that was a mistake in typing on my part.  He didn't forget, he never knew in the first place!
> 
> As for doing nothing useful . . . He hasted himself, summoned a balor to help him, tried his Wand of Annihilation, and tried Energy Drain.  Not useful?  What else could he do? *




Having noticed that the first two of his efforts having no effect, he should Teleport to safety and assess the situation to find out what in heaven's name is hunting him.

Powerful demons and devils acting on their own initiative  (i.e. ones that are not magically compelled to fight unwisely) are maddenly difficult opponents because they can so easily escape.  Their CR substantially overrate their abilities if they only fight like dumb beasts.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 20, 2002)

Hello there! 



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Last time I checked, UK and Asgard weren't official D&D by any stretch of the imagination.*




Thats true. 

However the difference is that unlike WotCs CR rules mine actually work at any level.

But I concur, they are unofficial.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *If you're going to argue about the rules as they are, it behooves you to use the rules as they are, and not some set of house rules that you happened to like.*




I agree with this point. 



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Wasn't UK's system developed before the ELH?*




Irrelevant. The only fundamental is that class levels are relatively balanced (as best as possible).



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *I would think that adding in that book would change things.*




Nope.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *And did whoever statted Orcus use his method of figuring CR or not?*




Actually Scott Greene and I both developed the conversion system for Demon Princes/ArchDevils _et al._ over a year ago. Though I am sure he has worked on from our early discussions since then.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *If you're not looking from a level playing field, you're going to get skewed results.*




Its not though. Although Anubis had been using an old version of my CR rules.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Anyway, assuming that you're using the Creature Catalog version, I'd like to note that you're a 40th level character with divine rank 2 (what's the ECL on that?) going up against a CR32 monster - and a CR32 monster that didn't have the benefit of using the ELH like you did.  You should wipe the floor with him, with minimal expenditure of resources - you're not even going to get any XP from him because his CR is 8 less than your character level (without even taking the divine rank into account).*




Actually Anubis character is CR38, Orcus is CR 33.

Still, an almost certain win for Anubis' character.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Aug 20, 2002)

Let's actually start with a 40th level wizard....(Edited slightly for clarity...)

Karni Nazanur

Male Elven Wiz40:  CR 40; Medium (elven); HD 40d4+120; hp 240 (d4 = 3); Init +2 (+2 Dex); Spd 30 ft.; AC 22 (+10 bracers of armor, +2 Dex); Atk (BAB +10, Epic +10); SQ elven traits; AL LN; SV Fort +24, Ref +23, Will +28; Stat increases:  +1 Int at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 24th, and 28th, +1 Con at 20th, 36th, 40th, +1 Wis at 32nd; Str 10, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 30 (24), Wis 12, Cha 10. (35 point-buy)

Skills (369 points) and Feats (7 normal, 4 normal meta/item creation, 7 normal epic, 6 bonus wizard epic):  Skill left for the reader; 

Normal Feats (11):  Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, and Quicken Spell… (etc)

Epic Feats (13):  Improved Metamagic x3, Improved Spellcasting Capacity x9, Multispell

Possessions:  bracers of armor +10, cloak of resistance +5, headband of intellect +6

Class Spells Prepared:  4/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/5/5/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1

I'm still working on getting all the specifics correct, but you get the idea.... This is not a (too) munched character except for the feat choices, which is done for illustration.

So the caster has up to an 18th level spell......

18th:  empowered x10 horrid wilting (25d8 + 500% = 112.5 * 6 = 675, 337 half)
17th:  empowered x8 meteor swarm (24d6 + 400% = 84 * 5 = 420, no save)

So if Mr. Wizard here burned his most powerful spell slots on the starting round and flung them at Mr. Fighter, Mr. Fighter would take 757 points of damage, assuming he made his fort save (highly likely).

If Mr. Fighter has a Con of 30, and 40 levels, that's 40d10+400 is (on average) is 620 hp.  If he has a Con of 40, add 200 HP, so that's 820 hp.

That's probably the most abusive I can be (at least right now) with Empower.  Do my numbers look good? Any suggestions on different configurations?

I'm not saying Empower is broken, but just trying to provide an *actual* 40th level wizard with a much better example of how Empower might be broken (if it is, which I haven't said either way, only looking into possible abuse).

Later!


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 20, 2002)

Well, heck, if you're going to give the Epic Wizard all of those feats spent on spell slots, you might as well give the fighter a few spent on Epic Toughness (at, what is it, +30 hp a pop?).

This is more fun than a cockfight, by the way.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 20, 2002)

I agree with the previous posters whose opinions were that Improved Metamagic was broken rather tha Empower Spell.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Aug 20, 2002)

Do you really think anyone is going to take Epic Toughness?  I created a Level 50 dwarven fighter and he ended up with roughly 750 hitpoints and could do some serious melee damage.  The dwarf also took several Great Constitution feats, which helped his Con get up to 26 (admittedly, no magic items).

I think I may be inclined to agree with the notion of Improved Metamagic being the problem..... still looking into the matter....


----------



## Crothian (Aug 20, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *Do you really think anyone is going to take Epic Toughness? *




Maybe if I can take it at first level.  Maybe.  At epic levels though, raising one's con with an item will get you as many if not more HPS.  Epic Toughness gives one 20 hp.  A +2 con bonus to a 20th level character yields 20 HPs.  At level 40+ one is better of taking the Epic Constition feat (ot whatever it's called).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 20, 2002)

And then theres that nice feat "you miss".

You know - the one that says once around you can ignore a single batch of damage from your dodge target?

Or all the damage resistance abilities?

Or...

How about that single, permanent, epic-level spell which reflects all non-epic spells back at the caster?

Now are multi-metamagiced spells amazing?


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

And don't forget the relatively easy to get (for an epic character) Ring of Spell Turning. Its a shme that poor wizard just got nuked by his own super-powerful Horrid Wilting.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus. Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor. Balor tries to full attack and misses.
> 
> Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage. Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.
> 
> ...




I jsut did the math, well, not really, I am doing the math here as I type in rough draft format.

A maximized 9 times empowered horrid wilthing would do, let's see, 200 (for the max) + 25d8 *450%.  That is a average of 706.25 hp.  I forget, what was orcus' hp total?  But a fort save for half.  Lets see here...Base Save is DC 27 + 8 for the level, for a total of DC 35 which although it seems high is nothing for a 19th level spell.

And let's look at that vampire touch....
Maximized, it does 60, plus 10d6 *700%(14 empowers) so I get 60 + (3.5*10)*7 or 60 + 35*7 or 60 + 245 = 305 HP. Is that even enough to kill a balor?

Maybe I am missing what enhace does.  But even still, I think I have now formulated an opinion:

You do not know how the empower feat actually works.

That would explain many of your posts, and why you could come to the conclusion that it is broken.


g!


----------



## drowdude (Aug 20, 2002)

Wow... I cant belive this has started all over again in a new thread... *sigh*

If you dont like stacking metamagic feats then rule 0 it


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

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



			
				apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I jsut did the math, well, not really, I am doing the math here as I type in rough draft format.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 20, 2002)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 20, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

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




Um, is there a cite for that?


----------



## AEtherfyre (Aug 20, 2002)

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 (Aug 20, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Um, is there a cite for that? *




PHB, in the Empower Description.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 20, 2002)

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



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *
> 
> PHB, in the Empower Description. *




D'oh.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (Aug 20, 2002)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *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).


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

Dr_Rictus: There's always room for other interpretations. All you have to do is completely ignore the rules themselves, and ten you are free to interpret things however you want.


----------



## Uller (Aug 20, 2002)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

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




It multilies variable effects.  If damage is variable, it multiplies the damage by 1.5.  So the damage of a missile from a twice empowered magic missile is (1d4+1) X 2 for each individual missile.  Your arguement holds up if the damage is broken down into different effects...like if a hypothetical holy bolt spell does 1d4 holy damage + 1 fire damage per bolt, then maybe you would only multiply the damage...

An empowered sleep spell would increase the hit dice affected.  So a 3X empowered sleep would affect 2d4 X 2.5 hit dice of creatures, but would still not affect anything with more than 4 HD.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2002)

Uller said:
			
		

> *
> It multilies variable effects.  If damage is variable, it multiplies the damage by 1.5.  *




Thanks for the clarification.

I stand corrected.

I was always reading it as "variable, numeric portion of the effect" which is obviously incorrect.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *And don't forget the relatively easy to get (for an epic character) Ring of Spell Turning. Its a shme that poor wizard just got nuked by his own super-powerful Horrid Wilting. *




Can always lead with a quickened disjunction (I'd be surprised if Epic characters even have many magic items).  While Horrid Wilting would be turned, Meteor Swarm would not be.

