# Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

No sane wizard should waste a slot with the Intensify Spell feat...

Lets take the example in the ELH of an intensified horrid wilting (note that an Intensified 8th level spell requires a 15th level slot)...

Their wizard, feat progression
21st -- improved spell capacity (10th)
23rd -- improved spell capacity (11th)
24th -- improved spell capacity (12th)
26th -- improved spell capacity (13th)
27th -- intensify spell (30 ranks required)
28th -- improved spell capacity (14th)
30th -- improved spell capacity (15th)

their wizard's Horrid Wilting damage (25x16) = 400 points  

obvious disadvantages:
intensify spell cannot be stacked with empower or maximize feats, basically horrid wilting maxes out, damage wise, at 15th level with the intensify spell feat.



My wizard, feat progression 
21st -- improved spell capacity (10th)
23rd -- improved spell capacity (11th)
24th -- improved spell capacity (12th)
26th -- improved spell capacity (13th)
27th -- improved metamagic (all metamagic -1 modifier)
28th -- improved spell capacity (14th)
30th -- improved spell capacity (15th)

my wizard's Horrid Wilting damage (empowered x 7) = 506 points average damage...   

obvious advantages:
1. horrid wilting can be further empowered indefinately (and even maximized once) as spell capacity is improved beyond 15th level.
2. other metamagic feats are at -1 level (i.e. quicken spell +3 level adjustment, maximize +2 level adjustment, etc)

It's a no brainer...


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2002)

Ya, but at least you can say you did it.  Or if you took Improved Metamagic 6 times so the modifier was only +1.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *No sane wizard should waste a slot with the Intensify Spell feat... *




The multi-empower vs. maximize argument is an old one. Intensify Spell is just a better form of empowering and then maximizing, so this shouldn't really come as a shock to anyone.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *their wizard's Horrid Wilting damage (25x16) = 400 points
> 
> my wizard's Horrid Wilting damage (empowered x 7) = 506 points average damage...   *




Personally, I'll take a guaranteed 400 points of damage over an "average" of 506 any day of the week.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *It's a no brainer... *




Oh, I'm not too sure about that.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Or if you took Improved Metamagic 6 times so the modifier was only +1. *




LOL Well, there is always that, isn't there?


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Ya, but at least you can say you did it.  Or if you took Improved Metamagic 6 times so the modifier was only +1. *




True, true, but every time their wizard takes improved metamagic (six times for a -6 adjustment), my wizard will take improved spell capacity 6 times (thats 21st level slots baby!!), or other interesting feats...

Therefore, (assuming my wizard took 6 more improved spellcasting feats):

their wizard horrid wilting at a 9th level slot = 400 points

my wizards horrid wilting at a 21st level slot = 844 points, half damage is 422 points  


can you say "Nuclear Blast".....


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *your their *




Well...which is it? "Your" or "their"? 



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *their wizard horrid wilting at a 9th level slot = 400 points
> 
> my wizards horrid wilting at a 21st level slot = 844 points, half damage is 422 points  *




And just how many times per day do you think your wizard can pull off a 21st level spell? Not enough, so don't lose initiative. 

Also, I'm curious as to how you came up with 844 points of damage.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2002)

Can you double Intensify a spell?  I would think they would specifically say if you could not like they say you can't Maximize or Empower it.  It seems like you cannot, but just checking.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Personally, I'll take a guaranteed 400 points of damage over an "average" of 506 any day of the week.
> *





Can I suggest you put that on a bell curve and calculate what the probability of rolling less that 400 is, you may find it less than you think....




			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> And just how many times per day do you think your wizard can pull off a 21st level spell? Not enough, so don't lose initiative.
> *




ok you got me there, guess after I burn my 21st level spell, Ill just have to depend on my 20th and 19th level spells, BUMMER....



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Also, I'm curious as to how you came up with 844 points of damage.
> *




Easy, thats an 8th level spell empowered 13 times or 7.5 times base damage.

112.5 x 7.5 = 843.75


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Or if you took Improved Metamagic 6 times so the modifier was only +1. *




Now THAT my friend would be a true Epic WASTE of a WIZARD.  There is absolutely no sense in taking Improved Metamagic more than 3 times for obvious reasons.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *Can I suggest you put that on a bell curve and calculate what the probability of rolling less that 400 is, you may find it less than you think.... *




Do you roll my dice? Nope. Besides, "average damage" isn't entirely reliable. You might average 506 points of damage, but you might roll really crappy. You might roll really good. Guaranteed 400 points, 200 on a save? No risk? Done!



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *ok you got me there, guess after I burn my 21st level spell, Ill just have to depend on my 20th and 19th level spells, BUMMER.... *




What's your point? The other wizard will have 19th and 20th level spells too. Look, this is quickly degrading into a "MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!!!" argument. 

I'm just saying that I don't like the averages, that's all. Given a choice between average and guarantee, I'll take guarantee. That's just the kinda guy I am.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *Easy, thats an 8th level spell empowered 13 times or 7.5 times base damage.
> 
> 112.5 x 7.5 = 843.75 *




Cool. Thanks. This is the funny part though. Your damage on this could possibly be as high as 1,500 points of damage, and it can also possibly be as low as 37.5 points of damage. I hate averages.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now THAT my friend would be a true Epic WASTE of a WIZARD.  There is absolutely no sense in taking Improved Metamagic more than 3 times for obvious reasons. *




I agree, I was being silly.  Take the feat three times so you can Quicken spells at +1, anything more is overkill until they come up with meta magic feats that truely are worth it.  Quicken, Enhance, and Persistant would all be cast at +1.  That's scarey.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Do you roll my dice? Nope. Besides, "average damage" isn't entirely reliable. You might average 506 points of damage, but you might roll really crappy. You might roll really good. Guaranteed 400 points, 200 on a save? No risk? Done!
> *




I would NEVER attempt to roll your dice, that's like taking someones fries, I have more sense that that...  

Like I said, it's worth the risk, the chances of rolling an average of 3.0 or less on 25d8 is VERY SLIM.  But if you find yourself rolling that way maybe it's time for new dice....




			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> What's your point? The other wizard will have 19th and 20th level spells too.
> *





Sorry let me further clearify

Their wizard, from 30th level:
30th -- improved spell capacity (15th)
32nd -- intensify spell (-1)
33rd -- intensify spell (-2)
35th -- intensify spell (-3)
36th -- intensify spell (-4)
38th -- intensify spell (-5)
39th -- intensify spell (-6)

My wizard, from 30th level
30th -- improved spell capacity (15th)
32nd -- improved spell capacity (16th)
33rd -- improved spell capacity (17th)
35th -- improved spell capacity (18th)
36th -- improved spell capacity (19th)
38th -- improved spell capacity (20th)
39th -- improved spell capacity (21st)

My point is that, "their" wizard, by burning 6 slots in intensify spell, gives up on improved spell capacity feats, "their" wizard is still maxed out at 15th level spell slots.  That's what we call in business "opportunity costs"




			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Look, this is quickly degrading into a "MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!!!" argument.
> *




This is a post ABOUT "mine is bigger than yours" (re-read my original post).  Some wizard taking intensify spell (the point of that feat is making damage BIGGER) is doing themselves a disservice, I can make it BIGGER and BETTER without that feat and have proven so...

Hence, Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE, don't waste an Epic Feat slot on that feat... that's my point


----------



## Xeriar (Jul 20, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree, I was being silly.  Take the feat three times so you can Quicken spells at +1, anything more is overkill until they come up with meta magic feats that truely are worth it.  Quicken, Enhance, and Persistant would all be cast at +1.  That's scarey.   *




...
And twinned...


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *I would NEVER attempt to roll your dice, that's like taking someones fries, I have more sense that that...  *




LOL  You know, that _really_ shouldn't be funny.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *Like I said, it's worth the risk, the chances of rolling an average of 3.0 or less on 25d8 is VERY SLIM.  But if you find yourself rolling that way maybe it's time for new dice.... *




Funny you mentioned that. I just bought 4 new sets, but I haven't had a chance to try them out yet.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *Sorry let me further clearify
> 
> Their wizard, from 30th level:
> 30th -- improved spell capacity (15th)
> ...




OK. Gotcha.



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *This is a post ABOUT "mine is bigger than yours" (re-read my original post).  Some wizard taking intensify spell (the point of that feat is making damage BIGGER) is doing themselves a disservice, I can make it BIGGER and BETTER without that feat and have proven so...
> 
> Hence, Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE, don't waste an Epic Feat slot on that feat... that's my point  *




Well, I'll have to remember that now. Thanks. 

Although, I can think of one really good use for Intensify Spell...MAGIC ITEMS.  I can have a lot of fun with that in a magic item. Also, I have a feeling that the purpose of Intensify Spell has less to do with spell power and more to do with "Oh my god! I have to roll how many dice!?! Forget it!".


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 20, 2002)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *And twinned... *




You, my friend, are evil.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> "Oh my god! I have to roll how many dice!?! Forget it!".  *




True, but if your a GM or if your GM allows it you could use the Average Damage rule on page 108 in the ELH.  Basically, you would just take the average damage and not roll any dice... blah.

Personally, as a player, if I had only one or two 15th level spell slots, I would HAVE to roll my dice, and YES I would actually have 25 die 8's... FEEL THE POWER!!!


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> True, but if your a GM or if your GM allows it you could use the Average Damage rule on page 108 in the ELH.  Basically, you would just take the average damage and not roll any dice... blah.
> 
> Personally, as a player, if I had only one or two 15th level spell slots, I would HAVE to roll my dice, and YES I would actually have 25 die 8's... FEEL THE POWER!!! *




Heck, ya, you roll the dice.  Average is for wimps.  I want to hear the sound of 25d8 thunder across the table, knock over drinks,  grab a few chips, snarl at the other PCs, and scare the women!!


----------



## Telor (Jul 20, 2002)

In my game I'm running a Sorcerer who is essentially tosses evocation spells left and right.

Forcing my players to sit while I bust out the calculator each round is boring. If my druid PC desides to toss a bunch of similar spells, he's doing the same thing.

I'm already getting sick of my 13d6 sonic orb that is unleashed every round.

The massive amount of dice will only hit the table when I feel like it.

-Telor


----------



## Lela (Jul 20, 2002)

Telor said:
			
		

> *In my game I'm running a Sorcerer who is essentially tosses evocation spells left and right.
> 
> Forcing my players to sit while I bust out the calculator each round is boring. If my druid PC desides to toss a bunch of similar spells, he's doing the same thing.
> 
> ...




If it happened every round, I would have a problem.  But when it's once an encounter or once a day, go for it.  I can just see that dragon show up, blast the Ranger and burn down a bunch of trees.  It becomes fun when you pop out with, "OKAY, NOW I'M MAD!!"  Whip out those dice, and show that dragon who's boss.

Also, using a ton of dice is part of being a spellcaster.  _Flamestrike_ for Clerics and Druids, _Fireball_ for the Arcane guys.  These are the most common spells, commonly used, and each uses a lot of dice (until Max Spell that is).  

I'm not going to say that you shouldn't have choosen the Druid (cause that's not true) but I will say that it's an intrigal part of your character so find a way to make it fun.  See if you can get more than last time, less than last time, keep track of your personal avarage, time yourself, smile evilly at the other players, for they must wait for the master of all, acidentally hit one of hte other players, start channaling the wild vestages of nature (wild mage/druid), start describing the spell (a thunderous boom slams into Orc B, cuncussing into him.  Oh, and it does 28 damage).

Okay, back to the real topic.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 21, 2002)

cept one little problem...

The ELH clears up the multiple metamagic problem(actually just muddies the water even more...)

Check out _Enhance_ spell(pg 53-54).

To use the feat multiple times one spell _You have to take it multiple times_ *and* pay the +4 each time you increase the cap.

So unless you spent 7 feats on _Empower_, no go!

_Intensify_ looking a little better now?


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 21, 2002)

Marshall: The requirement of taking the feat multiple times is a special circumstance inherent to Enhance spell. It is not a general rule affecting all metamagic feats. If it ere, it would be in the PHB under metamagic feats.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 21, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *The ELH clears up the multiple metamagic problem(actually just muddies the water even more...) *




How so? It seems clear to me.



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *To use the feat multiple times one spell You have to take it multiple times and pay the +4 each time you increase the cap. *




No. You buy the feat once. From that point on, any spell you prepare with the enhance spell feat has it's damage increased as stated in the description and raises the spell level by +4. You can use it on any number of spells. You only take it multiple times to further increase the damage caps of all of your spells, but to take advantage of the new cap, you still have to prepare the spell with the feat and bump up its level.



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *So unless you spent 7 feats on Empower, no go! *




Why would you need to spend 7 feats on empower? (I think I missed something)



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *Intensify looking a little better now? *




I still dig it.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 21, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> No. You buy the feat once. From that point on, any spell you prepare with the enhance spell feat has it's damage increased as stated in the description and raises the spell level by +4. You can use it on any number of spells. You only take it multiple times to further increase the damage caps of all of your spells, but to take advantage of the new cap, you still have to prepare the spell with the feat and bump up its level.
> *




Read it again. Specifically the last para on pg 54.

In order to _Enhance Enhance Fireball_ for +20d6 and +8 levels you have to buy the feat twice.

>James M.< Actually the whole idea of multiple _Empower_ is based on a few emails from the sage and/or the designers. The PHB is completely silent on wether you can or cant do it. This instance being the first time it comes up in a rule book indicates that since none of the other feats have the "special" section, you cant.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2002)

Enhance spell is a funky metamagic feat.  It's the only one that has to be selected twice to be used twice.  Wierd


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 21, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *Read it again. Specifically the last para on pg 54.
> 
> In order to Enhance Enhance Fireball for +20d6 and +8 levels you have to buy the feat twice. *




Yeah. I figured that out in the car on my way home from work. Doh!  



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *>James M.< Actually the whole idea of multiple Empower is based on a few emails from the sage and/or the designers. *




That's how empower works. You don't have to take empower multiple times to use it multiple times. You just need the higher spell slots available.

From the DnD FAQ...*emphasis mine*



> *Can someone  who has taken the Persistent Spell feat
> from the FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting or the Tome
> and Blood  book  make  two  different  spells  persistent?  For
> example,  could  a  10th-level  level  cleric  cast  shield  of  faith
> ...




Note that it states "*If you have the feat*". It does not state "If you have the feat*s*.



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *This instance being the first time it comes up in a rule book indicates that since none of the other feats have the "special" section, you cant. *




That indicates only one thing. That's how *Enhance Spell* works. That is *not*, however, how Empower Spell works.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 21, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!*



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> Sorry let me further clearify
> 
> Their wizard, from 30th level:
> ...




Oops, I meant "improved metamagic (-1) thru (-6)".  You can only take intensify spell once.


----------



## doktorstick (Jul 21, 2002)

Heck yeah!  Roll those dice!  The fighter types are rolling 1-20 dice around for to-hits, weapon damage, extra damage dice, and not even considering rolling confirmations on criticals from those huge threat ranges.  Bring on the clatter!

As for averages, the more dice you throw, the closer you approach the average.  It may seem bogus, but that's math for ya.  There is that chance though... that really small chance...

/ds


----------



## Berk (Jul 21, 2002)

Ummmm, you can stack metamagic feats? I don't think that was how it was originally planned. With that logic I could cast confusion here from the eastern part of the states and affect however many people just happened to be standing in a 30' diameter when I cast the spell in china with stacking enlarge spell feats. I don't think it's supposed to work like that people. That's just rediculous.


----------



## Berk (Jul 21, 2002)

and oh yeah, kreynolds, what point are you making with this? 


> Can someone who has taken the Persistent Spell feat
> from the FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting or the Tome
> and Blood book make two different spells persistent? For
> example, could a 10th-level level cleric cast shield of faith
> ...




I just can't find a reason to that quote at all in this post since it is talking about persistant spell and not empower. =op


----------



## drowdude (Jul 21, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *Ummmm, you can stack metamagic feats? I don't think that was how it was originally planned. With that logic I could cast confusion here from the eastern part of the states and affect however many people just happened to be standing in a 30' diameter when I cast the spell in china with stacking enlarge spell feats. *




Well, no, actually you couldnt, you still have to be able to see your targets no matter how many times you stacked Enlarge onto the spell.




			
				Berk said:
			
		

> *I don't think it's supposed to work like that people. That's just rediculous. *




I dont have specific quotes or anything, but I know that when you apply multiple metamagic feats to the same spell each modifies the *base* effect.


----------



## Oni (Jul 21, 2002)

From the DnD FAQ:  

"Can you add a metamagic feat more than once to any particular spell?  For example, double Maximize Spell, or double Extend spell?

"You can apply most metamagic feats more than once.  Just stack up the cost, and remember to apply the additional effects to the basic spell.  For example, if you extend a spell twice, you get 3 time the duration, not 4 times the duration.  (Each extention adds 100% of the spell's base duration.)
"There are a few metamagic feats that are constructed so as to make stacking worthless or pointless.  You cannot, for example get more than maximum damage out of a spell by maximizing the spell more than once.  (If you want to send the spell's damage through the roof, use Empower Spell multiple times.)  Heighten Spell already allows you [set] the spell's effective level anywhere you want (and can manage), so there's no point in applying the feat more than once."  



