# Best Spell to Maximize



## FullTinCan (Jun 11, 2002)

What is the best spell to maximize?


----------



## AuraSeer (Jun 11, 2002)

Why would you maximize _Harm_? Maximizing a spell puts all variable numeric effects at their highest value. The only variable in _Harm_ is the 1d4 for number of hit points left.

Regular _Harm_: 6th level, target has 1d4 hp remaining
Maximized _Harm_: 9th level, target has 4 hp remaining.

Wow, what a productive use of a 9th level slot.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 11, 2002)

There aren't any variables in Harm, at least, not ones you would want to maximize, so why do it? Otherwise, I'd go with Fireball/Lightning bolt. They're pretty well rounded spells.


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

> I'd go with Fireball/Lightning bolt. They're pretty well rounded spells.




That is good but those darn reflex rolls get in the way. Of course take a 10th maximize fireball (60hp) is still 30 hp if save and then take maximized MM (20hp) the fireball is still better.

Of course empowered fireball is the best. IMHO

Also harm type is all or nothing, whether you make a save.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 11, 2002)

Belares said:
			
		

> * Of course empowered fireball is the best. IMHO *




Nah. A maximized empowered energy substitution (sonic) fireball is the best. Very few creatures are resistant or immune to sonic damage.


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

> A maximized empowered energy substitution (sonic) fireball is the best. Very few creatures are resistant or immune to sonic damage.




i don't disagree but at what spell slot would that be and would you rather use a higher spell in that slot?


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

Speaking of Maximized spells..what is the highest maximized empowered buff spell? We talked about it in our group and we came up with +7 is there more you can get?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 11, 2002)

Belares said:
			
		

> *i don't disagree but at what spell slot would that be *




8th level.



			
				Belares said:
			
		

> *and would you rather use a higher spell in that slot? *




Depends on the situation.


----------



## jontherev (Jun 11, 2002)

Belares said:
			
		

> *Speaking of Maximized spells..what is the highest maximized empowered buff spell? We talked about it in our group and we came up with +7 is there more you can get? *




The Incantatrix gets much higher than that, but I'm not sure how high.  Perhaps someone else can remember the exact level of brokeness of this PrC?  I'm thinking around +20 or so.  SO, if your DM is crazy enough to allow it, an Incantatrix casting an empowered, maximized buff spell is downright nasty.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 11, 2002)

An empowered lightning bolt/fireball does more damage on average than a maximized one, and besides that, a 6th level spell would probably work better.

An empowered magic missile might or might not do more damage than a maximized one, but it's a good fourth level no save/no attack roll moderate damage spell.

Maximize just isn't all that good of a feat though in these situations.  One fun situation is using a metamagic rod of maximize on a summoning spell that you use to summon 1d3 creatures.  In general though, the effects are not worth +3 to spell level.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2002)

Level 9 spell would be maximized and 5x empowered from an Incantatrix, thus resulting in 5x3.5 or +17.

I think there is no good spell to maximize as empower is just superior in most cases and therefore it's not worth to spend a feat on Maximize Spell.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 11, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *One fun situation is using a metamagic rod of maximize *




And the best part about metamagic rods? They're a free action to use them while casting and they don't actually raise the spell level in regards to spell slots. I love those things.


----------



## FullTinCan (Jun 11, 2002)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *Why would you maximize Harm? *




It is the "silly" option of the poll.  Of course you wouldn't want to maximize harm, but you could.


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

> An empowered lightning bolt/fireball does more damage on average than a maximized one, and besides that, a 6th level spell would probably work better.




ok lets see empowered fireball at 10th level can on the average do 45 damage (avg. 3 hps per dice and then 1.5x). This is taking in account that on a 6 sided dice that 3 is the average.

A maximized fireball can do 60hp period. 

Both if saved on are 23 and 30 respectivly. 

Of course that is IF you take the average of a empowered vs. maximized.

Then if you roll real well and max out ...could happen..hehe...then 90 is pretty awesome. Then a maximized empowered fireball is 90 hp...hmm I like the sound of that!


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 11, 2002)

I voted for _poison_.  Not for any particular reason other than I just made a necromancer for a friend's new campaign and look forward to using this spell.  He is also from a barbaric and frozen land (Frost Barbarian from Greyhawk) so I thought it would be cool for him to focus on cold type evocation magic in addition to necromancy.  So if my _cone of cold_ does not get you, I will cast _spectral hand_ and _poison_.


----------



## Taluron (Jun 11, 2002)

A high level cleric in one of our compaigns is causing significant mayhem which maximized energy drains.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2002)

Actually the average on a d6 is 3.5 and an empowered 10d6 fireball would do 35 x1.5 = 52.5 damage on average, with the potential to deal as much as 90 damage.

And most important, it is one spell level lower (5 instead of 6)!

A 7th level 2x empowered fireball would deal an average of 70 damage, which is not possible with the Maximize Spell feat. Therefore I think, that Empower Spell is superior to Maximize Spell. You either get a _slightly_ lower effect for a one lower spell level, which also means, that you can use it 2 levels earlier, and you get a much higher potential with stacking!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

I was unsure what the average of the d6.

I did not know that you could do a 2x empowered fireball, so that is using the empowered feat twice, correct?

I still like the maximized empowered fireball as it does a straight 90 hps, but the extra slot is a lot.


----------



## Victim (Jun 11, 2002)

Maximized Fire Seeds.  First of all, fire seeds uses a d8 for damage, so there's potentially lots of variance.  Maximize on a d6 based spell gives +2.5 to average damage while on a d8 based spell it gives +3.5.  If you're interested in killing a single target ASAP, then Max Fire Seeds yields 160 points at level 20, compared to 120 from Max Chain Lightning.  While Fire Seeds can miss, it is a touch attack so hitting is pretty easy and it can also critical.  

However, Empower is much better than Maximize.  First of all, it is legal to apply empower multiple times.  Therefore, it's much better with lower level spells since they can be empowered many times, while Maximize only works once.  

BTW, metamagic feats don't see each other, each is applied to the spell independently.  So a Maximized, Empowered Fireball does 60 damage from the Maximize and another 5d6 from the Empower.


----------



## Morose (Jun 11, 2002)

It depends on your target (ie race/class/subtype), but overall I'd have to say Poison.  That much con drain is just obscene.  Not only that, but if the initial damage succeeds then you're nicely set up to insure the final damage takes effect a minute later and there aren't a lot of things that can shrug off 20 points of con damage.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 11, 2002)

Yup.  You can do double empowered bull's strengths too.  Or triple empowered..  

But unfortunately while you can do an empowered maximized fireball, it doesn't work the way logic says it would.    It has been ruled by the Sage that metamagic feats always affect the base spell, even multiple applications of feats or even the same feat.

So a maximized empowered fireball has to be rolled.  You then take half the roll (the empower) and add it to 60 (the maximize) for the total.  Which of course won't add up to 90.  Why he felt a 8th level spell doing 90 points of damage was unbalancing, I don't know.  Especially when the saving throw for it is based off a 3rd level spells and even a minor globe of invulnerability can stop it.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2002)

At 20th level a 3x Empowered Flame Arrow can deal a lot of damage against a single target, too! 20d6 x 2.5 = 175 on average (reflex half)!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Morose:_
> It depends on your target (ie race/class/subtype), but overall I'd have to say Poison. That much con drain is just obscene. Not only that, but if the initial damage succeeds then you're nicely set up to insure the final damage takes effect a minute later and there aren't a lot of things that can shrug off 20 points of con damage.



I am not sure what you mean here.  If the victim fails the initial saving throw, he still gets another for the secondary effect one minute later.  If the victim makes the initial saving throw, he still must make another a minute later, or suffer the secondary effect.  Nothing ensures poison damage here.  Save or suffer the effects.


----------



## Belares (Jun 11, 2002)

So if what you say is true..then a empowered, maximized bull's strength would be: max=5, then 2-5 more added to it? Than what I thought that it would be: max=5 then empowered 1.5x5 = 7.5(which i think you always round down) so 7.

That would be better except in the fireball case.

As far as empowered 2x-3x bull's strength you roll first say a 3 (total of 4 then 1.5x4, then roll again say a 2 (total 3)which now is 1.5x3 for a combined total of 10?

Please explain if calculations are inaccurate


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 11, 2002)

Dr. Zoom said:
			
		

> *
> I am not sure what you mean here.  If the victim fails the initial saving throw, he still gets another for the secondary effect one minute later.  If the victim makes the initial saving throw, he still must make another a minute later, or suffer the secondary effect.  Nothing ensures poison damage here.  Save or suffer the effects. *




Because if you fail the first save, you take Con damage which affects your Fortitude saves making the second save even harder to make.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 11, 2002)

Belares said:
			
		

> *So if what you say is true..then a empowered, maximized bull's strength would be: max=5, then 2-5 more added to it? Than what I thought that it would be: max=5 then empowered 1.5x5 = 7.5(which i think you always round down) so 7.
> 
> That would be better except in the fireball case.
> 
> ...




Nope.  An empowered maximized bull's strength would be: 5 (maximized) + 1 to 2 (empower).  Because if you roll 1 or 2 +1, then the half you add to the max is only 1.  If you roll 3 or 4 +1, then the half you add is 2.  So an empowered maximized bull's strength yields 6-7 strength.

A double empowered bull's strength would with a roll of 3 or 4 get you 8 strength.  A triple empowered bull's strength would indeed get you 10 points of strength on a 3 or 4.


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 11, 2002)

Belares said:
			
		

> *So if what you say is true..then a empowered, maximized bull's strength would be: max=5, then 2-5 more added to it? Than what I thought that it would be: max=5 then empowered 1.5x5 = 7.5(which i think you always round down) so 7.
> 
> That would be better except in the fireball case.
> 
> ...