I'm still leaning toward "empower is ok".  I'm even leaning a little toward IMM is ok as well.  I had to *really* twink out this wizard to do this.  Not to mention it may just be easier to take Heighten Spell and hit the fighter with a high level dominate spell.

Some other examples of empower spell + IMM....

13th:  empowered x10 fireball (10d6 + 500% = 35 * 6 = 210 avg damage, 105 for half)
15th:  empowered x8 delayed fireball (20d6 + 400% = 70 * 5 = 350 avg, 175 for half).
15th:  empowered x6 meteor swarm (24d6 + 300% = 84 * 4 = 336, no save)


----------



## Shalewind (Aug 20, 2002)

> I was always reading it as "variable, numeric portion of the effect" which is obviously incorrect.



You don't program by chance, do you?  



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



A basic Balor has 110hp. Basic. Balors can advance too. And to repeat the point, Orcus has far better minions to be tossing around than some poor Balor. At least he should in any Epic Campaign.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

Okay, you want a better example, I'll give you one!

Let's take the Level 30 NPCs from the ELH, both the Wizard and the Fighter!

First, lets replace the Wizard's "Brew Potion" with "Empower Spell" and then replace the Wizard's "Epic Spell Penetration" with "Improved Metamagic" . . . This is so the Wizard has the feats to demonstrate my point.

The Fighter needs no changes.

Now, let's look at an average fight between these two.

Initiative: Fighter +4, Wizard +8, the Wizard will, on average, go first.

Round 1:

Wizard casts Haste on himself and approaches within melee range of Fighter.  Partial action, Wizard casts Vampiric Touch [Maximize, Empower x8]; on average, Wizard will get through Blink easily enough, and on average, Wizard will score a hit with a touch attack against AC 16; on average, Fighter will take 200 damage {60 (6*10, Maximize) + (3.5*10/2)*8 = 200}; Fighter is down to 75 HP, Wizard is up to 338 HP.

Figher uses Boots of Speed to Haste himself.  Partial action, Fighter attacks; on average, Fighter will easily hit AC 32; on average, Wizard will take 20 damage; Wizard is down to 318 HP.

Round 2:

Wizard casts Power Word, Kill (casting on the defensive); Fighter is killed instantly; Fighter dies, Wizard wins.



Okay, does THIS satisfy you all?  Empower Spell stacking is what allowed Wizard to cut Fighter down to so few HP that he killed him with Power Word, Kill.  Of course, Fighter could have had over 500 HP to start, and the outcome would've been the same, because the Wizard could have used another Vampiric Touch, Horrid Wilting, and/or Meteor Swarm to take out Fighter in Round 2 with NO DIFFICULTY.

In other words, a SQUASH, all due to Empower Spell.  With PCs, it would have been even worse!

There, a real example with reaonable factors!


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2002)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> You don't program by chance, do you?
> *




Yup.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

By the way, I am no longer contesting whether or not Empower Spell is allowed by the rules, I'm trying to offer proof that it's BROKEN if allowed.

Showing that it SHOULDN'T be allowed.


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> First, lets replace the Wizard's "Brew Potion" with "Empower Spell" and then replace the Wizard's "Epic Spell Penetration" with "Improved Metamagic" . . . This is so the Wizard has the feats to demonstrate my point.
> *




Shouldn't we then change the fighter as well? Perhaps giving him more useful feats (devestating and Overwhelming Criticl are useless when you've got a Vorpal Blade). Perhaps Spellcasting Harrier to make those spells a bit more difficult to cast? And then maybe Epic Weapon Specialization?



> Now, let's look at an average fight between these two.
> 
> Initiative: Fighter +4, Wizard +8, the Wizard will, on average, go first.




True



> Round 1:
> 
> Wizard casts Haste on himself and approaches within melee range of Fighter.  Partial action, Wizard casts Vampiric Touch [Maximize, Empower x8]; on average, Wizard will get through Blink easily enough, and on average, Wizard will score a hit with a touch attack against AC 16; on average, Fighter will take 200 damage {60 (6*10, Maximize) + (3.5*10/2)*8 = 200}; Fighter is down to 75 HP, Wizard is up to 338 HP.




On average the wizard will bypass Blink? How do you figure? Blink is a 50% miss chance. To better reflect the miss chance, divide the wizard's damage in half. In fact, to better reflect the damage dealt by both combatants you should calculate average damage dealt.



> Figher uses Boots of Speed to Haste himself.  Partial action, Fighter attacks; on average, Fighter will easily hit AC 32; on average, Wizard will take 20 damage; Wizard is down to 318 HP.




Actually, if the fighter had just gotten dropped to 75 hit points in one round, wouldn't he use his Helm of Teleportation to escape? Even if he doesn't want to do that he could instead full attack.  All attacks hit (the last one would only miss on a 4 or less). He deals 5.5 + 5 (weapon) +6 (Spec. and Epic Spec.) + 13 (Strength) on each attack. Granted, that's only a total of 118 damage, not enough to killl the wizard. However, if he manages to crit with any of those attacks (a 80% probablity with 4 attacks) the wizard is dead.



> Round 2:
> 
> Wizard casts Power Word, Kill (casting on the defensive); Fighter is killed instantly; Fighter dies, Wizard wins.




If the fighter is still there and the wizard's head is still attached.



> Okay, does THIS satisfy you all?  Empower Spell stacking is what allowed Wizard to cut Fighter down to so few HP that he killed him with Power Word, Kill.  Of course, Fighter could have had over 500 HP to start, and the outcome would've been the same, because the Wizard could have used another Vampiric Touch, Horrid Wilting, and/or Meteor Swarm to take out Fighter in Round 2 with NO DIFFICULTY.
> 
> In other words, a SQUASH, all due to Empower Spell.  With PCs, it would have been even worse!
> 
> There, a real example with reaonable factors!




Again, if you insist on giving the wizards' foes your seemingly hampered intellect rather than the battle savvy a epic level combatant should have, your champions will win every time.


----------



## AuraSeer (Aug 20, 2002)

> In other words, a SQUASH, all due to Empower Spell.



Not so.

As has been pointed out before (multiple times, in this thread and others), you're not really pointing out a problem with Empower. Your l33t killer move is based on the combination of Empower Spell and Improved Metamagic. The latter feat is the real culprit.

When the ELH designers created Improved Metamagic, they failed to consider its effect on multiply-meta'd spells. Any time you have 9 metamagic feats on one spell, Improved Meta basically lets you get 9 spell levels for free instead of one, and that's what's overpowering.  (Would you still consider that Maximized 8xEmpowered _Vampiric Touch_ so overpowering if it were 8 levels higher?)

If it bothers you so very much, use the house rule that Improved Meta only applies once per spell, instead of once per feat applied. Hopefully that'll come out as something official, but if not, that's why rule 0 was invented.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 20, 2002)

@KarinsDad: I definitely know, where you are coming from, since I'm also quite involved in mathematics, and your view is (or is that was?) mathematically sound and correct. However, the rules are no strict mathematic system and I see it exactly like Uller clarified above. A Magic Missile has a variable effect, resulting in 2-5 per missile. This variable effect is multiplied by 1.5. Well I guess I didn't have to reiterate that now, but still... 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Shouldn't we then change the fighter as well? Perhaps giving him more useful feats (devestating and Overwhelming Criticl are useless when you've got a Vorpal Blade). Perhaps Spellcasting Harrier to make those spells a bit more difficult to cast? And then maybe Epic Weapon Specialization?
> 
> ...




First off, is the answer to ALL of my agruments gonna be "he'll teleport out of there to escape"?  I should just change my argument to "Wizards stacking Empower Spell will always win battles."  Why?  Causing the enemy to reatreat is a victory, or have you forgotten?

By the way, you SEVERELY miscaculated on the chance of a critical.  You added them together!  On average, you must take the AVERAGE.  One does NOT have an 80% chance to pull off a critical hit just because they have four attacks with a 20% chance.  It would be mroe like a 35% chance, statistically speaking.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 20, 2002)

If I may make a suggestion...

In each of the examples Anubis uses, the wizard in question has used a combination of Empower and Improved MetaMagic to decimate a high HP foe. His argument is therefore that Empower is overpowered.

What would the numbers be like if Improved Metamagic were taken out of the equation?

I wish I had the materials here at work to run these numbers, but sadly I don't - anyone care to work them up?


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *In fact, to better reflect the damage dealt by both combatants you should calculate average damage dealt.
> *




Nah, the average damage given the miss chance is a poor statistic because it's the one situation you're basically sure _doesn't_ apply.  There aren't going to be enough events for it to average out.

50% chance, the wizard ends up with a bunch of the fighter's hit points and can (sort of) stand up to his counterattack, 50% chance he doesn't and is killed by the fighter trivially.