So what does this mean. 
1.  That you can indeed stack metamagic feats, including the same on as many times as you have the appropriate level spell slots to do it, which according to this really seems to have been their original intent.  
2.  Seeing as there is no precedent in the core rules for buying metamagic feats more than once to use them more than once, it wasn't mentioned in a FAQ dealing with that specific situation, has not been included in any errata to the core rules that I know if (if you have exact text citing that this is not the case show it to me, please), and that buying it multiply times is listed under the special section of Enhance spell, meaning that it specifically relates to that spell, and farther more because they did not decide to list that special note with any other metamagic feat, all of this leads me to believe that you are mistaken Marshall


----------



## LordAO (Jul 21, 2002)

If you don't like it, don't get it. It's that simple. Just because you think it is a waste, others may disagree. In some situations it rocks, in others it doesn't. But rather than spending hours ranting about it (which will change nothing), just don't have your character get it. Nothing forces it upon you.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 21, 2002)

I can see the use of all the feats mentioned in this post, but incresed spell capacity simply means more spells. If you bumped up all your spells to higher slots, as opposed to making tho metamagics less exspensive, you end up with a net gain of more spell slots. Granted, they are low level slots, but imagine being able to shield the whole party, more magic missiles, more acid arrows. Basic simple spells of third and below you can never have too many of.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 21, 2002)

OK, here's my question then...

Why bother with Enhance Spell at all?  It 'costs' 4 spell levels and basically doubles your effectiveness - if you're of a high enough level to use the extra dice.

Twin Spell 'costs' 4 levels and basically doubles your effectiveness, too, and you only have to be a high enough level to max out your normal damage cap. Plus you can use it on non-damaging spells, spells that don't have a damage cap (like _magic missile_, _Melf's acid arrow_, etc.) and you can stack it as many times as you like. (Quintupleted _magic missile_?)

So...why would anyone bother with taking Enhance Spell? Am I missing something?

J


----------



## Johno (Jul 21, 2002)

Twin spell twins the spell.

Enhance spell grants you access to a greater number of damage die according to your level.

So if you are 25th level and cast a _Twinned Fireball_ you do 2x10d6 damage. But the target(s) gets two reflex saves, versus each spell.

As I ubderstand Ehnace Spell feat (no ELH), if you cast an _Enhanced Fireball_ as a 25th level spell, you do 20d6 damage, and the targets only get one save.

If you cast a _Twinned Enhanced Fireball_ spell, then you are stuffed, as the rules are written today.

IMC, twinning a spell does indeed twin the metamagicked spell, as you are paying through the nose for the effect any way...


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 21, 2002)

Johno said:
			
		

> *
> So if you are 25th level and cast a Twinned Fireball you do 2x10d6 damage. But the target(s) gets two reflex saves, versus each spell.
> *




Right. I considered that, but I don't see it as being much of a balancing factor or drawback.  It's just going to move the average closer to the center by minimizing the effects of a single aberrant save roll.  It will work for you sometimes and against you sometimes.

J


----------



## Marshall (Jul 22, 2002)

Oni said:
			
		

> *From the DnD FAQ:
> 
> So what does this mean.
> 1.  That you can indeed stack metamagic feats, including the same on as many times as you have the appropriate level spell slots to do it, which according to this really seems to have been their original intent.  *




Actually it means the designers are having second thoughts and the FAQ gets updated once-a-millenia. Or it could mean that the random ramblings that led to this "ruling" have now thoroughly been studied and the correct conclusion has been reached. ie Stacking MM effects is a quick way to 'break' MM.




> *2.  Seeing as there is no precedent in the core rules for buying metamagic feats more than once to use them more than once, it wasn't mentioned in a FAQ dealing with that specific situation, has not been included in any errata to the core rules that I know if (if you have exact text citing that this is not the case show it to me, please), and that buying it multiply times is listed under the special section of Enhance spell, meaning that it specifically relates to that spell, and farther more because they did not decide to list that special note with any other metamagic feat, all of this leads me to believe that you are mistaken Marshall *




Sure pg 54 ELH, since it is now the most recent rulebook, overrides the outdated FAQ. Since no other MM feat lists any way to stack, There isnt.

More proof?  

Lets study _Enhance_

a +4 level feat that adds 10 _to the cap_ meaning you still have to have the CL to actually get the dice. *This is an Epic feat*. In order to _Enhance_ multiple times, you must purchase the feat multiple times.

Compare to _Empower_

a +2 level feat that increases the damage dice by 1.5 times or 5 dice on a 10 dice cap spell. Hmmm, for exactly half the levels I get exactly half the benefit of the _*Epic*_ feat. 

Now lets go with your 'Stacking' theory.

I _Enhance Fireball_ for a total of 20d6 at 21st CL, the minimum to cast a 7th level spell with an Epic feat.

I _Empower Empower Fireball_ for a total of 20d6 *at 13th level* the minimum to cast the 7th level spell. 

So multi _Empower_ is available 8 levels earlier *and* is exactly the same as _Enhance_.  Strike One. It gets worse.

At 17th level I come into 9th level spells, Lets _3xEmpower Fireball_ in that slot. Now, I have 25d6 and its still 4 levels until the _*EPIC* Enhance_ shows up. Strike Two.

Lets go a little farther shall we. Actually going Epic, now I pick up 11th level slots and we can _4x Empower_ our [/i]Fire Ball[/i] for 30d6. Our _Enhance_ companion is still stuck with his 20d6 unless he spends another feat on top of those required to get 11th level slots and then he still only matches us, if he has a CL30. Ours doesnt matter since _Empower_ is still working off the CL10 we passed long ago. I'm still not done, our _Enhance_ friend cant even use the 13th level slot where _Empower_ goes to 35d6, and 15th slot costs yet another feat instead of just rising to 40d6, oh yeah _If at CL40_. Sorry, Strike Three.

Even worse, _Enhance_ has no effect on spells that dont have a dam. cap. Where are super-stackers just keep racking up the bonuses. Strike 4-27! A perfect game! 

Sorry Oni, the ELH overrides the FAQ, without that little 'special' bonus MM ceased stacking.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 22, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *OK, here's my question then...
> 
> Why bother with Enhance Spell at all?  It 'costs' 4 spell levels and basically doubles your effectiveness - if you're of a high enough level to use the extra dice.
> 
> ...




Because _Twinned_ is yet another argument against stacking MM. Why _Twin_ at all when you could just _2xEmpower_ for the same cost and get Double str _Bull Strength_ and _Melfs_?


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 22, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because Twinned is yet another argument against stacking MM. Why Twin at all when you could just 2xEmpower for the same cost and get Double str Bull Strength and Melfs? *





Exactly!

My guess is, pre-3e, when this system was in playtesting, metamagic was applied only once.  I feel that way because the first time I read through the PBH, I never even conceived of stacking the same matamagic feats, there was no hint of it anywhere in any of the core books.  

A few weeks after the core books were released, someone, somewhere asked about stacking like metamagic (meaning empower) and after enough noise was made on boards like this, someone at wizards decided, "what the heck, I see no problem with it, pay for it in higher spell slots and only apply meta to the base spell, no harm done."

Well there is harm done, because of the stacking of empower on itself, there is no reason to take:
1. Twin Spell
2. Maximize Spell
3. Enhance Spell
4. Intesify Spell

Someone may be able to make a case for Maximize Spell for lower level casters, but once you get 8th level spell slots and up, you may as well stack Empower and forget about Maximize.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 22, 2002)

Twin is made more for enchanment spells I think.  Least, that's what I normally use it for.  A twined hold monster is one of my favorites.  

For damaging spells and many buff me spells, I think you are right though.  With the Improved Metamagic feat, empower becomes spell level +1 and easily out distances the rest.


----------



## Oni (Jul 22, 2002)

Marshall, you some how managed to reply to my post without actually reading it, or at least thats the way it comes across.  


As for the FAQ being updated not so often, while that may be true, however it is the most recent material that specifically addresses the situation of which you are speaking, and not in the roundabout and vague way that you seem to be trying to conjure up out of the ELH.  


If what you are claiming about Enhance Spell (that the special section changes the way in which all metamagic feats are handled when used multiple times) was true then the special note that accompanies Enhance Spell would accompany every other metamagic feat in the ELH.  Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case?  The rule applies specifically to Enhance Spell and only to Ehance Spell.  It has been my experience that when WotC issues a rules change (that is an official change and not a varient which are listed as such) or a clarification that they clearly lable it, for instance the change in polymorph included in Tome and Blood, or the rules clarification for Wildshape in Masters of the Wild.  Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case in the ELH?


Your evidence that shows how Empower is superior to Enhance is eye opening with regards to the need for some sort of fix, either an enhancement to Enhance, or a revision of the way Empower works.  However, _common sense_ has no place in strict, by the book rules interpretation.  If you wish to make this a house rule in your campaign that is your choice and a perfectly valid one, on the other hand it is not by any stretch of the imagination an official rules change.  


I will also note that the rules change you purpose doesn't truely make any difference.  Using your rule you can just as easily buy Empower instead of Enhance and garther more benefits, because as you stated before Empower can apply to more spells, raising the damage cap by 10 isnt as good as empowering a spell that has a base damage cap higher than 10 (such as Horrid Wilting or Cone of Cold), and all that aside, with just one application of Improved Metamagic you would actually pull ahead with Empower (i.e. two Empower = +2 levels, one Enhance = +3 levels).  


Off the top of my head if you want a house rule that might make Enhance worth it you could either do one of two things.  Drop Empower from your game (of course thats the easy way out), or try something like any prerequisite metamagic feat, when used with the feat following it in the chain, is applied to the base spell first and the following feat affects the altered version rather than the base version.  So with Enhance if you used maximize first then all the Enhancements would be maximized as well.  From the way they talk about raising the damage cap instead of just adding extra dice of damage I get the idea that this may be how they intented it to work, however it cannot under the current rules for stacking metamagic.  Anyway that is just off the top of my head so there may of course be complications that haven't immediately come to mind.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 22, 2002)

*Firk Ding, thunder stolen...*

I agree with Oni,

If the ELH was meant to be an updated FaQ, it would have one in it.

If it was going to clear up old feats and their stackability, it had the perfect opprotunity to do so in the non-epic feats section.

Enhance spell does not so much affect the spell ypu cast, as it affects your  ability to bump up your damage cap. Like energy substitution affects your ability to alter the element of a spell.

If all feats had to be bought multiple times to stack, AND the ELH was a FaQ, then why does it not make the same requirement to intensify spell? If you have 14+ levels to burn on making a low level spell 4 times as potent as it was, go right ahead.

Having said that, I will agree that some meta -magic feats, or combinations of them are more useful than others. Why spend the +4 levels on an enhanced fireball or lightning bolt, when you could have a delayed blast fire ball or a chain lightning. Both do potentially twice the dice, but also have extra effects wich make them more versatile. It might make sense for a sorcerer. I'm sure there is a use for all of them, though.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 22, 2002)

Berk said:
			
		

> *and oh yeah, kreynolds, what point are you making with this? *




If you can't figure it out, I'm not wasting my time explaining it.



			
				Berk said:
			
		

> *I just can't find a reason to that quote at all in this post since it is talking about persistant spell and not empower. =op *




Pathetic. (not so much you, but just the fact that this would require explaining)

-- "always disappointed in the human race" kreynolds --


----------



## Marshall (Jul 23, 2002)

Oni said:
			
		

> *As for the FAQ being updated not so often, while that may be true, however it is the most recent material that specifically addresses the situation of which you are speaking, and not in the roundabout and vague way that you seem to be trying to conjure up out of the ELH. *




No, the ELH is "the most recent material". True the only reference is oblique and vague, but it is the *only* reference to being able to stack MM feats.



> *If what you are claiming about Enhance Spell (that the special section changes the way in which all metamagic feats are handled when used multiple times) was true then the special note that accompanies Enhance Spell would accompany every other metamagic feat in the ELH.
> Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case?
> *





Yes, easily. What makes _Enhance_ an Epic feat is that it is the _only_ feat that can stack with itself. The 'special' section describes how to accomplish that. Since none of the other MM feats have this ability, none of the other feats need the special section.



> *It has been my experience that when WotC issues a rules change (that is an official change and not a varient which are listed as such) or a clarification that they clearly lable it, for instance the change in polymorph included in Tome and Blood, or the rules clarification for Wildshape in Masters of the Wild.  Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case in the ELH?*




In this case there is no 'rule' to change. The only place where the concept of stacking MM comes up is the FAQ and an old 'Sage Advice" column. Changes to the FAQ are not announced(if theyre ever made), and the FAQ is usually at odds with the most recent publication.




> *If you wish to make this a house rule in your campaign that is your choice and a perfectly valid one, on the other hand it is not by any stretch of the imagination an official rules change.*





Yet. Of course first there would have to be a rule to change. What happens when that question in the FAQ vanishes? 



> *I will also note that the rules change you purpose doesn't truely make any difference.  Using your rule you can just as easily buy Empower instead of Enhance and garther more benefits, because as you stated before Empower can apply to more spells, raising the damage cap by 10 isnt as good as empowering a spell that has a base damage cap higher than 10 (such as Horrid Wilting or Cone of Cold), and all that aside, with just one application of Improved Metamagic you would actually pull ahead with Empower (i.e. two Empower = +2 levels, one Enhance = +3 levels).*




Thats true on the first application, but since _Enhance_ then becomes the only stackable feat, its true power begins to shine thru as at 8th the cap goes to 25, then 11th 35 and so on... with no other option for increasing dam. potential.  




> *  So with Enhance if you used maximize first then all the Enhancements would be maximized as well.  From the way they talk about raising the damage cap instead of just adding extra dice of damage I get the idea that this may be how they intented it to work, however it cannot under the current rules for stacking metamagic.  Anyway that is just off the top of my head so there may of course be complications that haven't immediately come to mind. *




That could make another Epic MM feat, but _Enhance_ only has the one Special section


----------



## Johno (Jul 23, 2002)

Well, you interpret the rules that way Marshall. 

I see the stacking of Metamagic feats as a minor problem.

Empower might be good for damage dealing spells, up to a point. With Improved Metamagic you lower the cost of metamagicking that feat to its minimum, +1.

Enhance, on the other hand can also be lowered via the same method to a cost of +1. Sure it costs feat wise, but the effects then become MUCH more favourable. (20d6 vs 1.5x10d6... hmmm, what to choose...)

Any system with this much flexibility and number crunching is going to end up with a few pecularities. 

The advantages of taking Improved Metamagic three times are quite obvious. _Twinned, Repeating Greater Dispel Magic_ as a 8th level spell, for just one. 

Then the Enhance feat doesn't seem like so much waste of space for the damage dealing spells, either.

One thing that has me wondering is the application of Heightened Spell and Improved Metamagic. Strikes me that you would get free heightened levels. So taking Improved Metamagic feat multiple times is also a method to keep up with those who only take Improved Spellcasting, and gain some extra flexibility with metamagic, at the cost of an extra high level spell slot. You could, with enough feat expenditure,cast a spell heightened to 20th level in a 10th level spell slot...


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 23, 2002)

I gusse this a "half empty..." sort of argument.

One thing that I would hope we could agree on is that WoTC has remained silent on this issue in an "Official" way, i.e., they have not put a clarification into print. This means that they don't realize it's such a hot question, they don't care, or they are choosing to remain silent.


*"What makes Enhance an Epic feat is that it is the only feat that can stack with itself. The 'special' section describes how to accomplish that. Since none of the other MM feats have this ability, none of the other feats need the special section."* 

Personally, I think that this is inverse logic, and that you are reading something into it that is not there. It simply means that you cannot use Maximize, for obvious reason, or Enhance, because by use of this feat there are nolonger variables to the spell. By the way, given the terse direction that this thread has taken, I must stress that I simply dissagree with you. This is by no means an attack.


So it comes down to what you interpret the silence of the rules to mean. By the rules, there is nothing stopping a fighter from taking a meta magic feat. You could say that he can waste the slot if he likes, or refuse him the feat. He could argue that he plans on becoming a sorcerer, and that this is untapped potential, and that he will discover that potential late in life in a dramatic fashion. Or you could say that he can't take it till that potential is tapped.

This thread has gotten me to look at the argument, where as before I always took it as a given that you could stack. That's good. However, I will continue to allow it, and I justify it by looking at other spells, and using them as precident. 

Bulls Strenght, +2-5 STR for multiple hours. 2nd level spell.
Maximized, 5   Empowered, 3-7, as a 5th or 4th level spell, respectively.
Tenser's (Not the Tenser!) Transformation, 6th level spell, 2-8 STR. Only multiple rounds, but with all the other extras, it could turn Hugh Grant into an ass kicking machine. So...
Double Enhanced, 6th, +4-10.
Enhanced and Maximized, 6-7

2nd)  2-5    (Normal)
4th)   3-7    (Enhanced)
5th)   5       (Maximized)
6th)   2-8    (Tenser's)
6th)   4-10  (double Enhanced)
7th)   6-7    (Enhanced and Maximized)

Yes, there is an advantage in using Enhance Spell twice, but is the extended duration, a set and forget spell, worth sacrificing a slot which could give you everthing that Tenser's transformation could give you? Sometimes yes, Sometimes no. However, both 6th level possibilities have comparable STR bonuses,and the extras of Tenser's more than make up for the extreamly shorter duration, and visa versa. Then look at this.