You apply each feat to the base spell.

An empowered maximized bull's strength goes like this.  The base spell is 1d4+1.  The maximized part gives you 5.  The empowered part requires you to roll in order to get the additional 1/2 again as much because it does not piggy back off the maximized total.  So you roll the 1d4+1.  If you roll a 3 and get 4, you divide this by 2 for a total of 2.  Add this to the max of 5 for a total empowered, maximized bull's stength of 7.

A triple empowered bull's strength goes like this.  The base is 1d4+1.  You roll this and add 1/2 the result to it 3 times.  For example, if you rolled a 3 and add the 1 for 4, your empowered spell feat adds 2 more (4/2=2), and the other 2 empowered spell feats add 2 each.  So it would look like this:  4 (original roll) + 2 + 2 + 2 = 10.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 11, 2002)

I voted MM.

I do not find 60 HPs of Reflex dependent damage very attractive as a 6th level spell.

Poison gets points for style I must say.  But you can't say it is better than Harm, even a "house ruled" version.


----------



## Dreaddisease (Jun 11, 2002)

Maximized MM is 25 not 20.  (1d4+1)*5)maximized = 25 in my calculations.  I can check my calculator again cuz it may have messed up. 

I would not go for any maximization.  Empower is better in my opinion.  So I vote... Harm cuz that would be stupid to maximize.  Or Poison. Poison wouldn't be bad at all.


----------



## Corwin (Jun 11, 2002)

Dr. Zoom said:
			
		

> *
> You apply each feat to the base spell.
> 
> An empowered maximized bull's strength goes like this.  The base spell is 1d4+1.  The maximized part gives you 5.  The empowered part requires you to roll in order to get the additional 1/2 again as much because it does not piggy back off the maximized total.  So you roll the 1d4+1.  If you roll a 3 and get 4, you divide this by 2 for a total of 2.  Add this to the max of 5 for a total empowered, maximized bull's stength of 7.
> ...




BTW, quick comment:

It was recently "officially" suggested (I think the Sage?) that you combine all the empower increases together before applying them to the base to avoid hidden losses when rounding down.

So if you triple empower _bull's strength_ and roll a '4' (giving you a base of +5), you then multiply that by x2.5 (100%+50%+50%+50%) for a grand total of +12.5 (rounded down once to +12). As opposed to having a +11 (+5 base +2.5 rounded down three separate times to +2 each).


----------



## The Gnome (Jun 12, 2002)

The best choice isn't on the list: Vampiric Touch!  36 from you, 36 to me   Still a waste of a higher level slot though


----------



## Thanee (Jun 12, 2002)

Hmmm... maximized (or 2x empowered) Kiss of the Vampire! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Setanos (Jun 12, 2002)

Maximized Enervate is always nasty.


----------



## Gez (Jun 12, 2002)

I said "Harm" because there was not an option "Maximize suck, Empower is the way to go !".

Plus, once you're a greater deity, all your spells are automatically maximized, so you'll be screwed if you've taken this useless feat ! On the other hand, a greater god's empowered fireball would deal 90 damage -- just the absolute maximum, even for the extra damage from Empower !

  

OK, you don't think you'll play a greater deity so you don't care about this argument.

Yet, Empower is better. It's just a question of statistics -- and actually, the smaller the dice, the better Empower is. If you have a spell that deals d12s of damage, Maximize will be better than the average Empower result. If you have a spell that deals d4s of damage, the average Empower result will be better than Maximize.

"How that ?" Will you say. "A maximized d4 is 4, while the average of 1d4 is 2.5, multiplied by 1.5 this is 3.75 and inferior to 4 ?"

Yes. But with d4, you pay this 0.25 extra by one spell slot one level higher. And that's not at your advantage. With d12, the average empowered result is 9.75, and that extra slot level gives you 2.25 more per die -- something more valuable.

I once made lots of calculations on that and found out that Empower was better for all d6 and smaller spells, roughly equivalent for d8 spells, and worse for d10 or better spells. Since most spells use d6 anyways, Empower is better if you believe me.

Also, the more dice you have, the better Maximize is... But to make me convinced to prefer Maximize to Empower, you should have a whole different scale to spells, with things like a 1st-level spell doing 5 times the level damage in d10... That would need, to be balanced, to completely change the scale of the hit point system in D&D (people would have thousands of them !).

As it actually is, the level at which a maximized spell is statistically always better than an empowered one because of the sheer amount of rolled dice, is the level where you play a greater god.

Note that if Empower was a +3 levels feats and Maximize a +4 levels one, Maximize would probably be better (but then you'll need to have twin spell and energy admixture at level +6).

On the other hand, if Empower was +1 level and Maximize +2 level, Maximize would be the absolute worst most sucky feat ever, to take only for flavor if you have a sort of manic-obsessive lawful wizard (for the regularity factor).

Finally, you can empower twice a spell and thus double its efficiency for a +4 level cost. Triple it for a +8 level cost. Even if the more you apply a feat, the least useful it becomes (compared to a normal spell of that level, extreme example the empowered 4 times Magic Missile dealing (5d4+1)×3 damage compared to Meteor Swarm), it's always nice to be able to stack use of a metamagic feat. 'Cause if you maximize twice a spell, that's exactly like if you empower it only once...

And don't make me started on Energy Substitution (Sonic) ! I've met more trolls (vulnerable only to fire and acid) than fire giant (immune to fire) ! And that sonicball will not be extraordinarily efficient against, say, a mummy or a frost worm. Lots of creatures have fire or cold or acid or electricity resistance, but lots of creatures also have a vulnerability to one of these. Few creatures are immune to the sonic energy (in the MM, only the Destrachan); but few also are especially vulnerable to it (in the MM, only the Yrthak).


----------



## Tiberius (Jun 12, 2002)

I voted for maximized Magic Missile, as you can stick it in a wand and get 1250 HP of damage guaranteed out of it (assuming no MM blocking magics).   Overall, the metamagic feats seem to pretty well suck, IMO.  I can't think of a single one that is worth sacrificing a higher-level spell for.  Why empower Flame Strike when you could have Destruction or Blasphemy?  Why quicken Melf's Acid Arrow when you could have Disintegrate, Mass Haste, or Planar Binding?  I'd much rather have the item creation feats.
-Tiberius


----------



## 0-hr (Jun 12, 2002)

I had to vote for Poison just because it uses a d10. Statistically that's going to be your best bet for Maximizing rather than Empowering. Now if Call Lightning had been an option...



> I can't think of a single one that is worth sacrificing a higher-level spell for.



I've been using a double empowered Endurance for months now and I think it's a great deal. Up to 10 Con for half a day ain't bad at all, even for a 6th level slot.

I also use double empowered Mace of Odo and, more recently, empowered Bear's Heart; and I'm looking forward to trying out a doulb empowered Poison next chance I get. Really, think that it's a decent metamagic feat. Maximize, however, bites.


----------



## smetzger (Jun 12, 2002)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> *I can't think of a single one that is worth sacrificing a higher-level spell for.  *




Extend is a useful feat for any spell that has duration in hours.  Or even for spells like Acid Arrow, Heat/Chill Metal.  I feel its well worth the 1 spell slot.

Energy Substitution is a good one also, although it doesn't really count since it doesn't take up a higher level slot.


----------



## Burne (Jun 12, 2002)

*Write in Vote*

Dispel Magic: Autodispelling any spell of 19th caster lvl or less and/or supressing any magic item of same caster level for 4 rounds solves a lot of problems.  Empowered is better for dispell magic and many other spells as well.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 12, 2002)

<groan>

You got a PHB?  Go check out the maximize feat and the part where it specifically states what you can't do with dispel magic and why.


----------



## Larcen (Jun 13, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Nah. A maximized empowered energy substitution (sonic) fireball is the best. Very few creatures are resistant or immune to sonic damage.  *




Except of course for anything in a (lowly) Silence spell's area of affect.


----------



## Larcen (Jun 13, 2002)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> *...  I can't think of a single one that is worth sacrificing a higher-level spell for.  ...
> -Tiberius *




As has already been explained, Extend is great...which is often followed up by the mighty Persistent feat.  

I still get chills when I think of a 15th level cleric with a Persistent Divine Power.  He would have all the powers of a cleric, while using a fighter's BAB all day long.  Oh, and the 18 str and 15 bonus HPs aren't bad either.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 13, 2002)

*x2 Empower?*

Where does it say that you can use Empower more than once on the same casting?  I can't find anything about this in my PHB.  Does it require you to take the Empower feat more than once?  Are you all just making this up?  Did the Sage make it up?  Is it in the WoTC Errata?  Who shot JFK?


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 13, 2002)

Check the official D&D frequently asked questions document on the website for the answer to this frequently asked question.  

No, you do not need to take the feat multiple times.

Yes, you can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell or multiple instances of the same metamagic feat to a single spell so long as you are capable of casting the spell in the higher spell slot.

Yes, there are lots of stipulations, exceptions, and specific rules that apply to this that are covered in the FAQ.

Check it out.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 13, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Check the official D&D frequently asked questions document on the website for the answer to this frequently asked question.
> 
> No, you do not need to take the feat multiple times.
> 
> ...




Hm, I've just reread the PHB errata on Feats, it specifically says that you can't stack the same feat unless otherwise noted in the PHB, and nowhere in my PHB does it say you can stack multiple Empowers.  Is the FAQ the sole source for this rule that you can stack Empowers?  If so, was the FAQ written by a munchkin?  

I'll go look for it now...


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 13, 2002)

Skip Williams the Munchkin.  Now there's something that the usually ultraconservative Sage is rarely referred to as.

Not that people lack for choice phrases to impart on him at any time, but munchkin is not usually one of the favorites.

"Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can use multiple metamagic feats on a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative."

Now admittedly it doesn't specifically say you can use the same feat multiple times on a spell, but that's why it's a frequently asked question.  It's a frequently asked question that is in the FAQ because the Sage has frequently answered it.  Yes, you can empower a spell multiple times if you have the spell slots available to do so.  That darn munchkin Sage.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 13, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Skip Williams the Munchkin.  Now there's something that the usually ultraconservative Sage is rarely referred to as.
> 
> Not that people lack for choice phrases to impart on him at any time, but munchkin is not usually one of the favorites.
> 
> ...




OK, thanks.  {slight rant follows}

I have the strong impression that the Sage's advice in Dragon tends to the cr*p side of mediocre.  Furthermore, IMO while Jonathan Tweet's PHB is an absolutely brilliant piece of work, and Monte Cook's DMG is pretty darn good, Williams' Monster Manual is pretty mediocre, a rather shoddy effort whose failings are exemplified by contrast with the PHB - eg the sample CRs at the back of my 1st-print PHB seem spot on, while in the MM they've been changed, IMO wrongly (CR 1 ghouls, CR 2 ogres, etc).  So unless Jonathan Tweet has said this re multiple stacking of the same metamagic feat I suspect it's not what he intended, and will have no place in my game.  {rant ends}


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 13, 2002)

That's going to be difficult as Mr. Tweet is one of the least vocal game designers of the 3e design team.  I couldn't tell you 5 things he's said since 3e's launch though I agree, he put together a very solid book.

If it's any consolation, my group has known about and used this rule since playtest days and has not had any problems with it save for the occasional high DC now using an eagle's splendor or fox's cunning spell multiple empowered.  But then as those two spells aren't core, you may not have any problems at all.

I'm sure others can attest to the same.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 13, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK, thanks.  {slight rant follows}
> 
> I have the strong impression that the Sage's advice in Dragon tends to the cr*p side of mediocre.  Furthermore, IMO while Jonathan Tweet's PHB is an absolutely brilliant piece of work, and Monte Cook's DMG is pretty darn good, Williams' Monster Manual is pretty mediocre, a rather shoddy effort whose failings are exemplified by contrast with the PHB - eg the sample CRs at the back of my 1st-print PHB seem spot on, while in the MM they've been changed, IMO wrongly (CR 1 ghouls, CR 2 ogres, etc).  So unless Jonathan Tweet has said this re multiple stacking of the same metamagic feat I suspect it's not what he intended, and will have no place in my game.  {rant ends} *




Just been ploughing through the FAQ - he starts off ok with discussion of character generation, but it all falls apart by the time he gets to Feats.  I love the stuff about using improved-two weapon fighting with Whirlwind Attack, or the but about how Cleave & Great Cleave don't require the Full Attack option... 
The bit about stacking Great Cleave with Whirlwind attack certainly gave me pause.

And you say Skip's no munchkin?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 13, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just been ploughing through the FAQ - he starts off ok with discussion of character generation, but it all falls apart by the time he gets to Feats.  I love the stuff about using improved-two weapon fighting with Whirlwind Attack, or the but about how Cleave & Great Cleave don't require the Full Attack option...
> The bit about stacking Great Cleave with Whirlwind attack certainly gave me pause.
> ...




PS: I particularly liked the bit where he says that Expertise stacks with Fighting Defensively.  That it says the opposite in the PHB he happily dismisses "Some people think that..."  

His ruling that you don't actually have to be in combat to use Expertise seems almost sane by comparison, albeit a clear contradiction of the PHB's intent "...when you use the attack action or full attack action in melee..."

I'm sure there are countless more gems in there, but I've found the bit about sending damage through the roof by applying Empower Spell as often as you like, so I'll stop there.

I have to hand it to Skip, the man is shameless.  He seems to be doing his best to singlehandedly trash the carefully balanced system the PHB propounds - which, after many months, I have finally been convinced is a finely balanced work of craftsmanship.  But it's finely balanced _as written_, not after Skip "Ogres are CR 2!" has gotten a-hold of it...

Sorry for hijacking, back to scheculed programming.


----------



## Bob5th (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Damage through the roof? Nay I say. 

4x Empowered Magic Missle takes a 9th level slot.
Can do an average damage of 52.5 [(5d4+5)* 3] to a single target and allow no save.

Meteor Swarm also takes a 9th level slot.
Can do an average damage of 84 (24d6) to a single target with no save.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> PS: I particularly liked the bit where he says that Expertise stacks with Fighting Defensively.  That it says the opposite in the PHB he happily dismisses "Some people think that..."
> 
> ...





*shrug* everything you mentioned is legal by the core rules.  Skip didn't change any of that.   You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the way they work.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2002)

Bob5th said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Damage through the roof? Nay I say.
> 
> ...




"Send damage through the roof" is Skip's own words, not mine!   BTW until I came across Skip's unique take on Empower I couldn't understand why people thought Magic Missile was an overpowered spell for its level.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> *shrug* everything you mentioned is legal by the core rules.  Skip didn't change any of that.   You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the way they work. *




Obviously Skip's stated opinion is that this is how the core rules are intended to work, that's why it's called a FAQ and not "The Big Book of Skip's Rule Changes"!.  That's like me complaining about the verdict in the OJ Simpson case and you saying "You're wrong to complain - OJ was innocent - the court said so."  You only have it on Skip's authority that this is how the rules were intended to work.  This stuff isn't in the Errata.  

I don't accept Skip's authority to restate the rules because he seems to be making it up as he goes along.  If it was one thing that appeared to breach the intent of the PHB, maybe I misinterpreted the intent of the PHB.  But it's dozens of things.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 14, 2002)

I suspect that what Caliban is saying is that all of the specific rulings you mentioned seemed obvious to him (and many others) as the plain meaning of the PHB text.

As to the original question, I don't see the problem with multiple empowers. A triple empowered Fox's Cunning sends a wizard's DCs through the roof but it's also an 8th level spell. It could've been Horrid Wilting or Mind Blank instead. Similarly, a triple empowered fireball will do almost 25d6 points of damage with a DC 13+int bonus save for 1/2. That seems pretty balanced with a meteor swarm (24d6 no save to a single target, less damage to others with a DC 19+int bonus save for 1/2)--it's good damage for a 9th level spell, but it costs a feat and the save is much easier. I fail to see the imbalance. . . .

As for the other metamagic feats, most don't stack well together. You could have a 50' spread fireball as a 9th level spell (widen spell) or a really really long and wide lightning bolt (enlarge spell) but most of those aren't worth the increased spell level. Extend Spell is about the only metamagic feat (other than empower) that works well with itself. It allows high level sorcerors to give themselves minor buffs (bull's strength, cat's grace, eagle's splendor, endure elements, energy buffer, mage armor) for about a week with left over spell slots before they go to bed. Even so, that's not too much of a problem. Sorcerors have very few feats to begin with and any sorceror who abuses it is likely to find himself attacked in the middle of the night when he's just used all his high level spell slots.

So yes, metamagic feats are useful, and stacking them can be useful, but there's nothing broken about it.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Obviously Skip's stated opinion is that this is how the core rules are intended to work, that's why it's called a FAQ and not "The Big Book of Skip's Rule Changes"!.  That's like me complaining about the verdict in the OJ Simpson case and you saying "You're wrong to complain - OJ was innocent - the court said so."  You only have it on Skip's authority that this is how the rules were intended to work.  This stuff isn't in the Errata.
> 
> I don't accept Skip's authority to restate the rules because he seems to be making it up as he goes along.  If it was one thing that appeared to breach the intent of the PHB, maybe I misinterpreted the intent of the PHB.  But it's dozens of things. *


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2002)

You can of course stack _different_ metamagic feats on the same spell - a maximized empowered fireball, etc.  But there is absolutely nothing in the PHB to indicate that you can stack the _same_ feat multiple times onto a spell, this "X4 Empowered" stuff - indeed the PHB says that you cannot stack a feat unless specifically indicated otherwise (eg Toughness).  It's not so much a question of balance vs other high-level spells - Sorcerers and Wizards may not have that many high-level spells to choose from, so for the Sorcerer especially empowering is very handy.


----------



## hong (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *You can of course stack _different_ metamagic feats on the same spell - a maximized empowered fireball, etc.  But there is absolutely nothing in the PHB to indicate that you can stack the _same_ feat multiple times onto a spell, this "X4 Empowered" stuff - indeed the PHB says that you cannot stack a feat unless specifically indicated otherwise (eg Toughness).  It's not so much a question of balance vs other high-level spells - Sorcerers and Wizards may not have that many high-level spells to choose from, so for the Sorcerer especially empowering is very handy. *




The consensus in this forum, and all other discussion forums I know of, is that there's no material difference between applying multiple different metamagic feats, and applying one metamagic feat multiple times. This has been the case for as long as I can recall.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 14, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The consensus in this forum, and all other discussion forums I know of, is that there's no material difference between applying multiple different metamagic feats, and applying one metamagic feat multiple times. This has been the case for as long as I can recall. *



True.  I don't even find a single thing in the PHB that indicates otherwise.  It -is- true you can't 'stack' Improved Init or other feats like that unless specified otherwise ( as with toughness) but that's a totally different issue from if I can Empower a spell multiple times.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> BTW until I came across Skip's unique take on Empower... *




FWIW my plain reading of the PHB was that there was no problem in stacking the same or different metamagic feats as long as the result made sense - i.e. Maximise didn't stack with itself because there would be no sense in it, others are basically OK to stack multiple times.

It was only on these boards that I ever came across anyone wondering otherwise!


----------



## Gez (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon, the bit in the PHB about feats not stacking is for not taking multiple times the same feat (i.e., you can't get two cleave attacks against someone by taking the cleave feat twice).