By the way, should the _fighter_ be taking a miss chance for his _blink_, or is his _vorpal sword_ also _ghost touch_ or something?



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> *However, if he manages to crit with any of those attacks (a 80% probablity with 4 attacks) the wizard is dead.
> *




With 4 attacks each having a 20% chance to critical, the chance that at least one of them does so is actually about 59%.  Which is more comfortable for the wizard, but still not exactly cozy.

So, for the wizard to survive, he has to hit the fighter (50% chance) and not be decapitated by any of the counterattacks (41% chance).  So there's about a 20% chance he even gets as far as his attempt to _power word, kill_ the fighter.  

Which, I might point out, kind of counts on him (A) getting the fighter to below 100 hit points (likely, but not guaranteed just by the fact that average damage would do it), and (B) _knowing_ that the fighter is at under 100 hit points, which is actually something he is obliged to guess about.  He only has to roll a 28 or less on his 10d6 and the fighter is left with more than 100 hit points.  This is actually a pretty good bet for the wizard (about 90%).

So, offhand, it looks like the wizard's chance of succeeding with this strategy, given all of the independent factors that could go wrong, is in the neighborhood of 18%


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's simple, really.  IT'S BROKEN.  Any Epic Level Wizard with Empower Spell and Improved Spell Capacity can SLAUGHTER literally ANYBODY in one or two hits using Empower Spell with Vampiric Touch and/or Horrid Wilting.
> 
> IT'S BROKEN.
> 
> ...




You have 40th level characters running around?


----------



## Al (Aug 20, 2002)

> That's probably the most abusive I can be (at least right now) with Empower




Tragically not.  The most abusive is to add it to the most powerful assault spell in the game: Time Stop.

So an Empoweredx9 Time Stop (instead of Meteor Swarm or Empoweredx10 Horrid Wilting) effective multiplies (d4+1) by 5.  On average rolls, you have 17.5 rounds of smackdown time.

In that amount of time, the wizard could kill the fighter using Magic Missiles alone (some of them would need to be Quickened, but not many).

That is the most abusive use of Empower Spell, and it demonstrates why Empower should not stack with itself very elegantly, no?


----------



## AuraSeer (Aug 20, 2002)

Oh joy, a probability argument.

If the fighter's weapon has a threat range of 17-20, he has a 20% chance to threaten. For the fighter to not threaten at all in the round, he must fail to threaten with each of his four attacks.

The probability that he fails to threaten on one attack is 80%. The probability that he fails four times in a row is (0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8), or 0.4096, or 41%. So assuming any threat is confirmed, the fighter has a (100 - 41) = 59% chance of getting a critical and doing vorpal nastiness.

Incidentally, as long as we're being munchkin, he'd likely be better served by taking back Overwhelming Critical, and carrying a keen scimitar. Then he'd threaten on 12-20, or 40% of the time. His chance of having four attacks be non-threats would be (0.60 ^4), or 0.1296, or 13%. That gives him an 87% chance of forcing the insta-death Fort save.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

> *@KarinsDad: I definitely know, where you are coming from, since I'm also quite involved in mathematics, and your view is (or is that was?) mathematically sound and correct. However, the rules are no strict mathematic system and I see it exactly like Uller clarified above. A Magic Missile has a variable effect, resulting in 2-5 per missile. This variable effect is multiplied by 1.5. Well I guess I didn't have to reiterate that now, but still...
> *




But still, you had to rub my nose in it that I read it the wrong way long, long ago? 

Thanks Thanee (not)!


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 20, 2002)

Damn it all....did NOBODY read the ELH all the way through?

Did everyone happen to miss the part that says Zagyg squashes all characters as soon as they hit 30th level or so anyways, so this discussion is all moot!


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, you want a better example, I'll give you one!
> *




What was wrong with my calculations?

And there are at least a few mistakes with this "combat".  If we are going all out, lead with a disjunction, use a quickened haste, *then* hit the fighter with your bang spell....

Also, if the fighter activates his boots and is already within melee range, he can do a full round attack (ouch).

And why is Mr. Wizard using an 11th level spell slot to stand next to the Fighter *and* make a touch attack!?!? And it only does 200 points of damage....(on average)

11th:  maximized empowered x4 Chain Lightning (20d6 + 200% = 120 (maxed) + 2 * 70 = 260, half 130)

I'd probably just use a maximized meteor swarm, do 144 points of damage from a distance (no save).

Even if this doesn't manage to kill the fighter, we are at least out of sword reach (maybe) and can blast him over and over again till the fighter dies....


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> The probability that he fails to threaten on one attack is 80%. The probability that he fails four times in a row is (0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8), or 0.4096, or 41%. So assuming any threat is confirmed, the fighter has a (100 - 41) = 59% chance of getting a critical and doing vorpal nastiness.
> *




It's a big assumption that any threat is confirmed.

On top of that, I wouldn't even consider designing an Epic level character without some form of Fortification.


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

Sorry, my math was off. However, to use Anubis' word: "On average, the fighter will crit the wizard." Poof! Dead Wizard.

As for the wizard always winning every battle, that is true if he has initiative and you consider a fled foe a win. However, since that Fighter can always go get his friends and then attack the wizard when he least expects it, the situation is again fixed. 

High level characters are all powerful, no matter their class. When you consider that they do not operate in a vaccuum (where these tests have been prepared) then you will realize that it is in part their resources beyond magic items that makes them powerful.

I believe it has been shown by others that your wizard is not guaranteed to win the battle. Try again.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *If I may make a suggestion...
> 
> In each of the examples Anubis uses, the wizard in question has used a combination of Empower and Improved MetaMagic to decimate a high HP foe. His argument is therefore that Empower is overpowered.
> 
> ...




I'll do it.



Here we go, without Improved Metamagic:

_12th-Level Spell - Vampiric Touch [Maximize, Empower x3]_

60 (10*6, Maximize) + (3.5*10/2)*3 = 112 damage

OR (since Vampiric Touch isn't the only spell there):

_13th-Level Spell - Horrid Wilting [Maximize, Empower]_

200 (25*8, Maximize) + (4.5*25/2)*1 = 256 damage

OR (for those of you who will complain about me combining feats):

_13th-Level Spell - Vampiric Touch [Empower x5]_

35 (3.5*10) + (3.5*10/2)*5 = 122 damage

OR (again with the other spell):

_12th-Level Spell - Horrid Wilting [Empower x2]_

112 (4.5*25) + (4.5*25/2)*2 = 224 damage

With the above examples, no longer using Improved Metamagic, Wizard STILL would have won the fight!  How?  Use the Horrid Wilting instead of the Vampiric Touch as the partial action in Round 1!  Even with a successful save, any number of other spells could have killed Fighter instantly the next round!

So, now that I have stopped using a Deity and Orcus and Improved Metamagic in my exmaples, yet STILL shown that it does a ridiculous amount of damage, NOW do you believe me?

I'm not debating what the rules say about stacking being allowed, I saying IT'S BROKEN!


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 20, 2002)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *It's a big assumption that any threat is confirmed.
> *




Not really.  If the fighter in question pretty much hits automatically with all but his last attack, he confirms threats pretty much automatically too.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *On top of that, I wouldn't even consider designing an Epic level character without some form of Fortification. *




The character under consideration doesn't happen to have it, but I'd tend to agree.


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not debating what the rules say about stacking being allowed, I saying IT'S BROKEN! *




OF COURSE, IT'S BROKEN!  And since it comes up ALL THE TIME IN GAMES, it should be errata'ed.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll do it.
> 
> ...




OK, and here I am to play devil's advocate (sorry, can't resist).

How much damage, on average, will the 40th level fighter do? (using the given NPC, and switching out one feat for a more advantageous feat, much the same as you switched out Brew Potion in favor of Empower)?

At this point, I'm sort of curious if the damage levels equate...


----------



## AuraSeer (Aug 20, 2002)

I just realized something. I've posted what, three times in this thread? (Four now, I suppose.)

I haven't been trolled so successfully in years. Anubis, I salute you! You're a master at the craft.

Now I'm gonna go read some other thread. Preferably one that doesn't involve dodging flecks of spittle from the raving OP.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tragically not.  The most abusive is to add it to the most powerful assault spell in the game: Time Stop.
> 
> ...




You can't damage an opponent during Time Stop.

Your argument does still hold up, however, by the fact that the Wizard can not only buff himself up to ridiculous levels of power in that time, but also have several Metamagic Delayed Blast Fireballs ready to blow.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *Oh joy, a probability argument.
> 
> If the fighter's weapon has a threat range of 17-20, he has a 20% chance to threaten. For the fighter to not threaten at all in the round, he must fail to threaten with each of his four attacks.
> 
> ...