8th)   5-11   (x3 Enhance)
8th)   3-12   (Tenser's Enhanced)

Again, similar bonuses, and the extras/durations balance the rest out. An official spell, Bite of the Weretiger, gives you a staight out +12 STR as an 8th level spell, no chance of rolling poorly, no variables.

9th)     8      (Tenser's Maximized)
10th)  6-13  (x4 Enhanced)
10th)  4-16  (Tenser's x2 Enhanced)

Bite of the Werebear gives a flat +16 to STR., as a 9th level spell. 

I just don't see the balance issue. Sometimes it would be useful, but not overpowerful. Sometimes it would be redundant, or even less powerful. It's almost 2:00, I just hope I'm making sense.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 23, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *Personally, I think that this is inverse logic, and that you are reading something into it that is not there. *




Personally, I just think he's trying to get his post count up. 

The metamagic feat descriptions don't state one way or the other whether or not they stack. The FAQ states they can. Sage Advice says they can. Emails from The Sage/Skip say they can. The ELH says nothing about any other feat published anywhere else, when in fact, it only applies to the one single feat.

Now, I don't know about Marshall, but I'm not suicidal. If he wants to keep using his argument, by all means, I won't stop a guy from jumping off a bridge. No way, I'd rather pull up a lawn chair, put up the umbrella, and sip on a big ol' glass of lemonade while I watch the show.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 24, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Twin is made more for enchanment spells I think.  Least, that's what I normally use it for.  A twined hold monster is one of my favorites.
> 
> For damaging spells and many buff me spells, I think you are right though.  With the Improved Metamagic feat, empower becomes spell level +1 and easily out distances the rest. *




Actually, if you're doing enchantment spells, you may be better off with Chain Spell. Sure the DC drops a little, but you can affect many more targets, for one level less.

Twin is (I think) intended to allow you to toss 2 fireballs, at *different* areas. Instead of doubling your damage to a few people, you get to double the number of people you hit.


----------



## Limper (Jul 24, 2002)

Let us not forget that all feats are NOT equal.... per cannon.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 24, 2002)

Limper said:
			
		

> *Let us not forget that all feats are NOT equal.... per cannon. *




True but epic feats should always be better than standard feats.  I don't have the book, but from what people have posted many of these feats seem decidedly unepic.  Many I think would of fit perfectly well in a standard campaign, as a run of the mill ordinary feat, not a just for 21th+level players feat.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 24, 2002)

Limper said:
			
		

> *Let us not forget that all feats are NOT equal.... per cannon. *




True, but one feat should not completely invalidate another. If you have _Empower_(and you allow it to stack), _Enhance_ has no quality that is not already present.

Even the lowly _Skill Focus_ is never completely useless as it will stack with the +2 to 2skills feats. But there is no reason to _Enhance Empower_ when _3x Empower_ does exactly the same thing.


----------



## Henry (Jul 24, 2002)

Marshall, I think you are reading too much into the Enhance Spell section from the Epic Level Handbook.

1) WotC DOES update their FAQ more than "once in a millenium." I personally know this because I track their updates on this. They have already updated it three times this year alone. The most recent one is dated June 29th. That's NOT "once in a millenium." 

2)WotC has set precendent for this kind of thing before. In both Tome and Blood and Sword and Fist, if there was a rules errata or clarification they felt they MUST release, then they specifically put a blurb in the description STATING "This is considered a rules change and therefore errata on the existing rules." They did not do this, and their example specifically does not leave the Epic Level Handbook.

Now, if WotC decides to make this official errata in the next D&D FAQ, you will have convinced me differently. But you cannot say that this is some sort of clear and irrevocable rules change, and back it up. Your proof just isn't there in the precedent, nor in the official errata.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

After carefully reading about Enhance Spell, I have finally found the answer.

The problem here is that everybody seems to think you take Enhance Spell "per spell", much like you tape Weapon Focus "per weapon".

After reading very carefully, however, I find that to not be the case.  This is not your normal Metamagic Feat.

Rather, this feat is much more like Fast Healing and Extended Lifespan.

To explain, in order to stack Enhance Spell, you MUST take the feat twice, not just once.  According to the description, every time you select Enhance Spell, that gives you the capacity to increase the caps one more time.  Enhance Spell can be used with ANY spell you can cast, not just to a sigle spell.

Really simple once you read it carefully enough.

So the answer is, plain and simple, to get a 30d6 Fireball, you must take Enhance Spell twice.  For proof abotu my point of not having to select a specific spell for Enhance Spell, simply check out Elminster in the back of the book, he has Enhance Spell.

For proof of my other point, simply read the description of Enhance Spell.  The words are very clear.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.

YOU CAN'T STACK NORMAL METAMAGIC FEATS UNLESS THE FEAT SAYS YOU CAN.

Oh, but we have an FAQ that says you can stack Metamagic Feats?  I'm sorry, but that FAQ is unofficial and thus invalid.  The FAQ is not part of the rules in any way, and it is not errata which is obviously released seperate from the FAQ.

I once believed you could stack Metamagic Feats until I read this thread and considered the rules carefully, then went back to look at the FAQ.  The FAQ means nothing, it is unofficial, it is not by the rules.

The fact that Enhance Spell would be completely useless if you could stack Empower Spell is absolute proof that the OFFICIAL ruling on Metamagic Feats is that they are not stackable.

So sorry, but you can't stack Empower Spell.  Or any others, unless the description says otherwise.

There is nothing anywhere saying that stacking is an option, except for that silly FAQ that is just thrown together with quick answers.  The FAQ means absolutely nothing, so don't refer to it anymore.


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Well...    I'm so glad the official FAQ has been 'officially declared' as 'unofficial.'  I feel so enlightened...  *cough*


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

Well, where is it said that the "Official FAQ" is errata?

Considering Empower Spell is NEVER better than Enhance Spell under ANY circumstance, if you guys were right about the rules allowing stacking, then the makers of the FAQ and the game would have had to either been on crack or had their heads up their asses to do something so blatantly stupid.

Then again . . . Ya' know . . . It wouldn't be the first time they did something blatantly stupid with the D&D rules . . . Makig Bladed Gauntlets 19-20 threat instead of 18-20 was stupid . . . Forcing creators to pay XP costs for spell components in items was REALLY stupid . . . So I suppose you guys could be right.

I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, however, and believe them to be more intelligent than this.  Plain and simple logci that even a child could understand would get one to understand that stackig Metamagics is pretty darn stupid, since it makes Epic Metamagic Feats useless.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.
> 
> YOU CAN'T STACK NORMAL METAMAGIC FEATS UNLESS THE FEAT SAYS YOU CAN.
> *




Where did you get this from? 

Not sure what this does to your theory...

from the SRD:







> METAMAGIC FEATS
> Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats
> to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1
> action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them. For spells with a
> ...




Don't trust the SRD???

How about the phb...



> Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can use multiple metamagic feats on a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. A silent, still version of charm person, for example, would be prepared and cast as a 3rd-level spell.


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 24, 2002)

Well, the bulk of it isn't errata.  It's mostly clarifications and answers to commonly asked questions, most of which appeared in Sage Advice at one time or another.

Metamagic wackiness aside, I'm not saying the FAQ is infallible (especially since the designers aren't infallible), but it's about as official as you get.

If someone is willing to display some initiative, perhaps these findings and inquiries can be emailed to Skip, and he can mull over the arguably perceived problems.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

mikebr99, sorry to burst your bubble, but read the SRD a bit more carefully.  It says "Multiple Metamagic Feats" . . . That doesn't mean "Stacking Metamagic Feats" . . .

Same in teh PHB, just look at their example.  You can put Silent Spell and Still Spell on the same spell, sure.  That's MULTIPLE METAMAGIC FEATS.  That's NOT STACKING METAMAGIC FEATS.

Read a bit more carefully.  I never said you can't put different Metamagic Feats on the same spell, I said you can't STACK the SAME Metamagic Fets multiple times on a single spell.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *mikebr99, sorry to burst your bubble, but read the SRD a bit more carefully.  It says "Multiple Metamagic Feats" . . . That doesn't mean "Stacking Metamagic Feats" . . .
> 
> Same in teh PHB, just look at their example.  You can put Silent Spell and Still Spell on the same spell, sure.  That's MULTIPLE METAMAGIC FEATS.  That's NOT STACKING METAMAGIC FEATS.
> 
> Read a bit more carefully.  I never said you can't put different Metamagic Feats on the same spell, I said you can't STACK the SAME Metamagic Fets multiple times on a single spell. *



Ok?!? *shrug*

Where does it say that you *can't* stack Metamagic feats?


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

Where does it say you can, in the books or the SRD?  Or the errata for that matter?

Use some common sense, people!

Think about it:

1) The books and the SRD don't have ANY mention of allowing stacking the same Metamagic Feat.

2) The ELH introduced feats that, if stacking the same Metamagic Feat on a spell were allowed, would be utterly and completely useless.

The only thing that helps your argument is this:

3) Some already released errata and clarifications have indeed made no sense whatsoever and have clashed with the rules in and of themselves.

So on that note, it is indeed possible that they did soething this stupid.  The chances are equally good, however, that they did not.


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Use some common sense, people!*




Unfortunately, this is a D&D rules discussion, so 'common sense' is often inapplicable.  Your pleas are valiant, though ultimately futile.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Where does it say you can, in the books or the SRD?  Or the errata for that matter?
> 
> Use some common sense, people!*



Ok... it says that you can put multiple meta feats on a spell.. it doesn't say that you can't put the same one on more then once... so common sense leads me to believe that you CAN put the SAME meta feat on more then once.


> *
> Think about it:
> 
> 1) The books and the SRD don't have ANY mention of allowing stacking the same Metamagic Feat.*



It also says nothing about NOT allowing this...


> *
> 2) The ELH introduced feats that, if stacking the same Metamagic Feat on a spell were allowed, would be utterly and completely useless.
> 
> The only thing that helps your argument is this:
> ...



I think it's a little more weighted in my favour...


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

If it doesn't say you CAN do it, then common sense should tell you you CAN'T BECAUSE it would make no sense if you could.

It doesn't say either way, but BECAUSE there is a HUGE precedent against stacking the same Metamagic Feat, then the rules are obviously meant to not allow such stacking.

Or do you think a weak Feat outshining an EPIC Feat isn't a good enough precedent to finally answer the question that isn't stated ANYWHERE in the book or SRD?


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Jul 24, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 1) The books and the SRD don't have ANY mention of allowing stacking the same Metamagic Feat.
> *




Not specifically, but, in general, it says you can stack multiple metamagic feats.  There aren't any real problems with applying the same one multiple times if one is willing to use the higher spell slots.  In addition, the game designers have been asked to clarify the issue and they said it was fine to stack the same metamagic feat.  That's what we do when something is ambiguous (doesn't say either way), go ask the author(s).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 2) The ELH introduced feats that, if stacking the same Metamagic Feat on a spell were allowed, would be utterly and completely useless.
> *




There is an example of this in the core rules as well.  Nothing wrong here.  Applying Quicken Spell twice is useless too, right?  There are other supplements that have metamagic feats that do not make much sense to stack (don't recall one off the top of my head).


----------



## Anubis (Jul 24, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 2) The ELH introduced feats that, if stacking the same Metamagic Feat on a spell were allowed, would be utterly and completely useless.
> 
> There is an example of this in the core rules as well.  Nothing wrong here.  Applying Quicken Spell twice is useless too, right?  There are other supplements that have metamagic feats that do not make much sense to stack (don't recall one off the top of my head). *




You misunderstood me.  What that means is that the ELH introduced Enhance Spell, and if stacking the same Metamagic Feat is allowed, namely Empwoer Spell, then Enhance Spell has no use whatsoever under ANY conceivable circumstance.

That fact alone means that either I'm right or the authors don't know what the heck they're doing.  One or the other, no room for a middle point on that.


----------



## drowdude (Jul 25, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.
> 
> YOU CAN'T STACK NORMAL METAMAGIC FEATS UNLESS THE FEAT SAYS YOU CAN.*




Thanks for shouti...er... sharing your *opinion* on the matter. But it is far from the only interpretation of the rules, and far from what I would call the correct interpretation.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Oh, but we have an FAQ that says you can stack Metamagic Feats?  I'm sorry, but that FAQ is unofficial and thus invalid.  The FAQ is not part of the rules in any way, and it is not errata which is obviously released seperate from the FAQ.*




Once again, theres an excellent expression of your opinion. I personally feel that the FAQ is perfectly valid to use in a rules discussion. 

It's there to help us understand the rules more clearly. It is bogus to expect others to completely disregard what it so clearly states in regards to stacking metamagic feats simply to lend strength to your opinion on the matter. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The fact that Enhance Spell would be completely useless if you could stack Empower Spell is absolute proof that the OFFICIAL ruling on Metamagic Feats is that they are not stackable.*




I do not agree with this point at all. I think that Enhance spell differs from other metamagic feats in that it alters the base effect of the spell. Thus instead of applying a metamagic effect to 10d6, you apply it to 20d6 or whathaveyou.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There is nothing anywhere saying that stacking is an option, except for that silly FAQ that is just thrown together with quick answers.  The FAQ means absolutely nothing, so don't refer to it anymore. *




Why? Because you say so? What are you gonna do if I *do* continue to refer to it and say "You are wrong" ?


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *If it doesn't say you CAN do it, then common sense should tell you you CAN'T BECAUSE it would make no sense if you could.
> *




Exactly!!!  Just because the ride-by-attack feat DOESN'T say that you can ride your mount backwards while making an attack, doesn't mean you CAN.  Like you said it comes down to common sense.

Most people reading the rules for the first time on applying multiple metas on spells would tend to believe that the authors are talking about applying different metas to the same spell.  Afterall, all the examples are demonstrating different metas, not the same one over and over.

Unfortunately, in our extended group, we have 3 mid to high level wizards who have chosen their feats (or more precisely, have not needed to choose certain feats) based solely on the ablility to stack Empower Spell on itself.  Too many people now depend on the stackablilty of Empower because their whole feat selecton strategy for the last 15 or so levels is based on that ability.

Btw, stacking empower never bothered me untill the ELH came out.  I said "ohh cool, maybe there will be a some new damage increasing metamagic feats in there that can be useful."   Ya right.  I guess if you want a little "flavor" and want to take the "Epic" Enhance Spell or "Epic" Intensify Spell feats, knock yourself out, but the "stacking" non-epic Empower Spell does AT LEAST the same, if not better.

When in doubt: Empower!!!!


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 25, 2002)

Even with stacking allowable on empower, Enhance is not a useless feat. The ability to add other effects to the spell, such as an Enhanced and Empowered spell which deals 30d6 for +6 levels (the cap becomes 20, times 1.5 = 30). Compare that to +6 levels worth of empower, and you have a feat that allows a 25d6 fireball (base 10d6 x 2.5). Seems worthwhile for me. In fact, given that example, my sorcerer may very well take enhance spell. Of course, he's planning on a couple applications of Improved Metamagic, which will make it even more useful.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Even with stacking allowable on empower, Enhance is not a useless feat. The ability to add other effects to the spell, such as an Enhanced and Empowered spell which deals 30d6 for +6 levels (the cap becomes 20, times 1.5 = 30). Compare that to +6 levels worth of empower, and you have a feat that allows a 25d6 fireball (base 10d6 x 2.5). Seems worthwhile for me. *




1. Remember, metamagic works only ON THE BASE SPELL, that means your example should read like this:
---fireball 10d6
---enhanced +10d6
---empower (from base spell) +5d6
that equals 25d6, the same as the triple stacked Empower (25d6)
--->25d6 vs 25d6

Empower ties


2. Try that on chain lightning:
---chain lightning 20d6
---enhanced +10d6
---empower +10d6
that equals 40d6 (and you MUST be 30th level)
triple stacked empower 20d6 x 2.5 = 50d6 (and I can be LESS than 30th level)
--->40d6 vs 50d6

Empower wins



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> *In fact, given that example, my sorcerer may very well take enhance spell. Of course, he's planning on a couple applications of Improved Metamagic, which will make it even more useful. *




3. Don't EVEN get me started on Empower with a single application of Improved Metamagic.... Empower at +1/level OwNs all.