But you can use multiple metamagic feats on a same spell, including multiple use of the same feat.

By the way, when you use both Maximize and something else (Empower, Energy Admixture, Twin, Repeat, etc.), you maximize only the normal effect of the spell, and roll normally the extra damage. So a maximized empowered acid-admixted fireball would deal 60 fire damage, plus 10d6 /2 fire damage, plus 10d6 acid damage (and it would require a 12th-level spell slot...).

The bit on Cleave and Great Cleave (and even, heck, Whirlwind Cleave ! This demands you to built your character specifically to that end given the number of feat it requires in the sum of these two feat chains) don't pose problem. They are a kind of attack of opportunity. And Cleave would suck if you couldn't used it on a charge.

However, I'm strongly against using Cleave when you down someone on an AoO.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2002)

I could argue about how the PHB has a consistent approach that spells and powers do "exactly what it says on the tin" - no less, and no more.  So if a feat says "x1.5 dmg, +2 caster level" - that's what it does, and all it does, with no implied "and another +.5 damage per +2 CLs".  But I'm sure I'm not going to convince anyone and despite a few grumblings, the general preference seems to accept Skip's rulings.  Maybe if I read the PHB with the eyes of a power-hungry player rather than as a GM (even when I play, I still think like a GM) I too would be arguing for those x4 Empowered magic missiles.  I agree that it's not dreadfully imbalancing to allow multiple Empowerment - not nearly as much as allowing a Charge & Great Cleave in the same round, say.


----------



## Shaele (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon--
BTW until I came across Skip's unique take on Empower I couldn't understand why people thought Magic Missile was an overpowered spell for its level.
----
Maybe if I read the PHB with the eyes of a power-hungry player rather than as a GM (even when I play, I still think like a GM) I too would be arguing for those x4 Empowered magic missiles. 
----

Go back and do the math again... A 4x empowered magic missile is 9th level, and does triple magic missile damage (100% + 4*50% bonus or 300%). This works out to 52.5 points of damage on average. Compare this to any other 9th level spell and it's actually pretty weak. Heck, my 1st level sorcerer with Shield running is immune to it!

The reason people talk about magic missile being overpowered has nothing to do with empowering it - as a _1st_ level spell, it does more damage than any similiar spell or it's level, plus has long range, and no save for most characters.

[edit: corrected a typo, need coffee before posting...]


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon, you do understand that choosing a feat multiple times and applying or using a feat multiple times are two differant things, right?

Your argument that you cannot use Empower Spell more than once on a spell holds no water if you appeal to the statement in the PH that you can only choose a feat once unless it says otherwise.  You also agree that multiple metamagic feats may be applied to a single spell if the caster has the higher spell slot available.  Why then can you not apply the same metamagic feat more than once if the spell slot is available?  The PH does not forbid this anywhere.  Should not a high level spellcaster be able to empower his spells better than a lower level one?  I simply do not see why you object.  And the charge of munchkinism here is simply rediculous, as others have shown.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2002)

Dr. Zoom said:
			
		

> *S'mon, you do understand that choosing a feat multiple times and applying or using a feat multiple times are two differant things, right?
> 
> Your argument that you cannot use Empower Spell more than once on a spell holds no water if you appeal to the statement in the PH that you can only choose a feat once unless it says otherwise.  You also agree that multiple metamagic feats may be applied to a single spell if the caster has the higher spell slot available.  Why then can you not apply the same metamagic feat more than once if the spell slot is available?  The PH does not forbid this anywhere.  Should not a high level spellcaster be able to empower his spells better than a lower level one?  I simply do not see why you object.  And the charge of munchkinism here is simply rediculous, as others have shown. *




I think my "does exactly what it says on the tin" comment (advert for Ronseal Wood Glaze here in the UK!) is my final word on the subject.  The policy of not inserting extra unstated meanings/benefits into stated powers is a good one, I think.  If Empower Spell said "you can apply this feat multiple times to the same spell", that'd be different.  It doesn't say that and IMO the author didn't intend it to, anymore than he intended you to be Cleaving off standard actions.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 14, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> It doesn't say that and IMO the author didn't intend it to, anymore than he intended you to be Cleaving off standard actions. *




Where do you get the idea that the author didn't intend this?  The Cleave feat states that if you drop a creature you get an *immediate, extra* attack.  It doesn't state that this happens only on a full attack action.   The only limitation is once per round.
It seems pretty obvious that it works any time you drop someone, with any attack, once per round.

You are the one adding extra limitations to the feat, and trying to claim that you know the authors intentions better than anyone else.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 14, 2002)

And, I believe, that Skip was one of said authors (not the main one, but one of them....I think).

Caliban, he also doesn't believe in exceptions to rules - if a rule says X, then it can never be broken so therefore he does not see the *immediate* part of the feat overriding the general rule.

Meanwhile, the WWA feat clearly states you must use a FRA, so the precedent is there that if the author *intended* for it to take a FRA, he would have put it in the feat.

IceBear


----------



## Westwind (Jun 14, 2002)

Best spell to maximieze: Soulstrike from Relics and Rituals..19 points of Con damage will drop a lot of people.  Expensive to do, you need either Epic Levels, a really expensive rod, or the right prestige class, but the look on the player/DMs face is priceless!


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2002)

People had me believing that multiple Empowering wasn't munchkin/unbalancing (albeit wasn't intended to be allowed by the PHB), and used Magic Missile as an example.  Then I came across this gem in General, from Numion:

*(Cleric) At 15th level: 

Triple empowered Bull's Strength
Triple empowered Endurance*

I rest my case.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *And, I believe, that Skip was one of said authors (not the main one, but one of them....I think).
> 
> Caliban, he also doesn't believe in exceptions to rules - if a rule says X, then it can never be broken so therefore he does not see the *immediate* part of the feat overriding the general rule.
> 
> ...




My reading is that WWA requires you to give up _all*_ your other attacks in the full attack action to make a WWA.  Cleave can be used in conjunction with all your other attacks, whenever you take a full attack action.

*All as in extra attacks from off-hand, cleave etc as well as iterative.


----------



## hong (Jun 15, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *(Cleric) At 15th level:
> 
> Triple empowered Bull's Strength
> Triple empowered Endurance
> ...




For an average of 1 + 2.5 * 2.5 = +7.25 points to each attribute, which doesn't stack with either a belt of giant strength, or amulet of health, and is still vulnerable to dispel magic. And for that, you've used up two 8th level spell slots.

What was your point again?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For an average of 1 + 2.5 * 2.5 = +7.25 points to each attribute, which doesn't stack with either a belt of giant strength, or amulet of health, and is still vulnerable to dispel magic. And for that, you've used up two 8th level spell slots.
> 
> What was your point again? *




My point: I think +7 or +8 to a stat (better than any non-artifact magic item can do!) for 15 hours is pretty bloody powerful for a 15th level cleric's spell!


----------



## hong (Jun 15, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *My point: I think +7 or +8 to a stat (better than any non-artifact magic item can do!) for 15 hours is pretty bloody powerful for a 15th level cleric's spell! *




And have you seen what the other spells are that a 15th level cleric has? Mass heal, holy aura, earthquake, fire storm, greater planar ally (summon a planetar, if not a solar, to do your bidding), empowered blade barrier, etc, etc. A triply-empowered bulls strength is the least of your worries.

Assuming you're not just laying out flamebait, after two years, you still seem to be having trouble readjusting to 3E. Stop torturing yourself. Go back to 2E, where you were happy.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jun 15, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where do you get the idea that the author didn't intend this?  The Cleave feat states that if you drop a creature you get an immediate, extra attack.  It doesn't state that this happens only on a full attack action.   The only limitation is once per round.
> It seems pretty obvious that it works any time you drop someone, with any attack, once per round.
> ...




Probably from the statements made by the authors that any time you have more than one attack in a round it is a full attack action.  Cleave being a standard action is highly inconsistent with the rules, since they mention in the rules more than one attack=full attack.  I always assumed it required a full attack action since the rules give the general rule more than one attack = full attack, and cleave is not listed as an exception.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 15, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Probably from the statements made by the authors that any time you have more than one attack in a round it is a full attack action.  *




Cleave is not an "attack per round".

*



			Cleave being a standard action is highly inconsistent with the rules, since they mention in the rules more than one attack=full attack.
		
Click to expand...


*
You haven't read the relevent text closely enough then.  Cleave is not even an action, standard or otherwise.  You can cleave on an AoO, and this is entirely consistent with the core rules. 

*



			I always assumed it required a full attack action since the rules give the general rule more than one attack = full attack, and cleave is not listed as an exception.
		
Click to expand...


*
You assumed incorrectly then. 

Cleave is not an action, and is not subject to the "if you have more than one attack *per action* you have to make a full attack action to get the extra attacks" rule.    That rule only applies to your normal attacks and cleave is not part of your normal attacks per round.  Like an AoO or Speed weapon, it is in addition to the number of attacks you can normally make


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 15, 2002)

Caliban is correct.

Cleave is and has always been a feat granted special ability.  Anytime you slay an opponent, anytime, you get your cleave IF you have another foe in your threatened area and IF you have not used your cleave already that round OR if you have great cleave.

You can cleave on a partial charge, you can cleave on an AofO, you can cleave in a surprise round, you can cleave while _slow_ed.  You just have to meet the requirements of having a foe in reach (you cannot 5' step to cleave normally), having a cleave attempt left, and having slain your previous target.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 15, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *
> You can cleave on a partial charge, you can cleave on an AofO, you can cleave in a surprise round, you can cleave while slowed.  You just have to meet the requirements of having a foe in reach (you cannot 5' step to cleave normally), having a cleave attempt left, and having slain your previous target. *




Will you cleave on a log, will you cleave against some Trogs?
I shall not cleave on a log, I wound not could not cleave some Trogs.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 15, 2002)

Bob5th said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Damage through the roof? Nay I say.
> 
> ...