Vorpal only works with the NATURAL threat range of the weapon, so making it Keen wouldn't help, and the damage wouldn't be enough to take Wizard out.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *Damn it all....did NOBODY read the ELH all the way through?
> 
> Did everyone happen to miss the part that says Zagyg squashes all characters as soon as they hit 30th level or so anyways, so this discussion is all moot!   *




What in the heck are you talking about?  That's nowhere to be found in the ELH.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What was wrong with my calculations?
> 
> ...




NO, in the round you Haste yourself, you can only take a partial action.

The rest of your arguments are viable, however, and only strengthens my point.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Sorry, my math was off. However, to use Anubis' word: "On average, the fighter will crit the wizard." Poof! Dead Wizard.
> 
> As for the wizard always winning every battle, that is true if he has initiative and you consider a fled foe a win. However, since that Fighter can always go get his friends and then attack the wizard when he least expects it, the situation is again fixed.
> 
> ...




Now you're the one adding factors that do not belong in the equation.

This is a duel, so if Fighter got his friends, Wizard would get his.  ANYTHING Fighter can do, Wizard can match him.  On top of that, Fighter CAN'T match everything Wizard can do.  Wizard COULD have opened with Haste and Dimensional Anchor, then used Improved Invisibility and Fly, THEN gone up and used these spells.  I eliminated the middle part, seeing as it's almost guaranteed and has NO effect on the fight.

What's more, it has ZERO bearing on the question at hand, which is about Empower Spell being allowed to stack being RIDICULOUSLY BROKEN.  Has such, we must take solid situtaitons using the power at hand.  No way should such a small feat be able to eliminate Epic Level Characters like that.  THAT is my point.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 20, 2002)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *But still, you had to rub my nose in it that I read it the wrong way long, long ago?
> 
> Thanks Thanee (not)!   *






Bye
Thanee


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK, and here I am to play devil's advocate (sorry, can't resist).
> 
> ...




First off, which feat switch are you wanting?

Second, they're both Level 30, Fighter is not Level 40.  I'm using the ones from the back of the ELH.

As for average damage, Fighter deals about 20 damage per hit on average.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *I just realized something. I've posted what, three times in this thread? (Four now, I suppose.)
> 
> I haven't been trolled so successfully in years. Anubis, I salute you! You're a master at the craft.
> 
> Now I'm gonna go read some other thread. Preferably one that doesn't involve dodging flecks of spittle from the raving OP. *




I'm not trolling, I'm trying to show everybody how broken stacking Empower Spell is.

People have it all wrong.

I'm NOT saying Empower Spell is brokwn, I'm saying STACKING IT is broken.


----------



## DarkJester (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Vorpal only works with the NATURAL threat range of the weapon, so making it Keen wouldn't help, and the damage wouldn't be enough to take Wizard out. *




Where is this errata at? I checked DMG errate  and the FAQ...

I think its just a popular house rule.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Vorpal only works with the NATURAL threat range of the weapon, so making it Keen wouldn't help, and the damage wouldn't be enough to take Wizard out. *




I don't think I can say this any other way but....

*WRONG*

Hey, I used all-caps, so that means I can't be argued against. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> Howdy Skip,
> 
> I have a question regarding burst enhancements, vorpal enhancements, etc. These enhancements activate when you score a critical hit. My question is this: Will the Improved Critical feat or the Keen weapon enhancement, which both increase the threat range of the weapon, also apply to the burst/vorpal enhancement?
> 
> ...




By the rules, any weapon enhancement that functions on a critical hit uses the fully modified threat range of the weapon, not just the original.


----------



## IceBear (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis, you haven't  proved to me that stacking empower is broke.  You have proven that in the right circumstances one PC can defeat another.  As was asked before,  what kind of damage can the fighter dish out? What if the fighter decided to take Improved Initiative and won the initiative?  What if the fighter knew he was going to be taking on a wizard and prepared accordingly.

I'm not surprised in the least that in a straight up fight a wizard beat a fighter.  I don't even think you need Epic rules or empowered to pull that off after 14th level anyway.

Anyway, I admire your passion, but after, what - 3 threads on this now - I think you should let it go.  Those that haven't been convinced by now probably won't be.

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't think I can say this any other way but....
> 
> ...




Using one broken rule to throw out an argument about another broken rule not being broken just makes you look silly.

That would be like saying Harm isn't broken because one can use Heal to reverse it.  Silly.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 20, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Anubis, you haven't  proved to me that stacking empower is broke.  You have proven that in the right circumstances one PC can defeat another.  As was asked before,  what kind of damage can the fighter dish out? What if the fighter decided to take Improved Initiative and won the initiative?  What if the fighter knew he was going to be taking on a wizard and prepared accordingly.
> 
> I'm not surprised in the least that in a straight up fight a wizard beat a fighter.  I don't even think you need Epic rules or empowered to pull that off after 14th level anyway.
> 
> ...




Until someone can show me ANY situtation in which Empower Spell DOESN'T sway EVERYTHING toward Wizard against ANY of the other NPCs presented in the ELH (since that is the only true way to test, using "equal" characters.), there is no way to show that it isn't broken.


----------



## IceBear (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis,

Run your experiment again, but don't use empower at all.  Who wins?  I bet it's still the wizard.  What does that tell me?  It's the spellcasters that are outshining the non-spellcasters, not the feats.  Wizard wins initiative, wizard casts timestop, wizard buffs, casts fly and improved invisibilty.  By the time the fighter can act the wizard is now 50ft in the air and can rain devestation down on the fighter.  Even if it comes out as being close, people here have already shown you that if the wizard could lose the battle with the fighter if he has some bad luck on the dice rolls.

Anyway, I say again, nothing you have shown mean has convinced me that stacking empower is horribly broken.  Sorry.

IceBear


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

> Using one broken rule to throw out an argument about another broken rule not being broken just makes you look silly.




And using the word broken three times in the same sentence just makes you look like a guy in severe need of a thesaurus.

Get a life.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Using one broken rule to throw out an argument about another broken rule not being broken just makes you look silly. *




Hardly. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong. Come to think of it, you might find these useful...



> *Grow Up And Live With It [General]*
> Your personality has developed into something more akin to that of an adult.
> *Benefit:* You can now make decisions and have opinions that are based upon logical thought processes instead of irrational behavior and temper tantrums when something goes wrong or when you see something you don't like.
> *Normal:* Without this feat, a character is immature, pissy, winey, and complains all the time about how life just isn't fair because they took the wrong feat at the wrong level. The character also tends to bitch about how they are entitled to an additional +1 BAB increase to get that extra attack as well.
> ...


----------



## Al (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You can't damage an opponent during Time Stop.
> 
> Your argument does still hold up, however, by the fact that the Wizard can not only buff himself up to ridiculous levels of power in that time, but also have several Metamagic Delayed Blast Fireballs ready to blow. *




Although you can of course set the Magic Missiles and then they will go off later...

But, to be fair, having read IceBear's posts, he's right.  This isn't clear proof that Empower Spell is broken, but that spellcasters are clearly superior to nonspellcasters.  A similar trick of mine can be played with Intensify, giving ten rounds: again, enough to totally obliterate the hapless fighter.

And, in all honestly, the wizard doesn't even need Improved Spellcasting Capacity, Improved Metamagic or other epicness.   Otto's Irresistable Dance, follow up with various 'blast' spells (Fireball et al.).  Repeat when OID runs out (NB if you're concerned about the touch attack, a Quickened True Strike does wonders.)


----------



## apsuman (Aug 20, 2002)

High level wizards mop the floor with high level fighters all the time.

Almost as often as low level fighters mop the floor with low level wizards.

All you have done is to demonstrate that you can substitute a spell empowered a few times in place of other spells that would kick the fighter in the rear end.

The fact that you can still use a third level spell at epic levels to me is a strength of the multiple empowers, not a weakness.

And, all of your examples seem to revolve around EPIC levels.  Maybe that is the problem you are really experiencing.

I have not played at epic levels (yet) so my experience with multiple empowers are at "normal" levels.  At levels 20 and below I see no problem with the multiple empowered spells.  The fact that you have to go to level 30 to find how something is broken does not (imho) prove anything.  The epic rules were created after the core rules, and as such are a retro-fit add-on.  As good as they are they (being made by man) are an imperfection added onto an imperfect original system.

Really, if the ONLY way your wizard might be able to beat an opponent was through the use of multiple empowers, then I might re-evaluate it's brokeness.  But I really doubt my opinion would change.

g!