----------



## DeBhaal (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend, your wrong....

Enhance Spell sets the spells Base Damage *to* the new Cap. For *any* Damage Dealing spell you have, that deals a number of dice of damage equal to your caster level *increases* by 10.
That is then the Spell Base, so if you Empower it, it will then be 30d6.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

DeBhaal said:
			
		

> *Enhance Spell sets the spells Base Damage to the new Cap. For any Damage Dealing spell you have, that deals a number of dice of damage equal to your caster level increases by 10.
> That is then the Spell Base, so if you Empower it, it will then be 30d6. *




Lets say that you are correct, which I'm not sure you are.  Enhance spell wins over Empower ONLY on spells of LESS than 15 dice, and then only by small amounts.

example 1:
---fireball 10d6
---enhance +10d6 (new base 20d6)
---empower +10d6
that = 30d6
triple stacked empower = 10d6 x 2.5 = 25d6

30d6 vs 25d6
empower loses


example 2:
---cone of cold 15d6
---enhanced +10d6 (new base 25d6)
---empower +12.5d6
that = 37.5d6
triple stacked empower = 15d6 x 2.5 = 37.5d6

37.5d6 vs 37.5d6
empower ties


example 3:
---chain lightning 20d6
---enhanced +10d6 (new base 30d6)
---empower +15d6
that = 45d6
triple stacked empower = 20d6 x 2.5 = 50d6

45d6 vs 50d6
empower wins


example 4:
---horrid wilting 25d8
---enhanced +10d8 (new base 35d8)
---empower +17.5d8
that = 52.5d8
triple stacked empower = 25d8 x 2.5 = 62.5d8

52.5d8 vs 62.5d8
empower wins

Also note, for all those spells to get maximum effect of Enhance Spell feat your level must equal the dice of damage.  For example, for horrid wilting you must be 35th level, whereas for triple empowering you can be as low as 25th.

I still put my money on Empower


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 25, 2002)

If there is even a debate on where you should put your money enhance or empower then enhance is poorly written.  Enahnce is I'm guessing an epic feat since it is out of the epic book.  There shouldn't be an epic feat in the game that you say gee it's about balanced with a similar non epic feat.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *If there is even a debate on where you should put your money enhance or empower then enhance is poorly written.  Enahnce is I'm guessing an epic feat since it is out of the epic book.  There shouldn't be an epic feat in the game that you say gee it's about balanced with a similar non epic feat. *





The problem is NOT with the Epic Enhanced Spell feat, the problem is with STACKING Empower on top of Empower on top of Empower....

Like I said, our group has wizards and DMs (thats me) who have been allowing this, to get everyone to change now is.... well, I'd have a better chance of parting the Red Sea.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> well, I'd have a better chance of parting the Red Sea. *




Well, that's just an Epic Spell.  I wanted to build the spell, but I couldn't find a seed that seems to fit.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> The problem is NOT with the Epic Enhanced Spell feat, the problem is with STACKING Empower on top of Empower on top of Empower....
> ...




I think the problem is with epic enhace spell.  I've allowed multiple empowers as per the rules, and it hasn't unbalnced my game.(heck I love it making damage more tempting is a good thing, I much rather have lot's o dice damage spells to save or die spells, especially considering I roll in front of the gorup so no fudging mr. bad's saves)  It might be unbalanced in the epic rules with that improved metamagic and empower at +1 level now thing, but honestly considering what other classes can dish out damage wise I'm not too concerned with the epic style damage a spellcaster might dish out with empower and the epic improved metamagic ability/feat.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, that's just an Epic Spell.  I wanted to build the spell, but I couldn't find a seed that seems to fit.   *





LOL, good 1.  Hey check out the Animate seed, I think thats the one.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 25, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, that's just an Epic Spell.  I wanted to build the spell, but I couldn't find a seed that seems to fit.   *



 LOL
if I'm gathering this seed thing right from the posts wouldn't lower water work as a seed.  


Though not to start the epic spell debate again but at best I'd put a part a sea spell as a 9th level spell, cool and all but not epic enough to qualify for a 10th level spell.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> LOL, good 1.  Hey check out the Animate seed, I think thats the one. *




ok so I don't get seeds, anyone want to give a quick sum up without to much of a digression from this thread.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think the problem is with epic enhace spell. *




The same problem exists with the epic Intensify Spell feat,  (read the first post).




			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> I've allowed multiple empowers as per the rules, and it hasn't unbalnced my game. *





So have I, no imbalance here, but none of our wizards (once they have gotten educated about Empower), have bothered to take ANY of the other metamagic damage increasing feats, theres simply no need.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The same problem exists with the epic Intensify Spell feat,  (read the first post).
> 
> ...




That's true in my games as well, but even before the stack same feat rules were out(or we were aware of them) no one took anything but empower, maximize just sucked in their minds 3 levels for slightly better than empower not likely, twin spell etc 4 spell levels geez what the heck can you do with that even a twin fireball is 7th level, a empowered cone fo cold would do more damage.  So this just solidified what they already knew empower rocked the rest sucked.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 25, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> LOL
> if I'm gathering this seed thing right from the posts wouldn't lower water work as a seed.
> 
> ...




Have you seen how big the red sea is?  I think to part that sucker would take an epic spell.  

Animate is the seed.  However, I can't find any info on average depth of average length of the Red Sea to figure out how large an area is needed.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 25, 2002)

First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. This may seem nit-picky, but it is really more important with spells such as magic missile, various orb spells, chain lightning, ect. An otherwise average roll by multiple missile could end up on the bad side of the rounding down rule. Especially if each missile/orb is only rolling one dice each. You could enhance it five times, and if you roll a 1, you get a 1, as the base damage would be multiplied 1.5 for each time enhanced was applied. (By strict interpretation of the feat, this is the way to calculate it.)


Min/Mid/Max

10d6 = 10/30/60
10d6 x 1.5 = 15/~45/90
20d6 = 20/60/120  

Like I said ,I know it's nit-picky. 

Secondly, it is SOOOOO obvious by the ELH MM feats that were added that spellcasters are supposed to take the enhanced meta magic feat. Just take it three times, and then observe...

Fire ball

10d6
10d6 x 1.5 (empowered)
60 (maximized)
20d6 (enhanced)

SEE!!! A no brainer, must have combo. Since all of the above are now only at +1 spell slots, it is obvious that WotC meant for all spellcasters to take Enhanced MM, so as to make their new epic feats worth while. Duh! 

* removes tounge from cheek*

Seriously, look at this, at +2 spell levels..

fire ball

10d6
10d6 x 1.5 twice, double enhanced. 
60 + 10d6 x .5 (maximized and enhanced.)
30d6 (double enhanced)

If you take it six times, take a fresh look at intensify. Granted it would be a feat heavy investment, but at +1 spell level, your simple fire ball does 120, period. With enhance, at a +2 spell level, it does 240, period. Enhance spell, which is worthless, now allows you to use maximize and intensify, which are also worthless, to a whole new degree. Even if you don't want to spend that many feats on improving your damage, the above two examples are reasonably cost effective, and make empower the proverbial red headed step child.

Just like taking weapon focus in one weapon and improved crit in a different one is not a waste, just ineffective. Put them both on one weapon, and they become dangerous COMBINED, and they open the door to other feats on their trees.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 25, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> That fact alone means that either I'm right or the authors don't know what the heck they're doing.  One or the other, no room for a middle point on that. *




There is one other option, the ELH authors[and playtesters] werent in the loop on the stacking ruling. Since the authors dont know about the errant 'clarification' and none of the testers tested it that way, you get a worthless feat.


----------



## Johno (Jul 25, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> snip...
> 
> ...




Incorrect. Average Damage is 35, as the average roll of a d6 is 3,5, not 3. ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=3,5)




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> Like I said ,I know it's nit-picky.
> *




What was that you said? I can't hear you very well... Must be some static on my internet


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

SIGH...




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. *




Ok Battlehammer, for you

Example 1:---------------------------------------------
ENHANCING fireball
---fireball 10d6 (35 points)
---enhanced +10d6 (35 points)
total enhanced = (35 + 35 = 70 points)

DOUBLE EMPOWERING fireball
---fireball 10d6 (35 points)
---1st empower (35 x 1.5 = 17.5)
---2nd empower (35 x 1.5 = 17.5)
total double empowered (35 +17.5 +17.5 = 70 points)

70 = 70
empower = enhanced
-------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2:
ENHANCING horrid wilting
---horrid wilting 25d8 (112.5 points)
---enhanced +10d8 (45 points)
total enhanced = (112.5 + 45 = 157.5 points)

DOUBLE EMPOWERING horrid wilting
---horrid wilting 25d8 (112.5 points)
---1st empower (112.5 x 1.5 = 56.25)
---2nd empower (112.5 x 1.5 = 56.25)
total double empowered (112.5 + 56.25 + 56.25 = 225 points)

225 > 157.5
empower WINS
-------------------------------------------------------------

battlehammer, your homework is to try the same for (enhanced vs double empowered):
   1. cone of cold (15d6)
   2. chain lightning (20d6)
you will find Empower wins, Empower always wins in the end


----------



## Anubis (Jul 25, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The same problem exists with the epic Intensify Spell feat,  (read the first post).
> 
> ...




No imbalance?  Haven't you read the book?  It states, and I'm paraphrasing here: "If something in the game is so good that everyone wants it and there is no reason to not take it or to take anything else, then something's wrong, and it's unbalanced."

So that just helps my case.  The fact that most other Metamagci Feats are useless when yo allow Empower to stack further proves that it's not to be allowed.  This isn't a balance issue as much as it is a usefulness issue.

Stacking Empower Spell, especially once you have Imporved Metamagic, leave all other Metamagic feats in the dust.

If that isn't proof, I dunno what is.  You guys can continue making the same mistakes over and over, but I'm gonna admit that stacking was a simple mistake and remove it from the game.

Then I'm gonna ask the Sage to clarify.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 25, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. This may seem nit-picky, but it is really more important with spells such as magic missile, various orb spells, chain lightning, ect. An otherwise average roll by multiple missile could end up on the bad side of the rounding down rule. Especially if each missile/orb is only rolling one dice each. You could enhance it five times, and if you roll a 1, you get a 1, as the base damage would be multiplied 1.5 for each time enhanced was applied. (By strict interpretation of the feat, this is the way to calculate it.)
> 
> 
> Min/Mid/Max
> ...




You're overlooking the fact that Enhance Spell is an EPIC feat.

An Epic feat BY ITSELF should ALWAYS be more powerful than a basic feat.  Enhance Spell, however, doesn't becoe more powerful than Empower Spell until you're taken THREE OTHER FEATS, Improved Metamagic thrice.

Explain THAT, hmmm?


----------



## Marshall (Jul 25, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're overlooking the fact that Enhance Spell is an EPIC feat.
> 
> ...




Even after you ImproveMeta Enhance, Empower still takes it. You only have to take Empower once, you have to take Enhance over and over and over...

Post that reply from the Sage


----------



## Anubis (Jul 25, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Even after you ImproveMeta Enhance, Empower still takes it. You only have to take Empower once, you have to take Enhance over and over and over...
> 
> Post that reply from the Sage *




That's true!  Empower does eventually overtake it unless you take Enhance over and over!  That's a lot of feats to get the Epic feat to bypass Empower Spell!

As soon as I hear from Sage (or Monte, I'm trying to get something out of him as well), I will certainly post it here.  Stay tuned.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 25, 2002)

The reason enhance is an epic feat is quite simply because it modifies the base spell itself. If you can't see the benefits in that, then by all means you should not let empower stack. However, there are times when it is useful.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 25, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *The reason enhance is an epic feat is quite simply because it modifies the base spell itself. If you can't see the benefits in that, then by all means you should not let empower stack. *




Whatever you do with Enhance, I can do the SAME or BETTER with Empower.  So then why take it.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> *However, there are times when it is useful. *




Give me ONE example....


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 26, 2002)

Improved Metamagic x 3, Maximize spell, Enhance spell + Fireball.

5th level slot gives a spell that deals 120 damage.

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower x 2 + Fireball: a 5th level spell that deals 10d6 x 2 damage (average 70).

----

Improved Metamagic x 2, Maximize spell, Enhance spell + Fireball.

6th level slot gives a spell that deals 120 damage.

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower x 3 + Fireball: a 6th level spell that deals 10d6 x 2.5 damage (average 87).

--------

Improved Metamagic x 3 + Enhance Spell + the one that maximizes and doubles + fireball. 5th level spell that deals 240 damage.

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower x 2 + Fireball: a 5th level spell that deals 10d6 x 2 damage (average 70).

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower + max and double feat + Fireball: a 5th level spell that deals 10d6 x .5 + 120 damage (average 155).

--------

Improved Metamagic x 3 + Enhance Spell + the one that maximizes and doubles + fireball. 7th level spell that deals 240 damage.

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower x 4 + Fireball: a 5th level spell that deals 10d6 x 4 damage (average 140).

Compare that to Improved Metamagic + Empower + max and double feat + Fireball: a 5th level spell that deals 10d6 x .5 + 120 damage (average 155).

------

Just because you may have to think a bit to find them does not mean they don't exist. Enhance spell, by itself, is worse than empower. However, when combined with other metamagic feats, you get better results.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Improved Metamagic x 3, Maximize spell, Enhance spell + Fireball.
> 
> 5th level slot gives a spell that deals 120 damage.
> 
> ...




Ok ok, you win, 

*Epic Enhance Spell*, 
PLUS  *Epic Improved Metamagic*
PLUS ANOTHER *Epic Improved Metamagic*
yet ANOTHER *Epic Improved Metamagic*

is BETTER than our lowly Empower Spell feat.

JESUS..........


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 26, 2002)

There's no reason to be such a putz. If you don't like it, change it in your campaign. But as written, the feats are fine.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *There's no reason to be such a putz. *




Re-read from the first post, I have given NUMEROUS examples of why NOT to take the Metamagic damage increasing feats if you take Empower.  I guess your "enlightened" post just rubbed me the wrong way.

I bet that you have NOT played a wizard past 12th level, what looks good on paper does NOT necessarily work in reality.

And YES if you get all your metamagic feats down to +1/level, they will be better than Empower, THAT'S OBVIOUS... Let's see, Maximize, Twin, Chain, wow, at +1/level they are all better... dahhh.  

Unfortunately you will have to wait till 30th level for you 3 Improved metamagic feats and once you get there, other wizards will be Empowering Horrid Wiltings at 15th level spell slots and doing over 500 points a pop, while you will be PROUDLY casting 120 point 5th level spells (not to mention the lousy 3rd level saves...ohh damn, he made his save for half damage again!)

Remember, EVERYTIME your wizard takes Enhanced and Improved Metamagic, my wizard will take Improved Spell Capacity (10th, 11th, 12th etc..).  There's an opportunity cost there.  You will be throwing around powerful fireballs, at 6th, 7th and 9th level slots, I will be throwing around powerful Horrid Wiltings at 15th, 14th, 13th level slots, you do the math... 

There are other costs and Enhanced Spell WILL NEVER BE WORTH IT


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *The reason enhance is an epic feat is quite simply because it modifies the base spell itself. *




Just out of curiosity, is that written somewhere, or is that an assumption?  I don't find "modifies base spell" anywhere in the description of the feat.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 26, 2002)

Actually, I showed how enhance would be better even at +2 levels when combined with maximize. I agree with you that enhance by itself is not usually worthwhile (even if you don't take empower at all).



> I bet that you have NOT played a wizard past 12th level, what looks good on paper does NOT necessarily work in reality.




You're right. But I have played (and still do play) an 18th level sorcerrer, whose bread and butter is metamagic feats. I don't plan on taking Enhance Spell with him any time soon, but only because damage dealing spells are not his main thrust. If they were, I would think about it.



> There are other costs and Enhanced Spell WILL NEVER BE WORTH IT




I've shown three cases where it is. Typing in all caps does not make an incorrect post any more logical.



> Just out of curiosity, is that written somewhere, or is that an assumption? I don't find "modifies base spell" anywhere in the description of the feat.




It doesn't have to be written anywhere. It quite obviously modifies the base spell. It says it adds 10 (or 5) to the spell's damage cap. It doesn't say it adds 10 (or 5) dice of damage.


----------



## Limper (Jul 26, 2002)

"I've shown three cases where it is. Typing in all caps does not make an incorrect post any more logical."

YES IT DOES, SEE? 3E IS BROKEN AND META MAGIC FEATS DON'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


With all your posts I thought you'd know this by now.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 26, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No imbalance?  Haven't you read the book?  It states, and I'm paraphrasing here: "If something in the game is so good that everyone wants it and there is no reason to not take it or to take anything else, then something's wrong, and it's unbalanced."
> . *




Well if every spellcaster took empower you may, and I repeat may be right.  The big difference for spellcasters is the vast majority of feats are physical combat orriented, so they are outright eliminated for wiz/sor as viable options.  The number of metamagic feats are fairly small so even though there may be a best amoungst those small number of feats it doesn't make it unbalnced.  I've seen scores of wiz/sor refuse to take most metamagic feats because they feel the costs of a feat+large numbers of spell levels make them extremely weak feats.  I especially see this in wizards who say empower??? I'll just learn the higher level spell, the minor boosts I get in damage for a few levels just aren't worth it.

  But if they are going to take a damage booster feat they will take empower over the rest of the damage boosters feats because amoung that extremely limited number of feats it was the best.  Heck if just using the PH we a re talking it and maximize, yeah because empower is better than maximize that means it's unbalanced.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *I've shown three cases where it is. Typing in all caps does not make an incorrect post any more logical.
> *




You did not understand, the costs in FEAT SLOTS is very steep, therefore not worth it.