Uhm... I'm not that much experienced in the rules of 3 Ed. yet but wouldn't that piece of math have to be done something like this?

Average MM damage with 5 missiles: (2,5+1) *5 = 17,5

That then needs to be multiplyed with: 1,5^4 =5,0625

17,5 * 5,0625 = 88,59375 Average damage

Note:
(1,5 * 1,5 * 1,5 * 1,5 = 1,5 ^4)

______________________________

Max damage = 126,6

Min damage = 50,6


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And have you seen what the other spells are that a 15th level cleric has? Mass heal, holy aura, earthquake, fire storm, greater planar ally (summon a planetar, if not a solar, to do your bidding), empowered blade barrier, etc, etc. A triply-empowered bulls strength is the least of your worries.
> 
> Assuming you're not just laying out flamebait, after two years, you still seem to be having trouble readjusting to 3E. Stop torturing yourself. Go back to 2E, where you were happy. *




Hong accuses _me_ of flamebait - o tempora, o morales...!

I hated 2e.  I quit AD&D because of it.  I came back because of 3e.  I like it, but clerics are clearly a lot more powerful than other classes, even without Skip's rules changes.

BTW Hong, I've never met an Aussie I didn't like, until I met you.  All my players are Australians, they're a great bunch.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Probably from the statements made by the authors that any time you have more than one attack in a round it is a full attack action.  Cleave being a standard action is highly inconsistent with the rules, since they mention in the rules more than one attack=full attack.  I always assumed it required a full attack action since the rules give the general rule more than one attack = full attack, and cleave is not listed as an exception. *




It's not worth arguing Shard, they don't give a damn about what it says in the PHB.

The approach of "always interpret feats/powers in the most liberal possible interpretaion" to make them as powerful as possible seems to be new in 3e.  Often this seems to involve disregarding all statements to the contrary within the rules themselves.  Eg:

"It doesn't say we can't stack Empowers - therefore we can."

"It doesn't say we need a Full Attack to cleave - therefore we can Cleave anytime we make an attack roll."

I doubt the author ever even considered the possibility of stacking multiple Empowers on the same spell, it seems totally alien to the whole Feats approach.  As for Cleave, there is a specific rule that ALL feat-granted extra attacks require a full attack action.

But that would mess with your fun.  So it won't do at all.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 15, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's not worth arguing Shard, they don't give a damn about what it says in the PHB.
> *




Actually we do.  We care a great deal, and we spend an endless amount of time discussing it until we are pretty sure we understand it.  You might try it sometime. 

*



			The approach of "always interpret feats/powers in the most liberal possible interpretaion" to make them as powerful as possible seems to be new in 3e.  Often this seems to involve disregarding all statements to the contrary within the rules themselves.
		
Click to expand...


*
No, because if there were a clear statement to the contrary, we wouldn't interpret it that way. 

*



			Eg:

"It doesn't say we can't stack Empowers - therefore we can."
		
Click to expand...


*
Exactly.  There is no statement to the contrary, the PHB says you can layer metamagic feats, and one of the game designers (Skip Williams in this case) has confirmed that by rules, there is no reason to treat multiple instances of the same metamagic feat on the same spell any differently than multiple instances of different metamagic feats on the same spell. 

*



			"It doesn't say we need a Full Attack to cleave - therefore we can Cleave anytime we make an attack roll."
		
Click to expand...


*
Especially since the cleave feat specifically states that you get an *immediate, extra melee attack*, which you keep ignoring.

*



			I doubt the author ever even considered the possibility of stacking multiple Empowers on the same spell, it seems totally alien to the whole Feats approach.
		
Click to expand...


*
And I think they did consider it, and they did the math, and determined that it really doesn't affect the game balance. 

*



			As for Cleave, there is a specific rule that ALL feat-granted extra attacks require a full attack action.
		
Click to expand...


*
No there isn't, as I pointed out.  But you have chosen to ignore that as well. 

*



			But that would mess with your fun.  So it won't do at all.
		
Click to expand...


*
Are you really this narrowminded?


----------



## hong (Jun 15, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hong accuses _me_ of flamebait - o tempora, o morales...!*



It takes one to know one.



> *I hated 2e.  I quit AD&D because of it. *




Hm, so did I. 



> *I came back because of 3e.  I like it, but clerics are clearly a lot more powerful than other classes, even without Skip's rules changes.*




The fact that clerics are overpowered is a known wart, possibly because the designers needed something with which to bribe players into being the party medic. However, that's a completely separate issue to the multiple-empower thing.



> *BTW Hong, I've never met an Aussie I didn't like, until I met you.  *




Tell me again why I should give a damn whether or not you like me.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 15, 2002)

If you can Cleave on an AoO, then *Why* would it take a Full Round Action to cleave?

That's like saying you have to take a FRA to Sneak Attack.


----------



## hong (Jun 15, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *Uhm... I'm not that much experienced in the rules of 3 Ed. yet but wouldn't that piece of math have to be done something like this?
> 
> Average MM damage with 5 missiles: (2,5+1) *5 = 17,5
> 
> That then needs to be multiplyed with: 1,5^4 =5,0625*




Nope. "Multiplication" in D&D really means adding percentage increases. See the glossary in the PHB, p.275.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 16, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Nope. "Multiplication" in D&D really means adding percentage increases. See the glossary in the PHB, p.275. *




WTF don't they just say add then... Ahh well. Thanks.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jun 16, 2002)

edit for I didn't see the other thread so I'll stop hijacking this one.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 16, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tell me again why I should give a damn whether or not you like me. *




I thought quite the opposite - I'd presume you get a positive pleasure out of being disliked by as many people as possible.  I guess I think you might feel ashamed of being such an embarrassment to your country, but I guess I can't talk since I'm a fairly poor advert for mine also... well we can't all be gentlemen like Upper_Krust, but at least  I don't dedicate my entire life and thousands of posts to annoying people, as you seem to.


----------



## Zhure (Jun 16, 2002)

... so if Cleave can only be used during FRA, has anyone with a BAB of less than 6+ taken this Feat? 


Why does Great Cleave have a BAB of 4+ as a prerequisite since it'd only be useful in FRAs... and characters with a BAB of less than 6+ almost never use FRAs.

Weird. I just can't even see this interpretation at all.

Greg


----------



## Ferret (Jun 16, 2002)

Poison.


----------



## hong (Jun 16, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> I thought quite the opposite - I'd presume you get a positive pleasure out of being disliked by as many people as possible. *




You != as many people as possible, O solipsistic one.



> *I guess I think you might feel ashamed of being such an embarrassment to your country, but I guess I can't talk since I'm a fairly poor advert for mine also... *




Tell me again why I should give a damn what you think about my country.



> *well we can't all be gentlemen like Upper_Krust, but at least  I don't dedicate my entire life and thousands of posts to annoying people, as you seem to. *




No, I only dedicate a few posts to annoying people. The remainder of my posts I dedicate to normal people.

*BE! FUNNY!*


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *It's not worth arguing Shard, they don't give a damn about what it says in the PHB. *




Sure they do. It just so happens that they're also trying to edjucate you, which seems to be really pissing you off, especially because you keep getting knocked down at every turn. If you continue your rants and arguments as you have been, no doubt you will soon enough be arguing that having a character sheet was one of the most rediculous assumptions that any DM or Player could ever have made.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *The approach of "always interpret feats/powers in the most liberal possible interpretaion" to make them as powerful as possible seems to be new in 3e. *




They are interpreting those feats according to the rules, which in my opinion, is much better than your "always interpret feats/powers in the most rediculously hamstringed way you can imagine" method. It sounds as though you don't like options in your games, and if that's the case, you're better suited for Chainmail.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Often this seems to involve disregarding all statements to the contrary within the rules themselves.  Eg:
> 
> "It doesn't say we can't stack Empowers - therefore we can." *




Personally, I know that the Sage and Monte Cook have both clarified that you can stack metamagic feats. They had to clarify this because it wasn't clearly stated in the PH. I see that you like to ignore the rules.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *"It doesn't say we need a Full Attack to cleave *




That's because you don't, but you can rule 0 anything you like.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *therefore we can Cleave anytime we make an attack roll." *




Well...yeah. Not so difficult to understand.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I doubt the author ever even considered the possibility of stacking multiple Empowers on the same spell *




Sure they did. You just don't like it.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *it seems totally alien to the whole Feats approach. *




Enlarge Spell is alien to Quick Draw as Quick Draw is alien to Reactive Counterspell. What's your point?



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *As for Cleave, there is a specific rule that ALL feat-granted extra attacks require a full attack action. *




Where?



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *But that would mess with your fun.  So it won't do at all. *




It seems that the problem here is that the core rules are messing with _your_ fun. Fine. Have your fun somewhere else. Might I suggest Rifts?


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 16, 2002)

Flame flame everywhere....

Hang on a second, lemme go get my Frosty.

To the no multi empowers and no cleaves there are numerous rules reasons why the rules say what they say, none of which will convince you because you've locked on to your once phrase in the book that you are going to take literally above all others.

That's ok, that's how arguments on this board normally turn out.

There is one non-rules point that should make a minor difference to you even if it doesn't sway you.

There are numerous people, myself and my group included, that have always thought that it was ruled this way, and when the sage confirmed it we just nodded and kept playing.  It had seemed simple to us from the text---(That's one reason, that so many people read it that way BEFORE the sage said anything).  And it has not unbalanced gameplay.  Cleave and Great Cleave are still somewhat relegated to large strong creatures with reach for it's usefulness and empower spell still doesn't see much use because at 2 and 4 and 6 levels higher than your original spell, you'll find other spell that are incredibly useful.  Why do a double empowered cure moderate when you can do a heal?---(That's the second reason, we've been playing it like this since 3e playtest before the PHB came out and it works fine, so it can't be as gamebreaking as you are saying.)