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *NO, in the round you Haste yourself, you can only take a partial action. *




Which is why the fighter would be a fool to activate his boots, when he could be opening up with his full attack and very likely killing the wizard instead.  So let's just forget about silly plans that involve a jillionth-level fighter, standing right next to a wizard who just tried to take 200 of his hit points, not taking his full attack for some bizarre reason.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Until someone can show me ANY situtation in which Empower Spell DOESN'T sway EVERYTHING toward Wizard against ANY of the other NPCs presented in the ELH (since that is the only true way to test, using "equal" characters.), there is no way to show that it isn't broken. *




My logic is not that strong, but I thought it impossible to disprove certain assertions.

Basically, you are staying that he is guilty, now prove him innocent.

It seem slike many people think the multiple empowered spells are just fine.  Many have commented that perhaps the improved metamagic might be a problem (I wold still say no), and some have pointed you to the EPIC rules being the source of your concern.

I do think there are things in the game that are broken, time stop is one, harm is another.  If I am picked to be one of the ten semi-finalists in the fantasy world submission, I will include them there.  But this multiple empowered stuff is just fine.

g!


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 20, 2002)

> Until someone can show me ANY situtation in which Empower Spell DOESN'T sway EVERYTHING toward Wizard against ANY of the other NPCs presented in the ELH (since that is the only true way to test, using "equal" characters.), there is no way to show that it isn't broken.




Here's three:

Using the Sorcerer:

round 1: Sorcer wins initiative (+9 vs. +8). He casts haste and moves up. Partial Action: Temporal Stasis, or Power Word, Stun, Or Otto's Irresistable Dace, etc.

round 2: Does whatever he has to do to finish you off, up to and including non-empowered spells.

round x: loot your corpse

Using the Rogue (but we'll switch out Superior Initiative for Blinding Speed, because Haste as a free action is more useful than a +4 to intiative when you've already got +13):

round 1: Rogue wins inti. (+13 vs. +8). Activates blinding speed and moves up as his partial action. He then full attacks. All three attacks hit, dealing 48d6 + 24 (average damage 192).

round 2: loot your corpse

Using the Ranger (we'll drop to-weapon rend and Improved Favored Enemy for Multi-shot and Improved Multishot:

round 1: Ranger wins init (+12 vs. +8). Activates Blinding speed and fires 6 arrows at the wizard using his highest bonus. All hit, for 111 damage. As his haste action, he readies another Multi-shot for when you try to cast a spell. You try to cast haste, and he blasts you for another 111 damage.

round 2: loot your corpse.

It seems to me that initiative plays a much greater role in who wins the battle than empower did.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 20, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Here's three:*




Beautiful examples.


----------



## Shalewind (Aug 21, 2002)

Alright... Anubis's argument is that Stacking Empower should not be allowed, correct? I can think of only one scenario in which this can truely be tested.

Send to IDENTICAL wizards, both with Empower, up against one another. Allow one of the wizards to stack his empowers. Now, if the stacking wizard wins more than 75% of the time, yes, I think stacking empower might be a little high on the end of the scale, even for epic duels.

I have neither the expertise nor the will to pull off such a match up. A number may try, but remember, no ONE scenario will prove the point.

I think the lines are pretty much drawn on this one already. But good luck for those that want to continue this little duel. --End Bite--


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

In that situation you will end up with whoever wins intitative winning the fight (assuming the casters are not allowed to prepare themselves ahead of time).

That is because if the empower caster wins init, he'll do enough damage to kill the other guy. If the non-empower wizard wins init, he'll use spells such as Otto's Irresistable Dance, Power Word, Stun, and Temporal Stasis to win the fight.


----------



## Skaros (Aug 21, 2002)

Actually, more than specific encounters that provide only anecdotal information, wouldn't further analysis of how multiply empowered spells compare against other spells that would normally fill the slot they are taking up provide stronger general evidence one way or the other?

For instance, if you can show that multiply empowering spells enough times to take up a lvl X spell slot tends to create spells that are clearly more powerful than normal lvl X spells, and that the extra power is great enough that having to spend a feat on "empower spell" doesn't justify it, then you have a pretty good case that allowing multiple empowers is unbalanced.

That being said, I'm not the expert to do this 

What do you think?

-Skaros


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

Sounds good. How about:

7xEmp. Horrid Wilting, level 22: 25d8 x 6.5 damage (average 731)
vs.
Quickened, Reach, Twinned, Silent Stilled Temporal Stasis: Free action ranged touch attack no components auto-remaoval unless they have SR

Advantage: non-empower

4 x emp Horrid Wilting, level 16: 25d8 x 3 damage (average 337)
Empowered, Quickened, Power Word Stun, Maximized: No save,  stunned for 4 + 1d4 x .5 rounds if you have fewer than 150 hp.

Looks like a tie. With the Stun they have to have few HP, but if they do they are most likely dead.

3 x emp Vampiric Touch, level 9: 10d6 x 2.5 damage (average 87) pllus you gain those HP.
Non-metamagicked Meteor Swarm: 24d6 no save, plus bursts (average 84, you don't heal)

Looks like a tie, since the Vampiric Touch requires you to be in melee combat and succeed at a touch attack.

That's all I've got time for right now.


----------



## Catalyst (Aug 21, 2002)

> Tragically not. The most abusive is to add it to the most powerful assault spell in the game: Time Stop.
> 
> So an Empoweredx9 Time Stop (instead of Meteor Swarm or Empoweredx10 Horrid Wilting) effective multiplies (d4+1) by 5. On average rolls, you have 17.5 rounds of smackdown time.
> 
> ...




Actually, no. To Empower Time Stop 9x (assuming you have Improved Metamagic for sanity's sake) would require an 18th level spell slot, Improved Metamagic, and Improved Spell Capacity x9. That's 10 Epic Feats, to the exclusion of doing anything else, minimum character level 48.

A 48th level opponent would either have taken Spell Stowaway [Time Stop], or be able to afford an item that duplicates it quite easily, and it would be one of the most important defensive items to have (read: likely to have). One feat to defeat a single 48 level trick.

I agree with those who say spellcasters simply dominate at high levels completely aside from stacking metamagic feats, though I also think the fact that no one is using sub-epic examples is telling. For those using "only" 12th level Horrid Wiltings against equivalent level fighters: you are probably halving your potential damage using a Fort save spell. I would say stick to Meteor Swarm, but protection from fire is so cheaply available...


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

One more:

14 x empowered Horrid Wilting, level 36: 25d8 x 8 (average 900)
Quickened, Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Enhanced x 4 Horrid Wilting: (55 x 8) + (55d8 x .5) + 25d8 damage (average 676 as a free action)

Still close to a tie, although thadvantage may be slightly weighted towards the stacked  empower, depending on how highly you value a spell being a free action.


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

> though I also think the fact that no one is using sub-epic examples is telling.




Actually, one of my examples was a non-epi spell, and in that instance, the effect was a tie.

Yes, Spellcasters can dominate at high levels, especially when given the resources of NPCs, since less money favors the spellcasters. However, every class will dominate the right situations, at every level.


----------



## Metalsmith (Aug 21, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Why?  Causing the enemy to reatreat is a victory, or have you forgotten?
> 
> By the way, you SEVERELY miscaculated on the chance of a critical.  You added them together!  On average, you must take the AVERAGE.  One does NOT have an 80% chance to pull off a critical hit just because they have four attacks with a 20% chance.  It would be mroe like a 35% chance, statistically speaking. *





Naw! There's no reason to RETREAT. 

He forgot you can take Power Critical and just VAPE him straight off. 100% chance to Critcal. Dead Mage, looks like EMPOWER SPELL didn't rule the world after all. Kinda disappointing I was expecting better from such a broken spell. 

Metalsmith


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Here's three:
> 
> ...




You can't harm someone while they are in Temporal Stasis.

I can't argue with the other two examples, however.  They are a good point.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *Alright... Anubis's argument is that Stacking Empower should not be allowed, correct? I can think of only one scenario in which this can truely be tested.
> 
> Send to IDENTICAL wizards, both with Empower, up against one another. Allow one of the wizards to stack his empowers. Now, if the stacking wizard wins more than 75% of the time, yes, I think stacking empower might be a little high on the end of the scale, even for epic duels.
> 
> ...




Well, honestly, I can't say that it'll happen.  Each Wizard would win about 50% of the time, because they have the same initiative, and either could kill the other in one hit even without Empower Spell.  (Haste-Meteor Swarm-Power Word, Kill would do it easily either way.)

The one being allowed to use Empower Spell will do more damage, though, than the one not using Empoer Spell.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

Skaros said:
			
		

> *Actually, more than specific encounters that provide only anecdotal information, wouldn't further analysis of how multiply empowered spells compare against other spells that would normally fill the slot they are taking up provide stronger general evidence one way or the other?
> 
> For instance, if you can show that multiply empowering spells enough times to take up a lvl X spell slot tends to create spells that are clearly more powerful than normal lvl X spells, and that the extra power is great enough that having to spend a feat on "empower spell" doesn't justify it, then you have a pretty good case that allowing multiple empowers is unbalanced.
> 
> ...