			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> *It doesn't have to be written anywhere. It quite obviously modifies the base spell. It says it adds 10 (or 5) to the spell's damage cap. It doesn't say it adds 10 (or 5) dice of damage. *




Again, seems like an assumption, right or wrong, I do not know.  Read the Maximize Spell feat, to me, it also, quite obviously, modifies the base spell.  Isn't it written somewhere, (PHB, FAQ, DMG) that if you combine any metamagic feats they only affect the base spell.  If so, AND if Enhance Spell is an exception, it should have been written so.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 26, 2002)

It does affect the base spell. By increasing its cap.

Maximize spell makes the base part of the spell do maximum damage.

Empower spell causes the base spell effect to be multiplied by 1.5.

Enhance spell increases the base spell's cap by 5 or 10 dice. However, the nature of that effect allows it to spill over onto other feats. at least, that's how I read it. If it doesn't work that way then it loses quite a bit of its worth.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 26, 2002)

I have to say I think it does change the base spell.  Usually I rule in the more restrictive way, but rereading this all and the books it sounds like that is the way to go.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 26, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *It does affect the base spell. By increasing its cap.
> 
> Maximize spell makes the base part of the spell do maximum damage.
> 
> ...




We know Empower, Maximize, Twin, Chain, etc etc. affects only the base part of the spell because it is written somewhere (not in the feat descriptions itself) that ALL metamagic feats affect only the base spell.  Re-read the Empower Spell feat, no where in the description does it say "...affects base spell...".  

As a matter of fact, just by reading Empower, you can't determine that if you use 2 empowers stacked, if the damage will be x2 or x2.25 (1.5 x 1.5).  Stacking metamagic is handled separately, not in the feat description itself.

Again you cannot determine if any metamagic feat affects the base spell by only reading the feat description itself, unless it specifically says so, because it has been handled elsewhere.  Yet, that is what you are doing by reading into the Enhanced Spell feat.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 26, 2002)

HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *SIGH...
> 
> battlehammer, your homework is to try the same for (enhanced vs double empowered):
> 1. cone of cold (15d6)
> ...




YOUR homework is to re-read my post.

I said the same thing as James McMurray. Granted he said it better, but the point was that if you get all feats down to +1 spell slots, empower becomes LESS powerful, enhance and intensify become more powerful. Your equations had only one feat for the feats you do not like, yet used your favorite feat twice. Of course you will get better results that way. Not to mention that you forgot to round down, so empower still loses. (17.5 = 17)

As to the need to take multiple feats being exspensive, I mentioned that, too. Whether or not you feel it is worth it is your opinion. I, too, would take the extra spell slots over the decreased MM cost, but only because it is in keeping with MY wizard. If he were more of a combatant, the choice would be different. You might have a few more spells, say two for each time you take the feat, factoring INT mod.. However, ALL of my spells will be maxed, intensified, twined, ect., giving me predictability of results, which is a major advantage in deciding ones tactics.

As to an epic feat needing to be more powerful on its own, why? Perhaps it was poor planning, perhaps it was there to give those willing to make the investment a big advantage over those who think it is useless. The greatest power comes not from a single feat or class, but from a well thought out combination. Damn, I'm repeating myself again.

And for what it's worth, I don't remember you sighing at me when I have agreed with you in past threads. You are't impressing me by doing it now.


----------



## reiella (Jul 26, 2002)

If it helps any, look at the Mind's Eye article with the Overpower feat.

It explicitly lists combinations and stacking of the same feat (without taking multiple times) in its tables.  Notably of Overpower and Empower (or whatever it was called).


----------



## drowdude (Jul 26, 2002)

Working off of Fireball (av. dmg 35) as the base spell, and a max of 9th level spell slots...

Also assuming Enhance Spell modifies the *base* effect of the spell (which I think it does anways)...

--------------------------------------

* Empower x3 = Average Damage 87.5 (range = 25-150)

* Maximized + Empowered = Average Damage 77.5 (range = 65-90)

---------------------------------------

* Enhanced + Empowered = Average Damage 105 (range = 30-180)

---------------------------------------

Now consider it after taking Improved Metamagic once....

* Empower x6 = Average Damage 140 (range = 40-240)

* Empower x4 + Maximize = Average Damage 130 (range = 80-180)

* Enhanced + Empowered x3 = Average Damage 175 (range = 50-300)

* Enhanced + Maximized + Empowered = Average Damage 155 (range = 130-180)

----------------------------------------

Empower does seem at first glance much better than Maximize. But it all depends on how reliable you like your spells to be. Maximize drives the base damage up considerably in each case, which makes it *very* reliable versus Empower which is only better if you actually roll well on the damage dice.

In *ALL* cases where it was used, Enhance spell drives up the base/average/max damage. Thus it does it's job very well IMO.


Now back to the inital point of this thread, regarding Intensify Spell.... 

Yeah, basically, it's a waste. Now, my contention is that the problem lies with this "epic" feat rather than stacking up Empower. IMO, it's cost should be lowered to +5 levels or so.


----------



## Petrosian (Jul 26, 2002)

Someone said...
"First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. This may seem nit-picky, but it is really more important with spells such as magic missile, various orb spells, chain lightning, ect. An otherwise average roll by multiple missile could end up on the bad side of the rounding down rule. Especially if each missile/orb is only rolling one dice each. You could enhance it five times, and if you roll a 1, you get a 1, as the base damage would be multiplied 1.5 for each time enhanced was applied. (By strict interpretation of the feat, this is the way to calculate it.)"

Actually if you pay attention to the rules for multiple multiples, it says (clearly iirc) that when applying multiple multiples you add them So two empowers would be 1+.5+.5 = 2x the roll, not as you suggest 1+5 x each rounding for each case. The discussion i recall it being cited in was about double empower bull strength and whether it could reach 10 or 9.

Someone else said...
"yeah because empower is better than maximize that means it's unbalanced."

Remember Empower ONE LEVEL is often as good as maximize even tho it is one level down. An empowered magic missile does 3, 4, 6, 7 on its d4+1 modified roll, producing an average of 5 per missile, the exact same as maximize. The empower weighs in 1 level lower.

If there is ANy question as to whether you can or cannot by the rules stack empowers we have the FAQ

"  You can apply most metamagic feats more  than once. 
Just  stack  up  the  costs,  and  remember  to  apply  the 
additional  effects  to  the  basic  spell.  For  example,  if  you 
extend a spell twice, you get 3 times the duration, not 4 
times  the  duration.  (Each  extension  adds  100%  of  the 
spell’s base duration.) 
  There are a few metamagic feats that are constructed so 
as  to  make  stacking  worthless  or  pointless. You  cannot, 
for example, get more than  maximum damage out of a 
spell by maximizing the spell more than  once. (If you 
want  to  send  the  spell’s  damage through the roof, use 
Empower  Spell  multiple  times.)  Heighten  Spell  already 
allows  you  set  the  spell’s  effective  level  anywhere  you 
want (and can manage), so there’s no point in applying 
the feat more than once. 
 "


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 26, 2002)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Someone said...
> "First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. This may seem nit-picky, but it is really more important with spells such as magic missile, various orb spells, chain lightning, ect. An otherwise average roll by multiple missile could end up on the bad side of the rounding down rule. Especially if each missile/orb is only rolling one dice each. You could enhance it five times, and if you roll a 1, you get a 1, as the base damage would be multiplied 1.5 for each time enhanced was applied. (By strict interpretation of the feat, this is the way to calculate it.)"
> 
> Actually if you pay attention to the rules for multiple multiples, it says (clearly iirc) that when applying multiple multiples you add them So two empowers would be 1+.5+.5 = 2x the roll, not as you suggest 1+5 x each rounding for each case. The discussion i recall it being cited in was about double empower bull strength and whether it could reach 10 or 9. *





Thats mine.

Actually, the entire reason this thread has dragged on for so long is because there are no rules for stacking the same MM feat. My understanding, both from the description of MM feats in the PHB, the Empower feat description, AND the FaQ, is that all feats modify the BASE spell. You even quoted that Extend used twice results in 3 times the duration, not 4. So an Empowered spell that does 15 points of damage would do an additional 7 points for each time it is Empowered, as the multiplier affects the base spell. "You can apply most metamagic feats more than once. 
Just stack up the costs, and remember to apply the 
additional effects to the basic spell. For example, if you 
extend a spell twice, you get 3 times the duration, not 4 
times the duration. (Each extension adds 100% of the 
spell’s base duration.)" 


 I'm not sure what (iirc) means, but if there is another source your quoting, I'd love to get a reference.

Besides, we aren't supposed to qoute the FaQ, it's irrelevant.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 26, 2002)

From the SRD:







> *MULTIPLYING*
> Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply
> the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply, however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra
> multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (x2) and a double (x2) applied to the same number
> results in a triple (x3, because 2 + 1 = 3).


----------



## Petrosian (Jul 26, 2002)

rats... he beat me to it by seconds...

Anyway, the rules on multiplying from the SRD are fairly straightforward.

'nuff said...

and note that for some, the faq is far from irrelevent.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 26, 2002)

"and note that for some, the faq is far from irrelevent."

I said that with toung firmly entrenched in cheek, trust me.

"MULTIPLYING
Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply
the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply, however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra
multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (x2) and a double (x2) applied to the same number
results in a triple (x3, because 2 + 1 = 3)."

This only applies to things like Criticals, not MM. If it did, Empower would lose potency as it was used more times.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 26, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *I said that with toung firmly entrenched in cheek, trust me.
> 
> MULTIPLYING
> Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply
> ...



I am sure I've seen this used for everything d&d related... including Meta feats... but I couldn't tell you where...


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 26, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *So an Empowered spell that does 15 points of damage would do an additional 7 points for each time it is Empowered, as the multiplier affects the base spell. "You can apply most metamagic feats more than once.  Just stack up the costs, and remember to apply the additional effects to the basic spell. *




The man speaks the truth.


----------



## drowdude (Jul 26, 2002)

Indeed he does.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 27, 2002)

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> YOUR homework is to re-read my post. *




Ok boss




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First of all, I must point out that all of the calculations on Empowered spells are incorrect. *





No they are not.




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A 10d6 fire ball double empowered does not equal an enhanced fire ball, as the damage is not in dice, but the final result is multiplied 1.5. *





double empowered fireball (+4 levels) ---> 20d6 = 10d6 x(1+.5+.5) = x2
enhanced fireball (+4 levels) ---> 20d6 = 10d6 +10d6

and if looking at it by dice clouds your logic, lets look at it in points

dbl powered fireball (ave dam) = 70 = 35 +17.5 +17.5
enhanced fireball (ave dam) = 70

20d6 = 20d6 = 70 = 70

they look the same to me.



			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So an Empowered spell that does 15 points of damage would do an additional 7 points for each time it is Empowered, as the multiplier affects the base spell. *




Again, you are incorrect

a die roll of 15 empowered multiple times would look like this:
empower once --> 15 +7.5 = 22.5 = 22
empower twice --> 15 +7.5 +7.5 = 30
empower thrice --> 15 +7.5 +7.5 +7.5 = 37.5 = 37
and so on
of course there is NO rounding down on an EVEN roll.

round down ONLY on the final result...



			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My understanding, both from the description of MM feats in the PHB, the Empower feat description, AND the FaQ, is that all feats modify the BASE spell. You even quoted that Extend used twice results in 3 times the duration, not 4. *




Let me clairify what they are really talking about in the FAQ.  Some people were getting confused as to the stacking of MM feats so the question was, if you stack 2 empowers does it:
---> 1. base x1.5 x1.5 = x2.25
or
---> 2. base x(1 +.5 +.5) = x2
of course, we find out it was the latter (x2)

That FAQ has to do with the way the multipliers stack, as it is shown they are added and not multiplied, it has nothing to do with how or when to round down a die result.



			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Secondly, it is SOOOOO obvious by the ELH MM feats that were added that spellcasters are supposed to take the improved meta magic feat. *




No.

Other epic feats do not require 2 or 3 other epic feats to make them useful, for example:
Improved Mayshot
Mighty Rage
Epic Prowess
Vorpal Strike
Blinding Speed
Epic Spellcasting
Distant Shot
Dragon Wildshape
Epic Toughness
Improved Spell Capacity
and on and on........

NONE of them require the need for 2 or 3 other epic feats to make them great.  They are great by themselves, but Enhanced Spell feat is not, even you will agree that Enhance Spell ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES at least 2 improved metamagic feats to make it compete with other metamagic.




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...spellcasters are supposed to take the improved meta magic feat. Just take it three times,  *





Feat slots don't grow on trees IMC.  Three slots is a heavy price for practically no improvement...




			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...spellcasters are supposed to take the improved meta magic feat. Just take it three times, and then observe...
> 
> ...




No!

Career wizard players are smarter than that.  The slots you BURN in taking Improved Meta three times will put you behind the curve in raw damage dealing power.

Let me demonstrate:

A typical 30th level player character Wizard.
--average wealth: *4.3 million gold*
--intelligence: *34* = (16 +5 *inherent* +6 *headband* +7 *one every 4 levels).
--fort, reflex saves: *21* (6 +5 *epic* +5 *cloak* +5 dex/con *20 ability scores*)
--save vs 3rd level spells: *25*
--save vs 8th level spells: *30*
--hit points: *225* = (7.5 x 30)
--magic items may include, rings of evasion, elemental resistances/immunity (you get the picture)

The Enhanced/Improved Meta wizard feat progression:
21st-- Improved Spell Cap (10th)
23rd-- Improved Spell Cap (11th)
24th-- Improved Spell Cap (12th)
26th-- Enhanced Spell
27th-- Improved Metamagic (-1)
29th-- Improved Metamagic (-2)
30th-- Improved Metamagic (-3)

The Enhanced happy wizard casts superheated fireballs:
Fireball at 12th level, Enhanced (x1), Maximized (x1), Empowered (x8)
A scorching *365* damage, but take a look at this:


The Empower wizard feat progression
21st-- Improved Spell Cap (10th)
23rd-- Improved Spell Cap (11th)
24th-- Improved Spell Cap (12th)
26th-- Improved Spell Cap (13th)
27th-- Improved Metamagic (-1)
29th-- Improved Spell Cap (14th)
30th-- Improved Spell Cap (15th)

Enhanced wizard casts superdry horrid wiltings:
Wilt at 15th level, Empower (x7)
A whopping *506* damage

Not only that, if these 2 wizards face off and throw these 2 mega spells at each other, lets see what happens:

Wizard saving vs the 12th level superheated fireball = 25 - 21 = 4 or better ===> *85% survival chance*

Wizard saving vs the 15th level superdry wilting = 30 - 21 = 9 or better ===> *0% survival chance*, half damage is enough to kill the wizard anyway (506/2 damage > 225 hit points)....

After the dead wizard is looted, who's laughing all the way to the bank now?

Empower BEATS Enhanced



			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you take it six times, take a fresh look at intensify. Granted it would be a feat heavy investment, but at +1 spell level, your simple fire ball does 120, period. *




Don't even get me started on this one.  By the time you get Intensify Spell down to +1/level, I will be throwing around 800 hit point Wiltings at 18 to 21st level slots.  This one is a loser all the way around.

Remember, Horrid Wilting, not fireball, is the spell of choice when you reach high levels.  Here I will list the reasons:
--1. Fireball has 3rd level saves (i.e. they suck)
--2. Creatures of CR 21+ typically have all kinds of elemental resistances, your fire/acid/cold balls are even less effective
--3. Horrid Wilting covers an area *twice* that of Fireball, ouch!

Where Horrid Wilting is concered, you will have to be 40th level before Enhanced, Maxed, Empowered, Horrid Wiltings surpass straight Empowered Wiltings.

Empower is still the champ.........


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 27, 2002)

Yeah, the empower guy wins in max damage in those cases.  Though there are tons of other reasons to take multiple epic imporved metamagics.  I'd very likely take at least two, and probably 3.  Why sure my damage dealing drops a bit, but persistent is a one level boost so is quicken, maximize etc.  And so yeah your guys 14th level slot blasts everything into oblivion, while my 5th level slot always does 60 and is a free aciton, my 4th level slot gives me a free action haste spell, my second level slot is a persistent shield spell etc.

  And if I'm going to take 3 improved metamagics anyways then enhance spell is better for me than empower.  Now I still don't think enhance metamagic is a epic feat, but for a powerful wizard I'd much rather not throw around gagillion dice fireballs and instead have mad versatility because every metamagic feat I can use only is one spell level higher.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Jul 27, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *Yeah, the empower guy wins in max damage in those cases.  Though there are tons of other reasons to take multiple epic imporved metamagics.  *




I agree




			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *Now I still don't think enhance metamagic is a epic feat  *





Again, I agree


----------



## Marshall (Jul 27, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *  And if I'm going to take 3 improved metamagics anyways then enhance spell is better for me than empower.
> *




Even at ImpMM+3 _Empower_ is still a better choice. As you need to spend another feat to get _Enhance_ to +20dice and, its unclear, but it looks like the +20 _Enhance_ would still be +5 spell levels with ImpMM+3. ie +30=+9 levels, +40=+13 levels. Even bought multiple times, its not clear weather _Enhance_ stacks or becomes a 'new' feat.


----------



## Petrosian (Jul 27, 2002)

Ok, first off, a point that has to be made...

Let me ask an example question, if a troll runs completely around your prepared fighrt will the fighter get a free swing (AoO) wih his longsword if he has not already done so this round?