So please, either try it and tell us of how it broke your game, or stop bashing it and simply state that in your games you don't want to run it that way.  Either one is more convincing and less offensive then saying "You all who play it like that way are breaking the game and are all powergamers" because some of us don't feel like powergames and feel it insulting to be called such, and some of us don't feel like our games are broken in any way shape or form.

As we are the ones playing with these rules in effect, we are in a much better situation to judge whether or not they are broken then you can by sitting down and thinking of it in theory.  In theory there are a lot of things that would seem to be a lot more powerful than they are.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Flame flame everywhere.... *




My bad. But it's not entirely my fault, so I can't take all the blame. I mean, hey, if you came upon some guy on the street coated in gasoline, how could you *not* throw the match? A guy like that is just asking for it.


----------



## Gromm (Jun 16, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My bad. But it's not entirely my fault, so I can't take all the blame. I mean, hey, if you came upon some guy on the street coated in gasoline, how could you not throw the match? A guy like that is just asking for it.  *




Remind me to be really careful when putting gas in a lawnmower when your around.
"Hey let me help you there." *throws match, gets out marshmellows*


----------



## hong (Jun 16, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *My bad. But it's not entirely my fault, so I can't take all the blame. I mean, hey, if you came upon some guy on the street coated in gasoline, how could you not throw the match? A guy like that is just asking for it.  *




In this case, I think Jeremy was talking about me, not you. You've been very reasonable since I took the angry hat off you. 

Apologies to everyone, I'll stop now.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

Gromm said:
			
		

> *Remind me to be really careful when putting gas in a lawnmower when your around. *




LOL


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *You've been very reasonable since I took the angry hat off you.  *




When was I wearing an angry hat?


----------



## hong (Jun 16, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> When was I wearing an angry hat? *




Well, you're not, since I took it off you. Sheesh, do I have to spell everything out?


Hong "surrounded by eeeediots" Ooi


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Well, you're not, since I took it off you. Sheesh, do I have to spell everything out? *




Note that I didn't ask you _if_ I was wearing an angry hat, but in fact, I asked _when_ was I wearing an angry hat. Sheesh, do I have to spell everything out?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 16, 2002)

I picked Poison.

Better save DC (it goes up with my level), whereas a 12th-level wizard throwing a maximimzed Fireball will watch, in agony, as his opponent makes the Reflex save (which is based on a 3rd level spell).

Maximized d10 is better than maximized d6.

Con damage is frightening, and can last days. The repeat is just icing on the cake (especially since their Fort save just fell by 5). And if they make the first save, don't they still have to make the second save?  

A cleric/wizard could have their bat familiar carry this spell to the enemy (LOL!)


----------



## S'mon (Jun 16, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *... so if Cleave can only be used during FRA, has anyone with a BAB of less than 6+ taken this Feat?
> 
> 
> Why does Great Cleave have a BAB of 4+ as a prerequisite since it'd only be useful in FRAs... and characters with a BAB of less than 6+ almost never use FRAs.
> ...




Since a FRA merely requires you not to move more than 5' in a tound, I generally take the Cleave feat between 1st-3rd level for my fighters and combat clerics and use it all the time, in conjunction with 5' steps, nearly doubling the PC's combat ability vs weak foes.  It's actually _more_ useful at low levels where most opponents are short on hp.  Great Cleave has to wait until after Specialisation is taken, so usually not until 6th.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 16, 2002)

*Maximize*

The only way I know of that allowing stacking Empowers (at +2 spell levels/time) is unbalancing, is that it makes Maximize (being once only at +3 SLs for a smaller increase) a useless feat - you get more oomph out of a x2 Empower than a Maximize + Empower, and it doesn't take an extra feat to do.  There's no point I can think of in the (non-stackable) Maximize feat existing, if you can get a better result from stacking Empower.  

Anyone have an explanation why this isn't so?
BTW, how many of you are GMs?


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 16, 2002)

I know I am, Caliban is, and kreynolds is.  From hong's general posts I'd guess he is too, though I don't know for sure.

And as it doesn't make one character too powerful and isn't a feat everyone of my spellcasters chooses, and doesn't result on my hard plans being ended in a single spell or round, unbalanced seems to be a poor choice of word for it.

Multiple empowers are not unbalanced.  Though they may be distasteful to you, they are very well playtested now and are just another part of Core 3e.  Give them a shot.  You may find them useful in some situations (as it should be, you only get so many feats), but you may also find that out of your wizard or clerics 20-30 spells prepared that day, only one of them is empowered and none of them are multi-empowered.


----------



## hong (Jun 16, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *I know I am, Caliban is, and kreynolds is.  From hong's general posts I'd guess he is too, though I don't know for sure. *




My most recent involvement in D&D was as a player in Geoff Watson's RttToEE campaign. The last time I DMed would have been about this time last year, I think. So I've been on both sides of the screen.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 16, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *I know I am, Caliban is, and kreynolds is.  From hong's general posts I'd guess he is too, though I don't know for sure.
> 
> *




Would it be rude to ask your ages and nationalities?  I know you all think I'm being a dick/blind as a bat, but I was wondering if perhaps it's because I'm from a different D&Ding tradition than the rest of you.  Hong told me to go back to 2e - well, I hated 2e, but I grew up on 1e and 1980s White Dwarf, which used to be the UK's premier RPG mag (especially for AD&D) up until ca 1991 when it became a mag for the Warhammer games lines.  I grew up with the Gygaxian approach to GMing and a strong ethos from WD of restrictively interpreting PC powers as the best way to run what's now called a 'balanced' game.  I was thinking though that to players/GMs weaned on, say, 1990s CRPGs that might be an alien concept. 

Are you guys all 45 year old grognards, 16 year old Diablerists, or both?


----------



## Caliban (Jun 16, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Would it be rude to ask your ages and nationalities?
> *




I'm 30, and I grew up in Texas and Arizona (USA). 

*



			I know you all think I'm being a dick/blind as a bat,
		
Click to expand...


*
So far, that pretty much sums it up. 

*



			but I was wondering if perhaps it's because I'm from a different D&Ding tradition than the rest of you.  Hong told me to go back to 2e - well, I hated 2e, but I grew up on 1e and 1980s White Dwarf, which used to be the UK's premier RPG mag (especially for AD&D) up until ca 1991 when it became a mag for the Warhammer games lines.
		
Click to expand...


*
I started playing in 1e, switched to 2e, then quit after about a year because I wasn't having fun any more.  3e brought me back into the fold. 

*



			I grew up with the Gygaxian approach to GMing and a strong ethos from WD of restrictively interpreting PC powers as the best way to run what's now called a 'balanced' game.  I was thinking though that to players/GMs weaned on, say, 1990s CRPGs that might be an alien concept.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'm not scared to have powerful PC's in my games.  Sometimes it's fun for the player to have their PC actually be effective and not to be continually beaten down and dominated by their DM and his NPC's.  

(Besides, now matter how powerful the PC's think they are, I can take them down with a crack kobold commando squad led by a 1/2 dragon kobold. Kobolds are respected and feared in my games.)

*



			Are you guys all 45 year old grognards, 16 year old Diablerists, or both? 

Click to expand...


*
I'm an individual.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 16, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not scared to have powerful PC's in my games.  Sometimes it's fun for the player to have their PC actually be effective and not to be continually beaten down and dominated by their DM and his NPC's.
> *




I ran a lot of deity-level play in 1e/2e, with PCs ranging up to Lesser Power level - this campaign was the basis for Upper Krust's Immortals' Handbook, if he ever gets it finished...
My players tend to consider me 'tough but fair' - over about 10 years of play, about 5-6 hours/week on average, 4 PCs made it to demigod level.  2 subsequently died, 1's player left the game, 1 - U_K's Thrin - made it to Lesser God and is still around.  I have a lot of experience with powerful PCs, at least in prior editions, and keeping them in check required a fairly strong hand.  After a couple of years' GMing 3e I can see that it's set up to make GM control easier at least up to 20th level, at least as long as one sticks to the core rulebooks and doesn't automatically allow in every new player's option supplement or creative rules interpretation.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 16, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I ran a lot of deity-level play in 1e/2e, with PCs ranging up to Lesser Power level - this campaign was the basis for Upper Krust's Immortals' Handbook, if he ever gets it finished...
> My players tend to consider me 'tough but fair' - over about 10 years of play, about 5-6 hours/week on average, 4 PCs made it to demigod level.  2 subsequently died, 1's player left the game, 1 - U_K's Thrin - made it to Lesser God and is still around.  I have a lot of experience with powerful PCs, at least in prior editions, and keeping them in check required a fairly strong hand.  After a couple of years' GMing 3e I can see that it's set up to make GM control easier at least up to 20th level, at least as long as one sticks to the core rulebooks and doesn't automatically allow in every new player's option supplement or creative rules interpretation. *




That's not the attitude you have displayed here.  Introducing your self with a round of Sage bashing doesn't earn you any brownie points, or any respect. 

Sometime I disagree with Sage (sometimes very strongly), but I never bash him.  He is one of the original 3e game designers, and he's a pretty bright guy.  I usually don't disagree with him unless I feel I have a pretty good reason.   So far your reasons have amounted to "The Sage is a munchkin and anyone who disagree's with me must be a munckin" too.    You haven't appeared to be interested in actually listening to opposing viewpoints, and keep quoting rules that don't really support your position when they are examined closely.  (And then say we are the ones who don't care what's in the PHB, when we are quoting  rules from that same book.)