Okay, I can do that.

Let's take an Empowered Fireball and compare it to Cone of Cold.  Both are 5th-Level Spells.  Let's cast them both with a Level 15 Wizard.

Fireball [Empower]: 35 (3.5*10) + (3.5*10/2) = 52 damage

Cone of Cold: 52 damage (3.5*15)

Here they are equal power.  Of course that doesn't stack Empower Spell.  Now for a second example, which may be better because these two spells are actually more similar.  Oh, and the fact that THIS one actually stacks Empower Spell, which is the point we're all addressing.  We'll use a Twice-Empowered Fireball and a Delayed Blast Fireball.  This time we'll use a Level 20 Wizard.

Fireball [Empower x2]: 35 (3.5*10) + (3.5*10/2)*2 = 70 damage

Delayed Blast Fireball: 70 damage (3.5*20)

Seems they're equal again.

Who says Anubis doesn't tell both sides of the story without consideration, eh?  Of course, this doesn't show MUCH because there isn't a lot of stacking going on here, just two for the second example.  Wait a sec, lemme give a third example with much more stacking going on.  We'll use a Thrice-Empowered Flame Arrow and compare it to Meteor Swarm.  A Level 20 Wizard will cast these spells

Flame Arrow [Empower x3]: 70 (3.5*4*5) + (3.5*4*5/2)*3 = 175

Meteor Swarm: 84 (3.5*24) + 21 (3.5*6) + 21 (3.5*6) + 21 (3.5*6) + 21 (3.5*6) = 168

(I admit I still don't quite know how Meteor Swarm is supposed to work, the thing in the PH is very very poor at describing it.  I'm not sure how a single person could be in the direct path of four meteors that go in different directions, honestly.)

Now stacking Empower Spell is starting to show its effects.  This does offer proof that it seems to be balanced at low levels, not getting unbalanced until high levels.

That said, perhaps the real problem is that many of you have not played an Epic game?  In that case, the designers made a grave error not playtesting this out before releasing the ELH or allowing Empower Spell to stack . . .


----------



## Uller (Aug 21, 2002)

Ummm guys?  We've been over this in SOOOO many other "broken" threads...A straight up duel between two PC characters is in no way a valid arguement to prove that something is broken...

Sure...a wizard (or a sorcerer or cleric) can lay the smack down on ANY other class in straight up fight beyond 7th level or so if the spell caster is fresh and prepared for that exact fight.  That's always been a fact in D&D.  Stacking empower hasn't brought anything new there.  An 11th level wizard prepared for killing fighters should be able to kill or incapacitate an 11th level fighter in a duel situation in about a round or two...without stacking metamagic feats...

For instance:  11th level Specialist necromancer with 22 Int and a spell focus feat.  Assume he casts lots of buff spells prior to combat like fly, improved invisibility, stone skin, etc...

Round 1: Haste followed by Disintegrate
Round 2: Disintegrate, Disintegrate 

After two rounds, the fighter is likely dead.  DC would be 23.  Fighter with a 22 con would have a +13 or so Fort save...chances of making ALL THREE saves is roughly 15%.  Even if he makes all three, he's lost 52 hitpoints which isn't trivial for an 11th level fighter (131 on average with a 22 con).

Or if the fighter can't fly...Telekinesis (poor weak willed fighter...).  Lift him up 200 feet.  Drop him.  20d6 damage.  Repeat until dead.

There are many many ways for a wizard to mash a fighter or equal level with only a couple spells.  No fighter can prepare for every possible magical attack.

The disadvantage that the wizard has is he runs out of smack down spells eventually (even quickly), where the fighter can deal the same damage round after round as long as he stays alive.  So...yes!  It is valid for the fighter to teleport away, heal and come back.  As long as he does so before the wizard can reprepare his best spells, he's got a MAJOR advantage.

The point of game balance is not how well one character can destroy another character.  It is whether or not all characters can affect the game in a meaningful way.  I'm running a 15th level game right now and I'm finding the archer types to be the most effective combatants.  The wizard is great for gathering info and moving the party around and what not, but can't be counted on to smack around powerful opponents too much because they all have all sorts of crazy resistances and immunities (but none are immune to those pesky +5 arrows and swords!)

So the best we can see one of these spells do is a couple hundred hitpoints of damage without Improved Metamagic.  Are you going to go up and deliever an empowered Vampric touch on a Great Wyrm Red Dragon?  I think not (that's what harm is for )  Seems Improved Metamagic is the culprit here...otherwise empower is fine.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

*kreynolds*

What's your problem, kreynolds?  Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?

I have not once said that I am always right and everybody else is always wrong, and I always offer in-game proof with my examples and statements.  They are all valid examples because I have actually played this in the game.  Who are you to just toss aside my arguments without proper consideration?

I have considered both sides of this many times.  I have even posted things that ended up helping the other side, hurting my arguments.  Yet you sit there and insult me like that?

I had respect for you, kreynolds, but unless you apologize for those abusive flames, that respect will be gone.  You flame me because I am passionate, nothing more, and that is wrong.  Yes, I debate in a very heated fashion.  I have not ONCE, however, insulted anybody, and although I have an urge to insult you right now, I respected you for too long to do that.  Not to mention the fact that this is a game, and I'm not about to start a flame war about a game.

Am I passionate?  Duh.  Am I think-headed?  Sometimes.  Am I sure of myself?  You bet.  I do deserve respect, though, because no matter how stubborn toward my point I am, I still show the rest of you proper respect.

You should take a lesson from UK, man.  He's very respectful all the time, and he has my utmost respect for what he's contributed to this community.  You could learn a lot from him, as could we all.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

*The Verdict*

After careful consideration, I have made a decision regarding stacking Empower Spell.

*Verdict:* Not guilty.  Stacking Empower Spell, although it works very well in duels and with preparation, does not unbalance a normal game consisting of many encounters and a full party.

What swayed me?

1) Empower Spell doesn't significantly increase damage until very high levels.

2) At high levels, spellcasters do have a huge advantage.

3) Improved Metamagic does seem to cause more problems than Empower Spell, especially when you consider possible damage when using Maximize Spell, Intensift Spell, and Enhance Spell.

I am disappointed that so many of you judged me, however.  You insult me and put me down simply for my passionate method of debating, and that simply isn't right.  I thank those of you you maintained a respectful attitude during this debate.  To the rest of you, including kreynolds (see above for my full opinion on that matter) and ESPECIALLY James McMurray, you need to mature a bit and not throw insults around in a gaming environment, as it only makes you look childish.

I debated using reasonable examples and was proven wrong, and I freely admit that.  Throwing insults, however, and telling me my arguments were "baseless" (which obviously was not the case to any ogical person) had no effect whatsoever except to upset me, as I thought this was a gaming COMMUNITY, not a political convention.


----------



## Uller (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: kreynolds*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What's your problem, kreynolds?  Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?*




Kr gets under the skin of yet another enworld denizen...It's sad really...


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: kreynolds*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What's your problem, kreynolds? *




I'm sorry? I don't follow.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you? *




Disrespecting? Insulting?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have not once said that I am always right and everybody else is always wrong, and I always offer in-game proof with my examples and statements.  They are all valid examples because I have actually played this in the game.  Who are you to just toss aside my arguments without proper consideration? *




Actually, the primary thing you provided was an argument based upon house rules, so it isn't valid at all. It doesn't really matter how great you think those house rules are. They're still house rules, and there is a separate forum for that.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have considered both sides of this many times.  I have even posted things that ended up helping the other side, hurting my arguments.  Yet you sit there and insult me like that? *




Oh! I see! No, no, no. That wasn't intended as an insult at all, not a personal one anyway. I apologize if it seemed like that, but it wasn't intended. It's more just a poke.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I had respect for you, kreynolds *




Well...I can't see why, but OK.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *but unless you apologize for those abusive flames, that respect will be gone. *




I wasn't flaming you, and if you took it that way, then I apologize. I just like those feats because I find them funny, and they are meant as satire. If you took it personal, which you obviously did, all I can say is...damn...that's not what I intended.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You flame me because I am passionate, nothing more, and that is wrong.  Yes, I debate in a very heated fashion.  I have not ONCE, however, insulted anybody, and although I have an urge to insult you right now, I respected you for too long to do that.  Not to mention the fact that this is a game, and I'm not about to start a flame war about a game.
> 
> Am I passionate?  Duh.  Am I think-headed?  Sometimes.  Am I sure of myself?  You bet.  I do deserve respect, though, because no matter how stubborn toward my point I am, I still show the rest of you proper respect. *




Like I said, insulting you wasn't my intent, and I'm pretty surprised that you're taking it this badly, but again, my bad. Although, I can't help but wonder if you are taking those feats as an insult because of my comments against your argument in the house rules thread.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You should take a lesson from UK, man. *




Uhhh...right.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *He's very respectful all the time *




Nobody's perfect, and some people take things way too seriously.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and he has my utmost respect for what he's contributed to this community. *




You lost me.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You could learn a lot from him, as could we all. *




That's debateable. It depends on your perspective.