The answer is YES or NO. Its "yes" if playing DND 3e. its "no" if playing Fantasy HERO.

Ok before you start throwing things, the point is there are people here holding a rules discussion who are playing under two seriously different rules sets.

Group A is playing by the DND rules plus the FAQ. They consider the FAQ to be relevent to their game rules and discussions thereof. They have clear and in print direct answers to many vauge or ill defined or sometimes just plain absent areas of the game.

Group B is playing by the DND rules without the FAQ. They consider the FAQ to be irrelevent and thus none of its information impacts their game.

(In either group, there are likely a few ne'er-do-wells who even stoop so far as to actually make their own rules, called house rules.)

group A KNOWS whether you can doubly empower or not. The FAQ is clear. 

Group B is probably divided with some reading multiple feats as a "only different" and others reading it as "doubling up is cool."

Group A, if they see multi-empower as trumping enhance, probably will chalk it up to "yet another case where the new stuff guys did not pay attention to what can be done with feats" and figure that it will either fall to being the next "toughness" or will be erratted. (Anyone remember the MotW cold spells where they gain a dice per round and extend the lesser beats the larger one hands down... the new stuff guys surely forgot existing feats on that one!)

Group B, in part, may see this as making perfect sense because you cannot put empower twice.

IF someone were talking 'but in HERO" we could all say "OK, different game systems have different rules."

Well for those who choose to NOT USE the FAQ, they are playing a different game system than those who do.

There can be no consensus here.

Anubis is NOT wrong. He is just deciding to play a different game system.

let him. 

If he doesn't want the FAQ or the sage as a resource provided by wotc to be a factor in HIS play, thats his call.  its been helpful for me.

He is being forthright enough to identify, often in CAPS for emphasis, that his ruling is indeed based on "FAQ denial" so hardly anyone will be confused between his rules and DND rules. So there is little danger from his posts.

Thany you, Anubis, for posting so diligently the group B "faq denial" side of the argument. its always good when other game styles are heard from.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> That fact alone means that either I'm right or the authors don't know what the heck they're doing.  One or the other, no room for a middle point on that. *




Or it means simply that they made an error. It does happen. Even though you have your "FAQ does not exist for me" blinders on, even you admit there is erratta, right? in order for there to be erratta, there must have been errors.

Do you have ANY reason to believe that the ELH, all new materials, will be different from all other products and thus be error free? i don't

In MOTW we have a pair of spells.

One provides a three round spell which hits you with 1d6 and states that the damage grows by 1d6 each round. Several levels higher we have the four round spell doing the same. But, if i know FEATS, i use extend on the lesser and now FOR A LEVEL LESS than the big one i get a six round spell doing twice the damage.  

Now i saw those two and immediately knew there was an error. Sooner or later they would fix these two. i did not suddenly leap to the conclusion that "extend spell must be wrong and this "last published" thing proves it!" i did not suddenly conclude the designers did not know what they were doings in some grand way. i just reached the conclusion that MotW, like all their other products, had errors and this was one.

However, that is explicative of how i reason things, and i have been known to be wrong at times.

enjoy your games, under whatever game system you decide to play.


----------



## Red Baron (Jul 27, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Have you seen how big the red sea is?  I think to part that sucker would take an epic spell.
> 
> Animate is the seed.  However, I can't find any info on average depth of average length of the Red Sea to figure out how large an area is needed. *



I'd have to say I think _miracle_ is what you're looking for. And it doesn't require Empower, Maximize, Enhance, or Intensify...


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer (Jul 29, 2002)

*ugh..*

four things, Hel Pit...

1) 17.5 is rounded down, so it is 17 + 17, ect. Yes, it is only one point.

2) Horrid wilting is not THE choice spell. Going against a cold based creature is just one reason to use a 20 dice fire ball over a 25 dice non elemantal spell.

3) Learn when I am using sarcasm.

4) I'm wondering why, out of all the quotes from me you have posted, you have yet to respond to this one.



> And for what it's worth, I don't remember you sighing at me when I have agreed with you in past threads. You are't impressing me by doing it now.




This has turned into more of a calculation battle and an attempt to prove others wrong, so I officially quit this thread. My opinion is that MM feats were a new toy with a lot of luster, so they kept making them, even when some of their uses may be redundant or less than useful. BUT, I do see a use for all of them. Maybe it's just me.

As to stacking, Petrosian said it well. It is hard to discuss rules when we are not playing by the same ones.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: ugh..*



			
				Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> *four things, Hel Pit...
> 
> 1) 17.5 is rounded down, so it is 17 + 17, ect. Yes, it is only one point.*




But 17.5 +17.5 = 35. Round that down if you want, but he is just as right as you are.



> *As to stacking, Petrosian said it well. It is hard to discuss rules when we are not playing by the same ones. *




With all due respect to Petrosian, but there has to be a rule. The FAQ is not Official Errata, according to itself, unless it states otherwise. The clarification on stacking metamagic is not pointed to as errata and is pointed to as being an off the cuff ruling. Wether the ELH points to a rethinking of that ruling or just poor design is a matter were still waiting to hear about.


----------



## IceBear (Jul 29, 2002)

Geesh...the *OFFICAL* FAQ isn't errata - it's rule clarifications.

The passage in the rule books just state that a spell can have multiple metamagic feats applied to them.  The examples all show different feats, but what the FAQ did was to clarify that they don't have to be different feats.

I'm sorry but if you don't want to use this clarification (and I'm not saying that isn't a bad choice) you don't have to, but that's more of a house rule than allowing it.  The official rules state you can have multiple feats on the spell and the offical webpage with the offically scantioned clarifications say that these feats can be the same.  To me that's pretty offical.

Based on the precendent of the other sourcebooks where they *clearly* flag rule changes as being offical errata, I'm not going to read too much into how a poorly thought out feat is written without seeing something similar in the ELH.

IceBear


----------



## -Eä- (Jul 29, 2002)

Greetings people! 

Although this discussions seems and have seemed a bit agitated, I just wanted to contribute with some probability distributions, which may be appropriate for determining the reliability of metamagic feats.

First:
2x Empowered Fireball (to use THE example) does not equal an Enhanced Fireball.
The latter is the more reliable, due to the fact that the probability distribution for each sum is narrower, according to this formula (I won't derive the formula here, as that would do nothing to further the discussion):
Probability for p, points, throwing n s-sided dice:
(1/s^n)*Sum[k=0,Int[(p-n)/s],(Gamma[n+1]*Gamma[p-s*k])/(Gamma[k+1]*Gamma[n-k+1]*Gamma[n]*Gamma[p-s*k-n+1)]

People earlier have spoken of the reliability of Intesify Spell and Maximise spell, but given that you use over 20 dice, this is hardly an issue, as the probability of getting far less than the average is diminutive. For example, getting a sum of 80 or higher using 25 8-sided dice, the probability is 0,998, which is a quite a large number.

Given as such, a combination would ultimately be preferable, as caster level may not be on par with the new and Enhanced Spell dice cap. As such, Improved Metamagic, Enhance Spell, and Empower Spell is the most lethal combination, especially at higher levels. The procedure is to Enhance a spell so that you get maximium potential of it, then Empower it. I believe many has said so before, but here it goes again.

When throwing many dice, the distribution approximates that of a gaussian distrubution, and the standard deviation when throwing n s-sided dice is: SQRT(n*(s^2)-n)/2*SQRT(3), and the average is (n+n*s)/2, and from here it might be beneficial to use the inverse gaussian distrubution for randomising the results, which is easier than throwing 40 dice if you have a calculator.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 1, 2002)

Any official or semi-official word yet?


----------



## Oni (Aug 1, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *Any official or semi-official word yet? *




9 days and counting since I emailed the Sage and posted the question to Andy Collins' Message board, still waiting for a reply.


----------



## -Eä- (Aug 1, 2002)

Oni said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 9 days and counting since I emailed the Sage and posted the question to Andy Collins' Message board, still waiting for a reply. *




Perhaps you should try and send new ones!? I think being insistent is wise on such occasions.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 6, 2002)

Still Waiting...


----------



## Anubis (Aug 6, 2002)

Screw it.  Sage and Collins and them, they don't know the answer any more than we do, that's why they're being silent.  They know that what they did breaks several feats, and now they're afriad to admit it.

Idiots . . .

Plain and simple, this all only works if you ban stacking the same Metamagic feats on top of themselves.  That way, all the feats are useful.

As it is, Empower Spell ALWAYS wins unless you're using very low level spells.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 6, 2002)

Well, what with Gen Con they may be a little busy.  You might want to wait till September


----------



## Oni (Aug 6, 2002)

Mr. Collins hasn't remained completely quiet on the subject.  You can read this thread over at his message board.  

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


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 7, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Idiots . . . *




...and you have so much to offer that they cannot. OK. I'm lying. Anyways, at least you gave me a great idea for another real-life feat.


----------



## drowdude (Aug 7, 2002)

Oni said:
			
		

> *Mr. Collins hasn't remained completely quiet on the subject.  You can read this thread over at his message board.
> 
> http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic *




About freaking time....

(( man I really need to something about those extra avatars... that's just annoying ))


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2002)

drowdude said:
			
		

> *
> 
> About freaking time....
> 
> (( man I really need to something about those extra avatars... that's just annoying )) *




'Course he didnt bother to state which part of the "interpretation" he agrees with. GT has a lot to say, and all of it is counter to the way MM currently works.


----------



## drowdude (Aug 7, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 'Course he didnt bother to state which part of the "interpretation" he agrees with. GT has a lot to say, and all of it is counter to the way MM currently works. *




Oh please... just drop it... 


Andy confirmed that Enhance spell indeed *does* modify the base spell... which means other metamagic effects are applied AFTER Enhance... now if you arent sure of what that means, I posted up some numbers a while back that will illustrate the point for you...


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2002)

drowdude said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh please... just drop it...
> 
> ...




Ok drow, IF(and I still mean if, since his response infers he didnt write it) it works that way, what about other feats? Do you get the Four levels automatically _Heighten_? How about _Intensify_, does it DoubleMax the new cap? So on and so forth. 

Oh yeah youre still stuck with the problem that "Empower still does everything Enhance does, and does it better and does it quicker and does it with less of a feat investment and..."


----------



## drowdude (Aug 7, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *Ok drow, IF(and I still mean if, since his response infers he didnt write it) it works that way, *




Ok... first if you arent going to accept the interpretation approved by the co-author of the freaking book then we can go ahead and close up shop now... since it really can't be argued any further than that... 



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *what about other feats? Do you get the Four levels automatically Heighten? How about Intensify, does it DoubleMax the new cap? So on and so forth. *




Ok, not sure wtf you are talking about with the Heighten comment... but yes Intensify would DoubleMax based on the new cap... Empower would add +50% to the damage based on the new cap... Maximize would.... you get the idea...



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *Oh yeah youre still stuck with the problem that "Empower still does everything Enhance does, and does it better and does it quicker and does it with less of a feat investment and..." *




*sigh* I can see that I am going to have to repost the numbers....


----------



## drowdude (Aug 7, 2002)

drowdude said:
			
		

> *Working off of Fireball (av. dmg 35) as the base spell, and a max of 9th level spell slots...
> 
> Also assuming Enhance Spell modifies the *base* effect of the spell (which I think it does anways)...
> 
> ...


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2002)

You stop too soon. With this "ruling" _Enhance_ is useful once, if and only if, the base damage is already 20 or less. At that point 1 _Empower_ equals _Enhance_ and since I _can_ double _Empower_, _Enhance_ just falls into obscurity...


----------



## drowdude (Aug 7, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *You stop too soon. With this "ruling" Enhance is useful once, if and only if, the base damage is already 20 or less. At that point 1 Empower equals Enhance and since I can double Empower, Enhance just falls into obscurity... *




I disagree... Empower does not equal Enhance... Empower uses a % based mechanic, it does not add additional dice as Enhance does... Thus it drives the min/max damage up more... 

Also you can take Enhance more than once to increase the cap even further... I think that if you work the numbers correctly you will see that it does remain useful... 

...and besides that, I know we are talking about epic levels here... but lets try to keep the discussion within a reasonable scope... 

At any rate, it's obvious that we arent going to agree here, and this is quickly becoming an old topic, dontchathink?


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 8, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *You stop too soon. With this "ruling" Enhance is useful once, if and only if, the base damage is already 20 or less. At that point 1 Empower equals Enhance and since I can double Empower, Enhance just falls into obscurity... *




Um, no.  What you're really saying is Empower + Improved Spell Capacity equals Enhance, and it's just not the case, even if your damage cap is 25 dice.  If you want to do more damage in a single spell, buy Enhance Spell (and Improved Metamagic) instead of Improved Spell Capacity.

Empower, Imp MM, ISC(x19) - 21 feats, 28th level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 25d8 + 250d8 (20x Empower) = 1237 hp

Empower, Maximize, Enhance, Imp MM (x3), ISC(x15) - 21 feats, 24th level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 280 (35d8 max) + 245d8 = 1382.5 hp

Empower, Maximize, Enhance(x2), Imp MM (x3), ISC(x14) - 23rd level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 360 (45d8 max) + 270d8 = 1575 hp

Empower, Maximize, Enhance(x3), Imp MM (x3), ISC(x13) - 21 feats, 22nd level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 440 (55d8 max) + 275d8 = 1677 hp

Empower, Maximize, Enhance(x4), Imp MM (x3), ISC(x12) - 21 feats, 21st level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 520 (65d8 max) + 260d8 = 1690 hp

Empower, Maximize, Enhance(x5), Imp MM (x3), ISC(x11) - 21 feats, 20th level spell
* Horrid Wilting: 600 (75d8 max) + 225d8 = 1612 hp

As you can see, Enhance does 'peak', but the higher the number of feats you're dealing with, the higher that peak is.  I'm sure the guys who wrote the spreadsheets to maximize your power attack damage can help on this one too.

J


----------



## Marshall (Aug 8, 2002)

At 20 dice cap Empower=Enhance
At 40 dice cap Empower=Max+Enhance. Since 20dx is statistically always equal to 10dx Max.

Enhance could be good for 1 or two uses to get to that 40dice cap, after that youre an idiot for taking it more. 

Its a weak feat that doesnt deserve the "Epic" tag. 

And Empower is just so over the top that it mostly invalidates all other MM damage feats. _If you allow it to stack!_ Now in a stacking game I'll just take my fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. that always hits(I just stack WF until whatever I roll hits) for Infinite Damage(I stack WS until my target is jelly). 

"But, Theres no rule in the book that says I only apply those bonuses once per attack!?"


----------



## drowdude (Aug 8, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *Now in a stacking game I'll just take my fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. that always hits(I just stack WF until whatever I roll hits) for Infinite Damage(I stack WS until my target is jelly).
> 
> "But, Theres no rule in the book that says I only apply those bonuses once per attack!?"  *




How incredibly inane... especially when you consider that, yes, there actually are very clear rules regarding stacking for those particular feats.... 


Methinks you just cannot stand being wrong


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 8, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *At 20 dice cap Empower=Enhance
> At 40 dice cap Empower=Max+Enhance. Since 20dx is statistically always equal to 10dx Max.
> 
> Enhance could be good for 1 or two uses to get to that 40dice cap, after that youre an idiot for taking it more.*




You keep saying this (actually, you keep backpedaling on it - it was 'this is never useful' and then 'its good once'...care to keep going?) but now you're not even backing it up with numbers.  Did you even *look* at my examples?

I used to think Enhance was useless until I did the math.

You do more damage when you use Enhance and Empower than if you just use Empower.  

This is because Enhance boosts the effectiveness of Empower.

Go look at the numbers - using 4 enhance feats is *better* than using Empower at those levels.

And there are no spells with a 40 die cap that I am aware of. (Unless they've aready been enhanced...)

Pick a spell that can be enhanced, empower it however many times you want. Let me know how many feats you used and I'll show you how to beat the damage.  Maybe then you'll believe it.

The higher level you go, the more Enhance will be effective.  The only place it *isn't* effective is at the low end, when you don't have the slots to use it.  That's a no-brainer, it's the same for _any_ metamagic feat.

J


----------



## drowdude (Aug 8, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *The higher level you go, the more Enhance will be effective.  The only place it *isn't* effective is at the low end, when you don't have the slots to use it.  That's a no-brainer, it's the same for any metamagic feat. *




Actually, I think that if you take a look at my numbers you will see that it can be effective on the "low" end... if you wanna consider 21st + level "low"


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 8, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *And Empower is just so over the top that it mostly invalidates all other MM damage feats. If you allow it to stack!*




Hmm.

* Maximize: +3 levels to nearly double damage.
* Empower: +4 levels to double damage.

Nothing invalidated there.

* Twin: +4 levels to double damage, require 2nd save. Can be used on spells without a variable numeric effect.
* Empower: +4 levels to double damage. Cannot be used on spells without a variable numeric effect.

Hmm.  Twin still does things that Empower doesn't.

* Energy Admixture: +4 levels to double damage, add elemental type.
* Empower: +4 levels to double damage.

Looks like Energy Admixture is equally effective if you're admixing the same kind of energy, potentially more effective if you choose your targets carefully.  An empowered fireball won't do anything to an enemy who's immune to fire, but an acid admixed fireball will.  So, still no invalidation - Energy Admixture lets you do things that Empower doesn't.