Having DM'd or played deity-level characters in prior editions doesn't impress me.  I respect U_K because he is a nice guy and expresses himself with intelligence and courtesy, not because his character's level happens to be in the triple digits.

DM'ing characters of any level requires a "fairly strong hand" but that shouldn't translate into "creatively interpreting" standard feats so that they are less effective.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: Maximize*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *There's no point I can think of in the (non-stackable) Maximize feat existing, if you can get a better result from stacking Empower. *




Sure there is. Ever seen a 16th level Maxmized Empowered Empowered Empowered Energy Substituted (Sonic) Delayed Blast Fireball strike the hull of a Warship? Nobody can bail water that fast.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 16, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Would it be rude to ask your ages and nationalities? *




I'm under 30 and a born and bred pure-blooded Texan.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I know you all think I'm being a dick/blind as a bat, but I was wondering if perhaps it's because I'm from a different D&Ding tradition than the rest of you. *




Apparently.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I hated 2e *




What a coincidence. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I grew up on 1e and 1980s White Dwarf *




I grew up on meat and potatoes.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

<insert truthful answer here>

<insert wise ass comment here>

<insert minor admonition here>

<insert tactful apology and just kidding clause here>

<insert witty signature here>


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *<insert truthful answer here>
> 
> <insert wise ass comment here>
> 
> ...




LMAO


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

Although I've not been in much of the debate, I'll toss my support to the Kreynolds' crowd. Infact, I'll list my own stats if I'm 'one of the guys'.  

Maximized has it's uses. You Always know what damage you're going to get. Always. 4th level Maxed MM is going to do 25 points of damage. If you're hasted, that's 50 points of damage, in one round, that they Can't block, that's assured. 

With Empower, you have to roll it. Which, in some cases, is somewhat better (A maxed fireball gains 60 and a 6th level slot, a twice empowered Fireball is a 7th slot and you roll 10d6+5d6+5d6). With Empower, you leave it up to the dice. Now, I don't know about Your dice gods, but sometimes, the odds and Tymora are mean. Give me hard, cold numbers. 

Yes, a Triple Empowered Bull's strenght could get you a lot of stats, but this is taking up an 8th level slot. For that level, I could have a Persistant Divine Power that lasts ALL DAY. A fighter's BAB, 18 str, and 15 extra HPs. For that matter, I could have a Quickened Stilled Divine Power. Let's take a look at what we can pull out've our butt, for the sheer Power.

Divine Power: Fighter BAB. +15/+10/+5, plus the 18 STR from Divine Power, making that +19/+14/+9. 
A Rightous Might making that +24/+19/+13.
Divine Favor at +5 making that +29/+24/+18.
A GMW at +5 making that +34/+29/+23.
For what the hey, let's toss a Regular bull's str for +3 str.
Final BAB: +37/+32/+26.
Final Damage: +11 (Str) +5 (GMW) + 5 (Divine Favor) that's +21 damage, from sheer STR, Magical plusses, and a Luck bonus. Not counting any special abilities on your weapon.

Note, that None of this is an 8th level slot. Considering the Craziness that you can do at 15th level, I don't think a Triple Empower is really going to do much worse.

For an 8th slot, I could have an Empowered Blade Barrier. 15d6x1.5, that offers Cover, and at a 15th level, that's 2 and a half Minutes of painful goodness.


----------



## Zhure (Jun 17, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Since a FRA merely requires you not to move more than 5' in a tound, I generally take the Cleave feat between 1st-3rd level for my fighters and combat clerics and use it all the time, in conjunction with 5' steps, nearly doubling the PC's combat ability vs weak foes.  It's actually _more_ useful at low levels where most opponents are short on hp.  Great Cleave has to wait until after Specialisation is taken, so usually not until 6th. *




- A FRA requires you to take no move action. No drawing weapons, etc. A 5'-step isn't a move action. When a low-level character has a BAB of less than 6+, using a FRA eliminates all his good combat options.

- Heck, by that interpretation, using Spring Attack will almost completely eliminate the threat of ever being hit by a cleave attempt.

- Great Cleavers care about using their attacks on low-hit point critters since they can potentially score multiple hits. Cleavers don't care because they're only getting one bonus bing per drop anyway.


----------



## Zhure (Jun 17, 2002)

Empower does tend to be a far better Feat than Maximize.

As a DM, I like Maximize as it speeds up things when running NPC spellcasters. Point and boom spellcasting.

"You take 25 points magic missile damage. The bad guy moves over here." {skittling minis sounds }

"He's hasted, so he Quickens one for {rolling sounds } 17, then Maximizes another one for 25 more."

Greg "Shoulda quickened an Invis instead"


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Larcen said:
			
		

> *Except of course for anything in a (lowly) Silence spell's area of affect.   *




Interesting point, Larcen. Indeed, this is partially true, but I don't know if it's entirely true. For example, Screaming weapons don't inflict their additional damage in an area of Silence. But as for a spell...

Let's see. A 7th level spell (delayed blast fireball) is negated by a 2nd level spell (silence). Something about that really bugs the hell outta me. Makes you wonder why there aren't variants of the Silence spell, like Antiflame, Anticold, Antiacid, or Antilightning. I have a feeling those don't exhist because they'd be pretty powerful, given their low levels, such as Silence. I've got some thinkin' to do about that...


----------



## Zhure (Jun 17, 2002)

... but a +1 metamagic negates most effects of silence on spellcasting (save for "language dependant" and communicating with summoned creatures).

And don't forget a lot of non-verbal spells exist.

Greg


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *... but a +1 metamagic negates most effects of silence on spellcasting (save for "language dependant" and communicating with summoned creatures). *




That's neither here nor there. What bugs me is that a 7th level spell cast by a 20th level Red Wizard of Thay would be completely negated by a 2nd level Silence spell cast by a 3rd level spellcaster. Pretty rediculous, no?


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Interesting point, Larcen. Indeed, this is partially true, but I don't know if it's entirely true. For example, Screaming weapons don't inflict their additional damage in an area of Silence. But as for a spell...
> *




Page 140, Magic of Faerun:



> Screaming weapons *do* inflict this bonus damage within a Silence spell.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Page 140, Magic of Faerun: *




Whoops. I was lookin' at my offline copy of all of the feats, and I apparently made a typo when I gathered them all together. Well, this only further reinforces my belief that a Silence spell ain't blockin' a thing when it comes to a sonic fireball.

Thanks, Xarlen.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's neither here nor there. What bugs me is that a 7th level spell cast by a 20th level Red Wizard of Thay would be completely negated by a 2nd level Silence spell cast by a 3rd level spellcaster. Pretty rediculous, no? *




And a 1st level fighter can grapple him. So?


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, this only further reinforces my belief that a Silence spell ain't blockin' a thing when it comes to a sonic fireball.
> 
> *




Silence doesn't stop the Energy damage. You just can't *hear* it. I think this would negate any 'Deafening' effects. Sonic damage is somewhat akin to 'Vibrations', sort've like a sonic boom. The effect makes the solid surface vibrate so much that it ruptures. Sort've like a blugeoning force from an explosion. That's why things that can't hear can still be damaged, and why objects take full damage from sonic effects.


----------



## Zhure (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's neither here nor there. What bugs me is that a 7th level spell cast by a 20th level Red Wizard of Thay would be completely negated by a 2nd level Silence spell cast by a 3rd level spellcaster. Pretty rediculous, no? *




And a first level commoner can negate a gaze attack by closing his eyes. Grappled wizards can't cast spells with somatic components. There are lots of low-level defenses vs higher level effects, but they are generally very limited. Looking at the Silence spell, it's only a 15' radius, so if it's cast near a wizard, he moves then casts.

Greg


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

Not to mention he can make a double move, or a 30' move and cast (unless he's being engaged in melee).


----------



## S'mon (Jun 17, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *
> 
> - A FRA requires you to take no move action. No drawing weapons, etc. A 5'-step isn't a move action. When a low-level character has a BAB of less than 6+, using a FRA eliminates all his good combat options.
> 
> ...




Cleave is a good combat option.  
Typical case for cleaving - 4th level cleric in battle with a bunch of orcs.  The fight lasts several rounds.  With cleave he often kills 2/round, rather than 1/round without.  5' steps can be used to avoid getting flanked too much.

And of course the main point of spring attack is to avoid letting anyone get FRAs on you.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Silence doesn't stop the Energy damage. You just can't *hear* it. *




That's how I understood it worked.



			
				Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I think this would negate any 'Deafening' effects. *




This part I knew. (I've been hit with sonic deafening as a player) Thanks, Xarlen.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *Looking at the Silence spell, it's only a 15' radius, so if it's cast near a wizard, he moves then casts. *




So, Zhure. Are you saying that a Silence spell would completely negate a sonic delayed blast fireball?


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

No prob, Kyrenolds. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So, Zhure. Are you saying that a Silence spell would completely negate a sonic delayed blast fireball? *




I think he's saying that the fact that there's SILENCE is stopping the wizard from casting a spell with Verbal components, Not a delayed blast sonicball.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I think he's saying that the fact that there's SILENCE is stopping the wizard from casting a spell with Verbal components, Not a delayed blast sonicball. *




Ah. I see now. Well...then that really is neither here nor there.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

Don't burn me in effigy, but I believe a Silence spell around you would protect you from a sonic substituted spell or a destrachan's blast or any of the like, because the spell states that no sound can originate, penetrate, or pass through a silenced area.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Don't burn me in effigy, but I believe a Silence spell around you would protect you from a sonic substituted spell or a destrachan's blast or any of the like, because the spell states that no sound can originate, penetrate, or pass through a silenced area. *




The key, I believe, is *sonic energy*. It's an energy attack form, not simply a sound on the wind. Besides, if a screaming weapon will still deal the extra damage in an area of silence, then all sonic spells still deal their damage. The only thing that a silence spell will protect you from is permanent deafness from a sonic attack, but you still take direct sonic damage if the attack deals such damage.