I get the feeling that you are more than a little upset that I, and a few others, completely debunked your argument because you were using a set of house rules created by someone that you respect a great deal. Perhaps in your eyes, having those house rules thrown right out the window in a rules thread is disrespectful to said individual. Please understand that it was not disrespect, as those house rules simply do not belong in this discussion in the first place.

One last time, please understand that I intended no direct malicious insult. If you read those feats over again, I'm sure you'll find that they're pretty rediculous and can't even really be literally applied to you at all, nor could they be applied to most people.

It is quite obvious that you are truly upset, and I'm pretty sure that you're not B.S.'ing me. So, I will apologize for two things:

1) I sorry that my post offended you so badly (though why, exactly, I'm not entirely sure).

2) I'm sorry you got upset.

It was my attempt to inject a little reprieve into this dying thread. Perhaps that was a bad idea. But please, try not to take things so seriously or personally. I don't "flame" people without good reason, and in this case, I had no reason to "flame" you, which is why I didn't.

However, given all the pieces of this puzzle (the house rules, your tremendous respect for the author of those rules, your apparent insulting from my feats, your staunch defense of your argument that isn't based upon the rules, etc), I find your  reaction confusing. Nevertheless, I apologize for any permanent harm I might have caused you.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: The Verdict*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I debated using reasonable examples *




That's debateable. Really, it is.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Throwing insults, however, and telling me my arguments were "baseless" (which obviously was not the case to any ogical person) had no effect whatsoever except to upset me, as I thought this was a gaming COMMUNITY, not a political convention. *




Dude!  You flat out claimed, that by the rules, Vorpal only functions on the original threat range of the weapon, and by the rules, as has been confirmed, you're wrong. You then threw a fit when I illustrated that. I never questioned the balance of Vorpal functioning on the fully modified threat range of a weapon. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in your assumption.

You also used house rules to determine your character's CR in relation to a monster's CR that was also determined by the very same house rules, house rules that directly conflict with those found in the core rules, thus completely imbalancing the fight in your example. That right there disqualifies the bulk of your argument.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: kreynolds*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm sorry? I don't follow.
> 
> ...




It was the "feats" that upset me, not the debating.  The debating is a debate, plain and siple.  I simply felt that the "feats" were uncalled for, and they seemed like a personal shot.

I will accept your apology, however, as I am reasonable and understand that different people have varying levels of "humor", and mine is quite low.  I have no real sense of humor that I am aware of when it comes to stuff like that.  (Comes from being picked on in school because I liked staying inside and playing D&D and video games instead of going out and playing football and basketball.  I'm sorry, I just find intellectual stimulation more rewarding than physical stimulation, unless the physical stimulation is ***, you know what I'm talking about!)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.  Now if only the other guy would do the same . . . Ah well . . .


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: The Verdict*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's debateable. Really, it is.
> 
> ...




I'm sure that I heard SOMEWHERE that it was either in the errata or the FAQ.  Mayb even the DMG, something about not being able to stack Keen and Vorpal, or something to that effect.  Don't have it right in front of me at the moment.

If those were incorrect assumptions, then fine.  I feel it is debatable, however, seeing as I'm not discussing the rules, but rather the balance OF those rules.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> You also used house rules to determine your character's CR in relation to a monster's CR that was also determined by the very same house rules, house rules that directly conflict with those found in the core rules, thus completely imbalancing the fight in your example. That right there disqualifies the bulk of your argument. *




Here is where our primary disagreement is.  Through playtesting, it seems pretty obvious that UK's system of determining CR is more balanced than the method described in the core rules.  I'll let HIM debate that, however, and on a thread in the House Rules.  He knows more about it than I do.

Thus, considering they're more balanced, they're more likely to give accurate results.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: kreynolds*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I will accept your apology, however, as I am reasonable and understand that different people have varying levels of "humor", and mine is quite low.  I have no real sense of humor that I am aware of when it comes to stuff like that. *




Well, you gotta loosen up man.  If I took stuff like that too seriously I'd be a basket case (Quiet Crothian and mikebr99! I know you fellas, and I know a comment is brewing. )



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *(Comes from being picked on in school because I liked staying inside and playing D&D and video games instead of going out and playing football and basketball. *




Oh crap...I'm probably going to inadvertantly insult you again, and believe me why I say that I don't intend to, but I won't be held responsible for your quirks that developed due to actions that had nothing to do with me.

If there's one thing in this world that I can't stand more than anything else, it's being expected to walk on eggshells simply because there *might* be someone out there that would find my critiqueing of an apple pie personally insulting and permanently emotionally damaging.

I'm sure you can tell, I'm not very PC. 

To help put this in perspective, I now know exactly where you're coming from. I was the day-care dork. I was the elementary school dork. I was the junior high dork. I was short and heavy, and had to wear glasses. But I'm not just talkin' about plain ol' glasses! Oh no! I'm talkin' about big ol' fat, thick coke-bottle glasses baby! I had braces for seven of my scholastic years. I had to wear a headgear during 6th and 7th grade (that most certainly does not help get the chicks ). My clothing was always at least a year behind in style than everyone else and I had a really bad haircut for half my life.

Then, suddenly, high school comes around. I weighed the exact same as I did before (165lbs) but I grew taller. I got bulkier, more athletic (I still don't know how). My dress completely changed from a year behind to "I don't give a damn". I wore the same thing every day: bluejeans, white t-shirt, black boots, black belt, black leather biker jacket (you know, the rebelious type ), but I did so for simplicity's sake. Also, due to reasons that I won't get into, because it would take too much time, I was constantly expressionless, except in the rarest of circumstances. Suddenly, I wasn't picked on anymore. I wasn't looked at funny anymore. I got chicks (how the hell did that happen!? ). But, the strangest thing? When I would walk through the halls, the crowds would part and let me pass, just like it does when the proverbial school bully would walk by, but I wasn't a bully. Never, not once, did I get in a fight at high school.

That's when I realized that poor treatment from adolescents is primarily driven by image. Somehow, my "image" was no longer objectionable, and people began to respect me, but they didn't even know me. How can someone respect you when they don't even know you? Took me a long time to figure that one out. Simple. They don't. It's about acceptance of others. By accepting one person, you might be accepted more by others. Conversely, by refusing to accept a different person, you very well might be accepted more by others. It's a game. It's not fun, I'll admit that, but it's just a game, and a child's one at that.

Long story short (though it might be to late), you gotta let go of that kind of crap. I got picked on just like you did, but I got over it. I don't *need* anyone else's respect or acceptance (with the exception of my father). I only need to respect and accept who I am. You should too. Just let it go and move on. Trust me, it's worth it. OK. The "Dr. Phil" session is over. 

For those of you that fell asleep, you can wake up now.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: The Verdict*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I feel it is debatable, however, seeing as I'm not discussing the rules, but rather the balance OF those rules. *




Claiming a rule to be imbalanced and claiming a rule to be something that it's not are two completely different things, thus my reply to you about Vorpal.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here is where our primary disagreement is.  Through playtesting, it seems pretty obvious that UK's system of determining CR is more balanced than the method described in the core rules.  I'll let HIM debate that, however, and on a thread in the House Rules.  He knows more about it than I do.
> 
> Thus, considering they're more balanced, they're more likely to give accurate results. *




It doesn't matter how "good" those rules are. It doesn't matter how "accurate" those rules might be. What does matter, however, is they are house rules, and an argument made in the *rules* forum has no ground to stand on if it is based upon *house rules*. That's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## Metalsmith (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: kreynolds*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What's your problem, kreynolds?  Why are you here disrespecting me and insulting me even though I have never done any such thing to you?
> *




YA! Respect his Athoritaaay! 

TimeCube er EMPOWER SPELL discovery makes him wiser than human/Gods, You were EDUCATED EVIL  and cannot HOPE to argue against  him U are too damm dumb to think.  

Metalsmith
I crack me up.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: kreynolds*



			
				Metalsmith said:
			
		

> *TimeCube er EMPOWER SPELL discovery makes him wiser than human/Gods, You were EDUCATED EVIL  and cannot HOPE to argue against  him U are too damm dumb to think. *




That site gives me the willies. Just the mere notion of the possibility that someone out there might actually believe in that nonsense fills me with dread in regards to the survival of the human race.