* Intensify Spell: +7 levels to double & maximize (avg fireball: 120 hp)
* Empower: +8 levels to triple damage (avg fireball: 105 hp)

Empower's not even as good.

Now, these get funky when you allow Improved Metamagic, because that lets your Empower get twice the effect.  So it looks to me like it's not the stacking that's the problem - because as we see above, they balance out nicely.  If you have a problem, direct it to Improved Metamagic.  

On the other hand, a second Improved Metamagic on any of the +4 level feats means you are right back to them costing the same - and though you can get a little more damage from Empower because you've got that extra spell level, each of those other feats still has versatility that Empower does not.

J


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 8, 2002)

drowdude said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, I think that if you take a look at my numbers you will see that it can be effective on the "low" end... if you wanna consider 21st + level "low"  *




Well, I was thinking 'low end' as something like:

Delayed Blast Fireball, Empowered (x2) (11th level) - 40d8 dmg
vs.
Delayed Blast Fireball, Enhanced (11th level) - 30d8 dmg

Empower does more damage with 1 fewer feat to boot (since you need Maximize to get Enhance).

To really get the benefit of Enhance you need other damage boosters.

J


----------



## drowdude (Aug 8, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I was thinking 'low end' as something like:
> 
> ...




I think of the "low-end" as getting milage out of fireball


----------



## Marshall (Aug 9, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You keep saying this (actually, you keep backpedaling on it - it was 'this is never useful' and then 'its good once'...care to keep going?) but now you're not even backing it up with numbers.  Did you even *look* at my examples?*




"Never Useful" is the way its written in the ELH. None of this affects other MM feats because as written that is a stretch.
"Its good to 40dice" is with the "Clarification". At that point Empower does everything Enhance does at no feat cost.



> *I used to think Enhance was useless until I did the math.
> 
> You do more damage when you use Enhance and Empower than if you just use Empower.*





Well, Duh! However youve just spent two feats versus Empower doing almost the same with 1.  



> *This is because Enhance boosts the effectiveness of Empower.
> 
> Go look at the numbers - using 4 enhance feats is *better* than using Empower at those levels.*




At those levels you'll never reach because the guy concentrating on Empower has been doing that damage for 10-15 levels before you get there...



> *The higher level you go, the more Enhance will be effective.  The only place it *isn't* effective is at the low end, when you don't have the slots to use it.  That's a no-brainer, it's the same for any metamagic feat.*




If and only if you keep throwing feats at it, and can match the 10 more levels you need to get the full cap. Sorry I can throw a hell of a lot more Empowers into slots youll never see(that can be used for other things) to keep my one feat ahead of your dozen.

I hate to break up this party, but it is turning into just a difference of opinion. I think its worthless, you dont. It aint going to change so lets all move on.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 9, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> Well, Duh! However youve just spent two feats versus Empower doing almost the same with 1.
> *




Wrong.  See, to get the most out of Empower, you have to spend feats too: you have to keep buying Improved Spellcasting Capacity.  That's why I made such a big deal of using the *same number of feats* for both people in my examples.

Read that again.  You use the *same number of feats*.  Same level. Different feats.  More damage.  I don't know how much more clearly I can phrase that.

J


----------



## Marshall (Aug 10, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wrong.  See, to get the most out of Empower, you have to spend feats too: you have to keep buying Improved Spellcasting Capacity.  That's why I made such a big deal of using the same number of feats for both people in my examples.
> 
> ...




No, all you pointed out was that Enhance is good on Fireball. When you switch to DBF and Horrid Wilting Enhance gets less and less effective.

_And_ its two ISC feats to add another Empower or *5* feats(4 ISC + Enhance) to add another Enhance.

BOOM! End of Story.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Aug 10, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wrong.  See, to get the most out of Empower, you have to spend feats too: you have to keep buying Improved Spellcasting Capacity.  That's why I made such a big deal of using the same number of feats for both people in my examples.
> *





You should read my examples above, although they do get involved.  Basically they show mathematically that Enhancing and Empowering up fireball does not defeat straight up Empowering of Horrid Wilting.

Also note that Horrid Wilting has a higher save over fireball, so the damage ratio gets even more skewed.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 10, 2002)

*Is anybody actually reading my examples?*

I don't think you are.  Marshall, HEL - go back and look.

I have proven Enhance's effectiveness with Fireball vs. Fireball.
I have proven Enhance's effectiveness with Delayed Blast Fireball vs. DBF.
I have proven Enhance's effectiveness with Horrid Wilting vs. Horrid Wilting.

Here's one example.  If you scroll up you'll see where I got this from.  Please note that each caster in this example is using exactly the same number of feats.  They are the same level. Everything is equal about them except the way that they have spent their feats.

*Horrid Wilting vs. Horrid Wilting*


> Empower, Imp MM, ISC(x19) - 21 feats, 28th level spell
> * Horrid Wilting: 25d8 + 250d8 (20x Empower) = *1237 hp*
> Empower, Maximize, Enhance, Imp MM (x3), ISC(x15) - 21 feats, 24th level spell
> * Horrid Wilting: 280 (35d8 max) + 245d8 = *1382.5 hp*
> ...




Notice that the spell uses Horrid Wilting as the example.  By your argument, Marshall, this would be less effective than Empower because each Empower adds 12.5d8 of damage, while each Enhance adds only 10d8.

But you are not looking far enough.  After using Enhance once, you can then put Empower onto the spell - and each Empower now adds 17.5d8.  If you use Enhance twice each Empower will add 22.5d8.  You will get *more damage* from the *same amount of feats*.

I have run the numbers.  It works with or without Improved Metamagic, and I will be happy to post as many different examples as it takes to convince you.  I can even make a nice chart if that will help.

J


----------



## drowdude (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have run the numbers.  It works with or without Improved Metamagic, and I will be happy to post as many different examples as it takes to convince you.  I can even make a nice chart if that will help.
> 
> J *





You are possessed of far more patience than I , drnuncheon


----------



## Marshall (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *But you are not looking far enough.  After using Enhance once, you can then put Empower onto the spell - and each Empower now adds 17.5d8.  If you use Enhance twice each Empower will add 22.5d8.  You will get more damage from the same amount of feats.*




You are spending *5 feats* to add each Enhance, Empower is spending 2. If IMM works enough to get them both to 1[Footnote 1], than Enhance is simply less versatile than the ISC slot that Empower uses. 



> *I have run the numbers.  It works with or without Improved Metamagic, and I will be happy to post as many different examples as it takes to convince you.  I can even make a nice chart if that will help.
> *




Without IMM the 2:1 advantage of Empower to Enhance, not to mention the 4:5 advantage in feat expenditure, Enhance falls. 

At a 40 dice cap. 
Empower will add 20dx for 2 slots. 
Enhance will add 25dx for 4 slots+1 feat(10dxMax is the same as 20dx + 5dx). 

40>25 Once Enhance or the Base spell reaches that 40 die cap, Its done.

Footnote 1: Its unclear wether 3 IMM would cause stacking the second Enhance to be 2 slots or 5. The Special section of Enhance indicates that you add 4 levels every stack and then add IMM reduction. Meaning 2xEnhance would be 4+4-3=5 rather than (4-3)+(4-3)=2.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are spending 5 feats to add each Enhance, Empower is spending 2. If IMM works enough to get them both to 1[Footnote 1], than Enhance is simply less versatile than the ISC slot that Empower uses.  *





Nice job Marshal, we are on the same wavelength.  

The fact is, everytime he burns an Epic Feat slot on IMM, we can pick ISC and cast at a higher level than they can and ultimately increasing our damage potential.  drnuncheon's example did not take that into consideration.

For example, by the time he's spent 4 feat slots on IMM and Enhance, we've spent 4 slots on ISC, therefore while he is Enhancing and Epowering to 15th level, we are straight Empowering to 19th.

Empower wins.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Aug 10, 2002)

*You're missing something...*

Spell level.  Yes, it's been thrown around, but I don't think you guys really understand the importance of it.  Yes, you can have a 21st level _Horrid Wilting_, but it will still be countered by an unenhanced 9th level dispell.  Thus, you'd be taken down to 17th level spells before you can actually do something (barring high int bonuses and whatnot), whereas the MM intensive guy (without taking any Improved Spell Capacity) has 8 chances (for a wizard, more for a Sorceror) to cast the enhanced, empowered (x3), and intensified _Fireball_.
Also, you don't need to have higher level slots.  What good is your uber-empowered 21st level spell, if it's countered by a single ninth level spell?  Especially if you only have one of them.  It's the classic argument of breadth vs depth: you can take high-level slots, but have fewer slots/level; or you can take lower level slots, and have more of them.  All you really need is a 9th level spell to take out any MMed spell.
[edit] You also only need to take Enhance Spell once every ten levels for any spell with a cap over 20 (at the beginning, twice for 10+, thrice for less).  You can either focus on IMM or ISC for all the extra slots between those (7 feats every 10 levels after 21, remember).  Yes, eventually, you'll need to build up higher level slots, but those slots (IMO) should be depth based, not bredth based (more chances to cast a powerful spell = more likely to cast it). [/edit]
Adios.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: You're missing something...*



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> *Spell level.  Yes, it's been thrown around, but I don't think you guys really understand the importance of it.  Yes, you can have a 21st level Horrid Wilting, but it will still be countered by an unenhanced 9th level dispell.  Thus, you'd be taken down to 17th level spells before you can actually do something (barring high int bonuses and whatnot), whereas the MM intensive guy (without taking any Improved Spell Capacity) has 8 chances (for a wizard, more for a Sorceror) to cast the enhanced, empowered (x3), and intensified Fireball. *




HUH!?!?  

Oh yeah back to DrN's math. Your WIZ also has to be 75th,65th,55th etc, etc, Whereas the Empower guy is doing it all at 25th.


----------



## HEL Pit Fiend (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: You're missing something...*



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh yeah back to DrN's math. Your WIZ also has to be 75th,65th,55th etc, etc, Whereas the Empower guy is doing it all at 25th. *





Ewww-Weee got him there


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> At a 40 dice cap.
> *




Where are you getting a spell with a 40 die cap?
Without Enhance, of course.





			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> Footnote 1: Its unclear wether 3 IMM would cause stacking the second Enhance to be 2 slots or 5. The Special section of Enhance indicates that you add 4 levels every stack and then add IMM reduction. Meaning 2xEnhance would be 4+4-3=5 rather than (4-3)+(4-3)=2.
> *




That's _really_ reaching.  IMM says "the spell slot modifier of *all[/i] your metamagic feats is reduced by one".  Enhance says "uses a spell slot 4 levels higher".  Thus, IMMx3 makes Enhance #1 go down to 1, Enhance #2 go down to 1, Enhance #3 go down to 1...they *are* all metamagic feats after all.

An example that does not use Improved Metamagic is hardly evidence for a question about Improved Metamagic.

J*


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: You're missing something...*



			
				Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> Oh yeah back to DrN's math. Your WIZ also has to be 75th,65th,55th etc, etc, Whereas the Empower guy is doing it all at 25th. *




Where do you think the Empower guy is getting all the feats for Improved Spell Capacity, Marshall?  From the magic feat fairy?  He's got to be going up in level, too.

J


----------



## Marshall (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where are you getting a spell with a 40 die cap?
> Without Enhance, of course.*




Uh, Please read where I said Enhance has value to make a 40die cap. Not to mention a 40die Fireball spell would be Either 8 or ninth level. And dont bring up _Meteor Swarm_ if you go by there own guidelines its maybe an 8th high end 7th spell.




> *That's really reaching.  IMM says "the spell slot modifier of all[/i] your metamagic feats is reduced by one".  Enhance says "uses a spell slot 4 levels higher".  Thus, IMMx3 makes Enhance #1 go down to 1, Enhance #2 go down to 1, Enhance #3 go down to 1...they *are* all metamagic feats after all.*



*

Enhance has a its own stacking mechanic. The Special section just says add 4 more levels, so a double Enhance is +8 levels, NOT 4+4 levels, applying IMM-3 would bring that to 5.




An example that does not use Improved Metamagic is hardly evidence for a question about Improved Metamagic. 

Click to expand...



The question wasnt about IMM it was about Enhance, if you include IMM the cost of Enhance goes up by another 3 feats.




Where do you think the Empower guy is getting all the feats for Improved Spell Capacity, Marshall? From the magic feat fairy? He's got to be going up in level, too.

Click to expand...




Without the extra feat expenditure necessary to buy all those Enhances, hes getting the higher level spell slots much sooner than your guy is getting maxed dice on Enhance. 

In your example earlier a Straight WIZ will have 21 Epic feats at about 50th level, thats 25 levels of mega-empower before your Enhance guy compares.*


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Is anybody actually reading my examples?*



			
				HEL Pit Fiend said:
			
		

> *
> For example, by the time he's spent 4 feat slots on IMM and Enhance, we've spent 4 slots on ISC, therefore while he is Enhancing and Epowering to 15th level, we are straight Empowering to 19th.*




You're right.  Enhance isn't a good option at low levels. It's for people who can actually make use of it.  You shouldn't run out and buy it at 21st level.

However, let's compare our methods.  We'll assume for the sake of fairness that for some reason neither of us has purchased any metamagic feats before hitting 21st level. (Maybe we just really liked Spell Mastery?)

21st level, we both buy Empower. So, we're equal.
23rd level, we both buy Improved Metamagic. Still equal.

For the next *15* feats we buy Improved Spell Capacity. Still equal.  And we're dealing metric ***-loads of damage - 918 hp on average.  But that's not enough!

I take Maximize, and you snicker, because suddenly you're doing a lot more damage than me. Not a lot, but still: you wonder what I'm smoking.

Next level, I show you what I'm smoking - I take Enhance spell while you take ISC again.

You're stacking 18 empowers onto your Horrid Wilting, so you're doing 250d8 damage: 1125 points on average.

I'm maximizing, enhancing, and stacking a mere 11 empowers onto mine. 280 + 192d8: 1146 damage.

From here on out I will *always* do more damage than you. Every time you add Improved Spellcasting Capacity, so do I.  And every time you add 12.5d8 to your damage, I'm adding 17.5d8.  Every level I'm going to do 22.5 points of damage more than you on average.  Cumulative.

But that's not enough.

For my next feat, I add Improved Metamagic again.  You add Improved Spellcasting Capacity.  You're averaging 1181 damage now.  But that second Improved Metamagic feat let me stack on 2 more empowers.  Now I'm doing 1303 damage.  And I will continue to stay ahead of you for the reasons above.

But that's not enough either.

For my next feat, I add Enhance again. You add ISC. You do 1237. I do 1474.

You add ISC. I add IMM. 1294 v 1676.

From here on out it gets even sicker.  Every time I hit 10 levels over my damage cap, I add another Enhance - for the same cost you are adding Empowers.  Remember, each Empower is a feat you have to spend on Improved Spellcasting.  And each Enhance only increases the lead I have.

So yeah, don't take it early.  But when it's time to take it, it blows Empower away.

J


----------



## Marshall (Aug 11, 2002)

Look dude, Use your head!

Enhance *at best* will add 5d8+80 to every HW. That will never change. Thats 102.5 damage or roughly 22.5 dice. Hey! thats what Empower would give you on a 45 dice cap. What do you know at 45 dice cap Empower exactly equals Enhance. Anything over that and your wasting feats. Period. If we go back to the 40 dice cap Empower gives up 2.5dice or 11 points of damage per application. Hmmm, youre right 11 points is well worth that feat, but wait, since I didn't spend that extra feat on Enhance, I get to add another Empower or 22.5 dice. Oh My! that beats Enhancing over and over again. 

Without IMM

HW(25d8) + 2xEnhance(+20d8)[8] + Max(360)[3] + 8xEmpower(+180d8) = 1170 at 35th Level Spell

HW(25d8) + 4xEnhance(+20d8)[16] + Max(520)[3] + 3xEmpower(+97.5d8) = 958 at 33rd Level Spell

Huh! Same feats and the fewer Enhance does more damage! Oh My Gosh!! That wont work with IMM, will it??!!??

HW(25d8) + 2x Enhance(+20d8)[2] + Max(360)[1] + 24xEmpower(+540d8) = 2790 at 35th Level Spell

HW(25d8) + 4xEnhance(+20d8)[2] + Max(520)[1] + 22xEmpower(+715d8) = 3737.5 at 33rd Level Spell

Whoa!  I just caught one mistake I'm making(not multiplying that 5dice x #of Empowers) . Makes Enhance somewhat worth while _If_ you combine it with several IMM and IMM actually adds that way. 

So its not completely worthless _if your 65th level_


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 11, 2002)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *Look dude, Use your head!
> 
> Enhance at best will add 5d8+80 to every HW. That will never change. Thats 102.5 damage or roughly 22.5 dice. Hey! thats what Empower would give you on a 45 dice cap. What do you know at 45 dice cap Empower exactly equals Enhance. Anything over that and your wasting feats. Period.
> *




Every time I add another Enhance, _it makes every Empower more effective_.  The 'break point' comes in having enough Improved Spell Capacity to make it worthwhile to swap out a few repetitions of Empower for another Enhance.



> *
> Without IMM
> 
> HW(25d8) + 2xEnhance(+20d8)[8] + Max(360)[3] + 8xEmpower(+180d8) = 1170 at 35th Level Spell
> ...




Sure. You haven't reached the 'break point'.  Your spells are too low a level to benefit from 4 Enhances. But check this out:

HW(25d8) + 2xEnhance(+20d8)[8] + Max(360)[3] + 13xEmpower(+292d8) = 1676 at 45th Level Spell

HW(25d8) + 4xEnhance(+40d8)[16] + Max(520)[3] + 8xEmpower(+260d8) = 1690 at 43rd Level Spell

..and from there on out, 4 enhances is better. (You've both spent 40 feats, which means...hmm, 2 every 3 levels...round about 80th level.  But hey, you need to be 65th level to hit the damage cap for 4xEnhance anyway.)



> *
> Whoa!  I just caught one mistake I'm making(not multiplying that 5dice x #of Empowers) . Makes Enhance somewhat worth while If you combine it with several IMM and IMM actually adds that way.
> *




Even without IMM, it eventually becomes worth it.  IMM just makes it happen faster.  With 3 levels of Improved Metamagic, 4xEnhance passes up 2xEnhance around about 50th level, except for the fact that you haven't hit the damage cap.



> *
> So its not completely worthless if your 65th level
> *




That's why it's an *Epic* feat. Wussy low-level casters need not apply.  You shouldn't even think about taking Enhance until you can hit the new damage cap right off.

J


----------



## Anubis (Aug 11, 2002)

*THE ANSWER*

Who needs the Sage when you've got me around?

I'm not coming up with anything TOO brilliant here, though . . .

Guys, with Enhance Spell vs. Intensify Spell vs. Empower Spell, we've been looking at it ALL WRONG!  Duh!!  This is so silly!!!

We've all said crap about how this combo does this and that combo does that, but we haven't actually APPLIED these theories to realistic circumstances in the game as of yet!

With that, I am hereby acknowledging that I was WRONG, and that Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell are both VERY useful!

Here's why:

First off, as far as raw power goes, *in the end*, Empower Spell DOES still beat Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell EVERY TIME.  We're not comparing the feats correctly though.

Yeah, if you use Empower Spell to cast Fireball at a 16th level slot, it's gonna do more than Enhance Spell combined with Intensify Spell . . . What we failed to realize, however, is that the Ehanced and Intensified Fireball, although weaker in power, is only a 5th level spell!  In other words, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WEAKER!

The best bet is to take ALL THREE FEATS, because then you can deal, at Level 32, 240 damage with that 5th level spell, and ALSO deal 262.5 damage with a 16th level spell!  This, however, does question the actual usefulness of EMPOWER SPELL, because the increase in power is marginal at best for a spell slot 11 levels above the other!

Better yet, you can get a 10th level Metero Swarm to do an easy 480 damage using Intensify Spell!

Can you believe we've all been so stupid as to question Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell when we've been comparing 5th level spells to 16th level spells?!  Sheesh . . .

Mark this day, folks . . . ANUNIS WAS WRONG!

It just took some actual math using a real character to igure it out!

Keep up with me here . . .

Let's take four Level 35 Wizards.  One takes Improved Spell Capacity up to 18th level spells and Improved Metamagic once.  The second takes Improved Spell Capacity up to 14th level spells, Enhance Spell, Intensify Spell, and Improved Metamagic three times.  The third is the same as the second, except without Intensify Spell and with Improved Spell Capacity up to 15th level.  The fourth takes Enhance Spell three times, Inproved Metamagic three times, and Improved Spell Capacity up to 12th level spells.

Here's the math, with each Wizard casting the same level spells along with their most powerful spell, using average damage where applicable:

5th level spell:

Wizard 1: 2x Empowered Fireball; 35 + (17.5 * 2) = 70
Wizard 2: Enhanced Intensified Fireball; 120 * 2 = 240
Wizard 3: Enhanced Empowered Fireball; 70 + (35 * 1) = 105
Wizard 4: 2x Enhanced Fireball; 105

10th level spell:

Wizard 1: 7x Empowered Fireball; 35 + (17.5 * 7) = 157.5
Wizard 2: Intensified Meteor Swarm; 240 * 2 = 480
Wizard 3: Enhanced Empowered Horrid Wilting; 122.5 + (61.25 * 1) = 183.75
Wizard 4: 2x Enhanced Intensified Delayed Blast Fireball; 420

Most Powerful:

Wizard 1: 10x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 87.5 + (43.75 * 10) = 525; 18th level spell
Wizard 2: Enhanced 5x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 122.5 + (61.25 * 5) = 428.75; 14th level spell
Wizard 3: Enhanced 6x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 122.5 + (61.25 * 6) = 490; 15th level
Wizard 4: 3x Enhanced Intensified Fireball; 420; 7th level

As you can see, although Empower Spell wins, it does so only by a very slight margin, and it taks a MUCH higher level spell to do so!

So Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell ARE good choices!

Hope this ends this discussion and helps everybody!  Later!


----------



## Marshall (Aug 12, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> Even without IMM, it eventually becomes worth it.  IMM just makes it happen faster.  With 3 levels of Improved Metamagic, 4xEnhance passes up 2xEnhance around about 50th level, except for the fact that you haven't hit the damage cap.*




Without IMM the "Break Point" is waaayyyy out there, like in the triple digit levels, and you still have to keep a ratio of Empower : Enhance of something like 3:1 to fully take advantage of the new caps. 



> *
> That's why it's an Epic feat. Wussy low-level casters need not apply.  You shouldn't even think about taking Enhance until you can hit the new damage cap right off.
> 
> J *




Yeah, a *Truly EPIC* feat. I guess its just my opinion that most people will bore of their characters around 40-50th level and never get to the point where Enhance is truly worth it.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Aug 12, 2002)

Well, it depends on your interpretation of what it says for special.  From the ELH:



> You may gain this feat multiple times.  Each time you select this feat, the damage cap increases by 10 dice or 5 dice, as appropriate to the spell, and the enhanced spell takes up a spell slot an additional four levels higher (thus a twice-enhanced _fireball_ would be an 11th level spell).




This could be taken either way.  The cost to use it goes up each time you take it ("the enhanced spell takes up an additional four levels higher"), or it stacks normally ("thus a twice enhanced _fireball_").  Which one is it?  Until we get errata or answers, we'll never know (it can be argued both ways equally).


----------



## Marshall (Aug 12, 2002)

Suffice it to say, that this whole thread points out just how badly worded _Enhance_ spell is in the ELH.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: THE ANSWER*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Who needs the Sage when you've got me around?
> 
> I'm not coming up with anything TOO brilliant here, though . . .
> 
> ...




 Speak for yourself. I've been doing this from the start...



> *
> As you can see, although Empower Spell wins, it does so only by a very slight margin, and it taks a MUCH higher level spell to do so!
> *




First of all, your exmaples mix all sorts of different spells.  Not a wise idea as it can very easily confuse the issue.  
Second, your Wizard #4 is using Intensify Spell even though he doesn't have it.  Did you mean 'Maximize' perhaps, as that is a prerequisite for Enhance?

Wizard 4 (with 3xIMM, 3xISC, Enh & Max) should be doing:
120 hp with his Maximized Enhanced fireball (5th level spell)
440 hp of damage with his Maximized 3xEnhanced Horrid Wilting (12th level spell).

For your 10th level spell example for Wizard 4, I am very confused.  A 2xEnhanced Intensified Delayed Blast Fireball is a 22nd level spell, or in this case (with 3 IMM feats) it is 13th. (7 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 13)

A 3xEnhanced, Intensified, _normal_ fireball would be possible, doing 480 hp of damage for a 10th level spell.  Is that what you meant?

I suggest you go back and check your examples. While your conclusions are sound - Enhance is most definitely worthwhile if used properly - the method you used to reach it is not.

J


----------



## Anubis (Aug 13, 2002)

*Re: Re: THE ANSWER*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First of all, your exmaples mix all sorts of different spells. *




That was the idea, actually.  Not every single wizard's best spell selection is the same, and so it's only right to compare spells of equal LEVEL, not merely the same spell over and over.  To demonstrate what each wizard is capable of at each level.  So I took each particular wizard's "best" spell of those levels.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not a wise idea as it can very easily confuse the issue.
> Second, your Wizard #4 is using Intensify Spell even though he doesn't have it.  Did you mean 'Maximize' perhaps, as that is a prerequisite for Enhance? *




Actually, that was a typo on my part.  He DOES have Intensify Spell, I just forgot to mention it when listing the feats.  My writings are sometimes hard to read, and I drafted the paper in scribbles mainly.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wizard 4 (with 3xIMM, 3xISC, Enh & Max) should be doing:
> 120 hp with his Maximized Enhanced fireball (5th level spell)
> 440 hp of damage with his Maximized 3xEnhanced Horrid Wilting (12th level spell). *




Whoops, I forgot that Horrid Wilting deals in d8 instead of d6 damage.  Hehehe . . . Well that just bumps up the damage of all four wizards, so no harm no foul . . .



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For your 10th level spell example for Wizard 4, I am very confused.  A 2xEnhanced Intensified Delayed Blast Fireball is a 22nd level spell, or in this case (with 3 IMM feats) it is 13th. (7 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 13) *




NOW you got me . . .  . . . What am I smoking here?  Intensify Spell is SEVEN levels higher . . . Wow, in that case, Intensify Spell is NEVER useful (don't quote me yet, I'm gonna redo the math here real soon), although it doesn't change the fact that Enhance Spell isn't as useless and stupid as I really thought, which was the real subject of the debate, Enhance vs. Empower.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A 3xEnhanced, Intensified, normal fireball would be possible, doing 480 hp of damage for a 10th level spell.  Is that what you meant?
> 
> ...




I'll do that right away, and come back to report my findings.

Thank you for pointing out the errors.  I'll be back soon . . .


----------



## Anubis (Aug 13, 2002)

Okay, after going back and doing the math once again with the correct figures, here are the results I have obtained.

First, the basics: ISC=Improved Spell Capacity, ES=Enhance Spell, IS=Intensify Spell, IM=Improved Metamagic.

Here are the wizards, each Level 35 with 10 feats in epic levels . . . Wizard 1: ISCx9, IM . . . Wizard 2: ISCx2, ES, IS, IMx6 . . . Wizard 3: ISCx6, ES, IMx3 . . . Wizard 4: ISC, ESx2, IS, IMx6 . . .

Here's the math, with each Wizard casting the same level spells along with their most powerful spell, including average damage where applicable:

_Note: I am giving the range of damage instead of actually showing the math and dice, because only people who already know the game math basics (such as average d6 damage is 3.5 and average d8 damage is 4.5, or that you round all fractions down) about how the damage dice work and such need bother reading this.  To others, this will mean almost nothing._

5th level spell:

Wizard 1: 2x Empowered Fireball; 20-120 damage, average 70
Wizard 2: Enhanced Intensified Fireball; 240 damage
Wizard 3: Enhanced Empowered Fireball; 30-180 damage, average 105
Wizard 4: 2x Enhanced Fireball; 30-180 damage, average 105

_Wizard 2 wins easily with Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell, leaving the others in the dust._

10th level spell:

Wizard 1: 7x Empowered Fireball; 45-270 damage, average 157.5
Wizard 2: Intensified Meteor Swarm; 576 damage
Wizard 3: Enhanced Empowered Horrid Wilting; 52-420 damage, average 236
Wizard 4: 2x Enhanced Intensified Delayed Blast Fireball; 420 damage

_Wizard 2 wins once again, and by an even bigger margin than before._

Highest Level:

Wizard 1: 10x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 18th level spell; 145-1200 damage, average 672
Wizard 2: Enhanced 2x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 11th level spell; 69-560 damage, average 314
Wizard 3: Enhanced 6x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 15th level spell; 137-1120, average 628
Wizard 4: Enhanced Intensified Horrid Wilting; 10th level spell; 560 damage

_Only now does Wizard 1, using only Empower Spell, win.  Notice, however, that his most powerful spell is an 18TH LEVEL SPELL, while all the others are casting more spells at lower levels . . . You make the call as to which is truly more powerful . . ._

As you can see, Empower Spell gives the most power POTENTIAL, but Enhance Spell and Intensify Spell gives you MORE spells that are nearly as powerful at MUCH lower levels!  If you only plan to cast one big one, Wizard 1 is the best.  If you're facing an army, better bring one of the others.

*BONUS: Let's bump all four up to LEVEL 50, with all four taking nothing but ISC from then on, except for Wizard 4 who takes ESx2 on the way . . .*

Most Powerful:

Wizard 1: 20x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 28th level spell; 265-2200 damage, average 1232
Wizard 2: Enhanced 12x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 21th level spell; 239-1960 damage, average 1099
Wizard 3: Enhanced 16x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 25th level spell; 307-2520, average 1413
Wizard 4: 4x Enhanced Maximized 10x Empowered Fireball; 18th level spell; 550-1800 damage, average 1175

_Wizard 3, combing the tactics of his three friends but without Intensify Spell, now blows ahead of the competition._

What this shows is that Empower Spell, Enhance Spell, and Intensify Spell are ALL very useful, you just have to know how to use them right.  Intensify Spell is good for guaranteed damage for when you need it, and combined with Improved Metamagic, can deliver incredible damage at very low spell levels.  Enhance Spell is great for medium spell levels, especially when combined with Intensify Spell.  At the highest spell levels, Intensify Spell pales in comparison to others, as Enhance Spell and Empower Spell combing to form a very potent and deadly combination.

In fact, as these four wizards gain levels, Wizard 4 will get better and better until he bypasses the others and becomes the most powerful by utilizing ALL THREE FEATS.

Alone, all three feats ARE very useful, but you must make sure to compare spell levels when comparing power.  Combined, the three are deadly.

My argument before was that Empower Spell always wins in the end.  The numbers do not lie, however, and that has been proven absolutely false.  Yes, Empower Spell delivers the MOST damage in the end, but remember the SPELL LEVEL behind that power, and you'll quickly notice that Empower Spell isn't quite as good as you all once thought it was.

The final result of the test is that all three feats are quite useful, contrary to popular belief, including my own.

Thank you.  Bye!


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 13, 2002)

Just a few more notes, because some of these are not the best choices of feat usage!  

One thing I would mention for Wizard #2 - he shouldn't be taking IMM 6 times.  3 times is sufficient to bring his Enhances down to 1 level per, and he's only using 1 metamagic feat with a greater cost than 4 levels.  At that point, IMM and ISC are equal, and he might as well buy ISC for the increased flexibility/extra spell slots.  The math will work out the same for single-spell damage, though.

Same goes for Wizard #4.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 5th level spell:
> 
> Wizard 1: 2x Empowered Fireball; 20-120 damage, average 70
> ...




Wizard 4 can do slightly better with Enhanced Maximized Fireball, doing 120 hp instead of 105 average.



> *
> 10th level spell:
> 
> Wizard 1: 7x Empowered Fireball; 45-270 damage, average 157.5
> ...




Having the 6 IMMs (rather than 3 IMMs and 3 ISCs) does help here - but since we're dealing with 10th level spells, you're only going to have 1 slot anyway (unless you have a _really_ high stat.)

BTW, Wizard 1 should be casting a 2xEmpowered Horrid Wilting for an average of 225 damage (and a tougher save).  He could do the same damage with a 3xEmpowered Delayed Blast Fireball, too.



> *
> Highest Level:
> 
> Wizard 1: 10x Empowered Horrid Wilting; 18th level spell; 145-1200 damage, average 672
> ...




Does it really matter which level it is, when each of you can only cast one of them a day anyway?   Unless, as previously noted, you have Int 30+ and get 10th level bonus spells.

Also, Wizards 2 and 3 should be using Maximize (required for Enhance) instead of one of the Empowers, to get 359 and 674 hp average damage respectively. (Looks like Wizard 1 doesn't win after all!)  This is where Wizard 2 would have been much wiser taking only 3 levels of IMM as well...

If Wizard 4 had taken IMMx3 and ISCx4 (rather than IMMx6 and ISCx1) he could cast a 2xEnhanced Intensified Delayed Blast Fireball for 560 damage, also.  That's the same damage this level (albeit with 1 lower save DC) but next level it will do more damage than the Horrid Wilting.

Basically, to figure the optimum number of IMMs: look at the mm feats you are going to combine, and take enough IMMs to bring the *second* most expensive one down to 1/level.  When you combine it with the most expensive one, you're getting a 2-levels-for-one deal on that feat. After that you're only saving 1 level per feat, which you can beat with Improved Spellcasting Capacity.

Needless to say, if you're stacking a feat multiple times (like Enhance) it could be both your first and second most expensive feat...

J


----------



## Anubis (Aug 13, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> Does it really matter which level it is, when each of you can only cast one of them a day anyway?   Unless, as previously noted, you have Int 30+ and get 10th level bonus spells.
> *




They're all assumed to have 34 Intelligence at Level 35, 15 normal, +5 for levels 1-20, +5 inherent, +3 epic gains, +6 enhancement.

That gives them a bonus spell each for spell levels 10-12.  In reality, these wizards all probably have slightly higher Intelligence.


----------