----------



## Metalsmith (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: kreynolds*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That site gives me the willies. Just the mere notion of the possibility that someone out there might actually believe in that nonsense fills me with dread in regards to the survival of the human race.  *




I prefer to think of it as a Big Joke that someone put together one weekend after drinking too much Tequlia. 

Metalsmith


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: kreynolds*



			
				Metalsmith said:
			
		

> *I prefer to think of it as a Big Joke that someone put together one weekend after drinking too much Tequlia. *




Me too. But still...just the possibility...<shivers>


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

I just went to that Time Cube web site . . .

Wow, that wisdom makes perfect sense!

NOT! 

I read about a quarter down the page, and then it just started repeating itself!  He says to offer proof against his theory, but he doesn't even explain his theory!

I have to wonder, since when were the mentally retarded able to create web sites and lecture at MIT?  That's guy's Time Cube crap makes no sense!

Actually, that's wrong, there are SOME point that he has right, but it does NOTHING to help his argument.  Please, someone explain it to me.  I have a 150 IQ and I can't make heads or tails out of that nonsense.

Can there really be someone so stupid in the world?  I would like to challenge him to acytually explain his little theory, and until then, I have no choice but to consider him insane.  The reason no one would let him lecture is simple:

THE IDEA IS RIDICULOUS! 

Sheesh . . . Someone, please explain it . . . Makes no sense . . .

Head . . . will . . . explode . . .


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

> and ESPECIALLY James McMurray, you need to mature a bit and not throw insults around in a gaming environment, as it only makes you look childish.




Bite me, wuss-boy! 

Ok, now that's out of my system. I personally think that you dropped the maturity level first by resorting to using the word broken three times in a single sentence when your supposed rules knowledge was proven wrong.

You also showed a lack of immaturity by completely ignoring evidence given against you up until the end, by insisting on continuing to use house rules in  arules based discussion, nd by only choosing examples where your side could easily win..

That being said, though, I hold no ill will towards you. Life's too short to give a crap about total strangers. I'm glad you changed your mind about empower, but if you hadn't I would have kept giving examples. Not because I wanted you to change, but because I think that people spreading misinformation (intentionally or not) damage the game as a whole.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Bite me, wuss-boy!  *




Now *that* was *FUNNY!!!*


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 21, 2002)

Hey Anubis, I know this is all over, but there were a couple of errors I wanted to point out to you just in case it comes up in a game.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> We'll use a Twice-Empowered Fireball and a Delayed Blast Fireball.  This time we'll use a Level 20 Wizard.
> 
> Fireball [Empower x2]: 35 (3.5*10) + (3.5*10/2)*2 = 70 damage
> ...




Actually, the DBF does (4.5*20) = 90 hp average - it does *1d8* per caster level, not 1d6 like a fireball.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Wait a sec, lemme give a third example with much more stacking going on.  We'll use a Thrice-Empowered Flame Arrow and compare it to Meteor Swarm.  A Level 20 Wizard will cast these spells
> 
> Flame Arrow [Empower x3]: 70 (3.5*4*5) + (3.5*4*5/2)*3 = 175
> ...




Well...note that Flame Arrow is a single-target spell while Meteor Swarm is an area effect spell.  I don't think they're comparable - a single target spell _should_ do more damage than an area effect spell of the same level, don't you think?

Also, Flame Arrow has a save.  Meteor swarm does not, at least not for the 24d6 that you take for being in the path of the spheres.  The save for the burst effects is also 7 higher than the save for the flame arrow, which should count for something.

As for how meteor swarm works: The meteors from meteor swarm must burst in one of the patterns detailed in the book - it's not like you get to toss 4 (or 8) separate meteors to completely separate areas of the battlefield.  So they really all go down the same line.

It's probably easiest to picture the meteors as going in a straight line to the 'center' of the burst pattern and spreading out from there, like some kind of magical MIRV warhead.  That's the simplest eway to picture it and it fits the spell's description.  Draw a line from you to the spell's 'point of origin', and if anyone is on that line, they take the 24d6 damage.  

The part that is unclear to me is that the spell says *if* the spheres reach their destination they explode, which makes me wonder if they go away after hitting a single target and doing their 24d6 (no save).


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Actually, the DBF does (4.5*20) = 90 hp average - it does 1d8 per caster level, not 1d6 like a fireball. *




Actually, it does deal 1d6 per level, not 1d8. It's in the errata.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 21, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Actually, it does deal 1d6 per level, not 1d8. It's in the errata. *




Aw, you beat me to it.


----------



## Anubis (Aug 21, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> As for how meteor swarm works: The meteors from meteor swarm must burst in one of the patterns detailed in the book - it's not like you get to toss 4 (or 8) separate meteors to completely separate areas of the battlefield.  So they really all go down the same line.
> 
> It's probably easiest to picture the meteors as going in a straight line to the 'center' of the burst pattern and spreading out from there, like some kind of magical MIRV warhead.  That's the simplest eway to picture it and it fits the spell's description.  Draw a line from you to the spell's 'point of origin', and if anyone is on that line, they take the 24d6 damage.
> ...




Since those two already beat me to the errata . . .

Thanks about Meteor Swarm, I get it now.  I never thought of the warhead way.  That makes things much more simple.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 21, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, it does deal 1d6 per level, not 1d8. It's in the errata. *




That'll teach me to make sure which copy of the PHB I'm looking at.

J


----------



## thallone (Aug 21, 2002)

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



			
				Metalsmith said:
			
		

> *
> 
> EEECHHH!
> 
> ...




I'm going to sue you for permanent brain damage for linking that site. I thought I was warped before, but that very nearly made me snap.


----------



## thallone (Aug 21, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, it does deal 1d6 per level, not 1d8. It's in the errata. *




Rule zero man, rule zero.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 21, 2002)

thallone said:
			
		

> *Rule zero man, rule zero. *




What's your point?


----------



## James McMurray (Aug 21, 2002)

> What's your point?




He may not have one, he's already admitted to having been twisted by Time Cube.


----------



## ForceUser (Aug 21, 2002)

I find this thread highly amusing, and I have nothing constructive to offer other than this: take everything you read on the web with a grain of salt, including "insults." You can't translate tone or intent over a messageboard post, so it doesn't pay to be thin-skinned. ENWorld is the tamest messageboard I read, and I'm glad this is so. I need a relaxing place to wind down after doffing my flame-retardent suit 

This EverQuest rant board makes ENWorld look like the mecca of enlightenment and understanding. Take that for what it's worth


----------



## Darkness (Aug 22, 2002)

Good to see that you cleared up the little argument yourselves, folks. 

Hmm... kreynolds, I think that your feats, while certainly funny, can seem to be a bit rude if posted without much explanation (unless the person you're suggesting them to was present when you created them, of course ). So it might be good to be a bit careful with how you present them.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 22, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> *Hmm... kreynolds, I think that your feats, while certainly funny, can seem to be a bit rude if posted without much explanation (unless the person you're suggesting them to was present when you created them, of course ). So it might be good to be a bit careful with how you present them.  *




True. But, there's only so much I can compensate for. You know, that whole "walking on eggshells thing".  I think, more than anything, my timing was off. It's better to post stuff like that when someone isn't already really upset.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 22, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> True. But, there's only so much I can compensate for. You know, that whole "walking on eggshells thing".  I think, more than anything, my timing was off. It's better to post stuff like that when someone isn't already really upset. *



*nods* I think you're right; timing probably _is_ the most important factor to consider...


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 22, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> **nods* I think you're right; timing probably is the most important factor to consider...  *




Reminds of a time when a buddy of mine thought it would be funny to tell me that he wrecked my car (I let him borrow it to drive around town so he could look for a job). What the poor guy didn't know was that I was already in a really bad mood. I swear, friendship be damned, I amost killed him. 

I try to think of that whenever I'm making the attempt to be funny.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 23, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Reminds of a time when a buddy of mine thought it would be funny to tell me that he wrecked my car (I let him borrow it to drive around town so he could look for a job). What the poor guy didn't know was that I was already in a really bad mood. I swear, friendship be damned, I amost killed him. *



Ouch!! Really not the best timing...  I'm just glad that it only was a joke, though. 
Heh. Still, apart from his timing, I also think that jokes along the lines of "I wrecked (or broke or lost, etc.) your (whatever)" are seldom very funny anyway.
Maybe I'm biased, though: One of the clerks in a local RPG store _constantly_ claims to have given away whatever book I told them to keep for me; it's really tiresome at times. So maybe I've just heard too many such jokes over time to find them funny any more... *shrug* 



> *I try to think of that whenever I'm making the attempt to be funny. *



If this helps you, that's very cool!


----------