It's been a while since I thought about this so I'm glad I got to brush back up on it.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

I might be handicaped from only having the core rules and MotP but reading the desciption of Silence I would say that if it's a sonic attack (Based on airpressure and/or air-vibration), Silence will prevent it from working in its area. Sort of like a sonic version of the antimagicfield.

I'm with Jeremy on this one.

My view is based on that what we call sound in the real world is just our registration of (air)pressure.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *I'm with Jeremy on this one. *




OK. But I must say that I'm quite surprised with Jeremy. I mean, here we have a 2nd level spell cast by a 3rd level caster...and it's completely negating a 7th level spell cast by a 20th level caster...and he doesn't see anything wrong with that? Neither do you?

It would be just like having a Silence spell that canceled out all fire, lightning, acid, or cold energy within a 15-foot radius. Like I said, those 2nd level variant spells don't exhist because they'd be quite silly.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

All right, let's look at this logically.

Sonic is an Energy type, just like Fire, Cold, Electricity and Acid. Agreed?

Now, how do we prevent these?

Resistance spells. Endure Elements, Resist Elements, Prot. From Elements, Etc.

Have immunities. 

Now, the listed Spells that hold back the energy damages offer it like so:

5. 12/round. 12/Level. Tome and Blood has the highest spell for this: Energy Immunity, at level 7. Makes you Immune.

Are you telling me that a 2nd level spell is doing the same thing as a 7th level spell, in an Area of Effect? 

Silence prevents things from being Heard. Bard's singing abilities, Harpies' song, Deafening effects. It does not stop an Energy. Even if there is no Sound, there is still the Force that drives it; the sound is simply a byproduct. Sonic is like a Shockwave, which is why it does full damage to Objects, because the shockwaves cause vibrations within the material. Think of a Sonic blast as like... the result of C4. The Power of the explosion (not the fire) is what does damage.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Well. Nobody said that everything a great wizard can do is necessary very damaging


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Are you telling me that a 2nd level spell is doing the same thing as a 7th level spell, in an Area of Effect? *




My point exactly.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

A Protection from Evil also negates a lot of powerfull stuff....

That's why we have Dispel Magic


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

This is sort've like saying 'Since I'm hasted, that wizard's Time Stop doesn't work on me'.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Even if there is no Sound, there is still the Force that drives it; the sound is simply a byproduct. *




The (sound)pressure is damaging but is the magical energies that create this pressure?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *This is sort've like saying 'Since I'm hasted, that wizard's Time Stop doesn't work on me'. *




No it isn't

(Timestop just speeds the caster up)


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Silence prevents things from being Heard. Bard's singing abilities, Harpies' song, Deafening effects. It does not stop an Energy. Even if there is no Sound, there is still the Force that drives it; the sound is simply a byproduct. Sonic is like a Shockwave, which is why it does full damage to Objects, because the shockwaves cause vibrations within the material. Think of a Sonic blast as like... the result of C4. The Power of the explosion (not the fire) is what does damage. *




Your interpretation of how this is works does not seem to be correct. 

_Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object.The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use SR, if any. Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive saves and SR, and unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell
provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks, such as command, harpy song, a horn of blasting, etc._

Your interpretation is that it effects the auditory reception of each individual within the area of effect. This would be vastly over powered. Where in fact the spell stop sound dead. No sound means no shock wave. The spell is Sonic damage not force damage. [edit]

Fire balls emit no pressure.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

The shatter spell doesn't mention that it's unable to be used in a Silence spell.

All right, let me look at your arguement. 

You say that a Silence spell negates a Sonic energy attack. 

Now, you could say that the Sound is doing the damage to the target, then someone immune to Deafening effects takes no damage, right? SInce they can't Hear it, then they take no damage. Like undead. So, undead are immune to sonic damage

If you say that no, just because something can't Hear it doesn't mean it's not damaged... Well, all the Silence spell does is basicly drown out all sound. So, wouldn't you say the energy that does the damage is still there, just not heard?


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells.

So, are you telling me that a sonic spell doesn't work, BUT an energy type weapon Does?


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *The shatter spell doesn't mention that it's unable to be used in a Silence spell.
> 
> All right, let me look at your arguement.
> 
> ...




_"This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks"_

and again I say...

*Your interpretation is that it effects the auditory reception of each individual within the area of effect. This would be vastly over powered. Where in fact the spell stop sound dead. No sound means no shock wave. The spell is Sonic damage not force damage. *


----------



## Darklone (Jun 17, 2002)

Since that thread was highjacked, I started a new one.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *The shatter spell doesn't mention that it's unable to be used in a Silence spell.
> 
> All right, let me look at your arguement.
> 
> ...




No. Just because you can't registre the pressure doesn't mean that it isn't there. Deafness has nothing to do with it. Deafness will only protect you against recieving information (Suggestion etc.). Silence prevent the pressure all together.

That's how I see it.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

It's hearing the sound that causes the damage, it's the energy in the sound wave.  I don't think it matters whether or not you can hear something to suffer sonic damage (glass doesn't shatter because it heard the noise), but because of the actual sound wave.

So, if silence blocks the sound wave, then I would say it stops sonic damage.  If it just prevents you from hearing (which isn't enough to stop spellcasting in my opinion), then yeah, I'd say you'd still suffer damage.

IceBear


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

And so I say again: I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Now, you could say that the Sound is doing the damage to the target, then someone immune to Deafening effects takes no damage, right? SInce they can't Hear it, then they take no damage. Like undead. So, undead are immune to sonic damage
> *




Nope you're saying that,. I'm just reading the spell. I think they do take damage because there is nothing to say that they don't. Unlike the silence spell discription.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *And so I say again: I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells. *




I don't have MoF.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Nope you're saying that,. I'm just reading the spell. I think they do take damage because there is nothing to say that they don't. Unlike the silence spell discription. *




I said 'Could' for a reason.


----------



## Darklone (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *And so I say again: I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells. *




Honestly: I don't care much about Faerun stuff. It's too good for powergaming.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells.
> 
> So, are you telling me that a sonic spell doesn't work, BUT an energy type weapon Does? *




Well, if that's the case then I guess that's how it works, but it doesn't make sense.

If silence spells just keep you from hearing stuff then I don't see why it stops you from casting spells 100% of the time, when deafness only stops you 20% of the time.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I point to page 140 of Magic of Faerun. It says that Screaming weapons do work in Silence spells.
> 
> So, are you telling me that a sonic spell doesn't work, BUT an energy type weapon Does? *




I'm not telling you anything about that weapon. I'm just explaining the silience spell. If that weapon works dispite the Silence spell, then cool, such are the rules.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

Icebear said:
			
		

> *If silence spells just keep you from hearing stuff then I don't see why it stops you from casting spells 100% of the time, when deafness only stops you 20% of the time.
> *




That I Can't answer. You have a point, but there's no clarification in the rules.

At this point, I'm going to tag Kreynolds.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

All I'm saying is I don't see any point why the energy off a Weapon works, but the energy from a Spell (The Same energy type) does not work.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

I just see the MoF entry as being incorrect as it's not a core book and it just doesn't make logical sense.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

The weapon is an oddity to be sure. How it works is beyond me, but it does, the text is cut & dry making it an exception to the rule. The spell description is also clear in regards to sonic damage.

_This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks_


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I just see the MoF entry as being incorrect as it's not a core book and it just doesn't make logical sense.
> *




Neither are the splatbooks, but they represent the 'Core' in the sense that WotC puts them out, and supports them. Splatbooks reprent feats, put errata, clarifications, etc, which is how things work. The FR stuff is the same way that, the same people work on it (Sans Monte, of course), WotC endorses it, so why isn't it accepted as rules?


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

You're misunderstanding me

I'm not saying they aren't rules, but they didn't get the same amount of treatment as the core books did and thus they are more suspect to errors, that's all I meant.

There are things in the PHB and DMG that haven't been errata'ed yet so I suspect that MoF is even a lower priority.

If push came to shove, I would have to go with the MoF statement (as it is a black and white statement), but I am of the opinion that a silence spell actually stops the sound wave and thus I find it easier to take the MoF entry as a mistake than to accept it as otherwise when the Silence spell implies it would stop sonic damage.

Whether you can hear or not doesn't affect sonic damage, in my opinion.  Since Silence is like Invisibility (basing this on Sean's rant) I wouldn't think that it works by preventing people from hearing things but rather by surpressing the sound waves.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Ice bear you took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 17, 2002)

Silence is an illusion in 3e, keep that in mind when talking about it "stopping" anything.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

So is invisibility, but it doesn't work by influencing your mind.

Edit:

Hmmmm - maybe I'm wrong.

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Thus, a silence spell (which is a glamer) would make the sound in an area *seem* to disappear.

Yes, this really needs clarification as some sound based spells fail in silence and others work.

IceBear


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

the Jester said:
			
		

> *Silence is an illusion in 3e, keep that in mind when talking about it "stopping" anything. *




Good point. Missed that. 

Ahh well. Maybe I should just stop trying to try and use logic when it comes to magic in D&D. Nah. I'll just rule 0 the school  from [illusion] to [Abjuration]


----------



## Zhure (Jun 17, 2002)

Instead of comparing Silence to Protection spells, compare it to an Antimagic Field. It's 6th level, forms an area that completely impedes all spells, of all elements both going in and out.

Silence is a 2nd level spell that does the same but only affects Sonic spells and spells being cast outward, from within it.

It might be a bit overpowered at 2nd level, but not terribly so, especially since it's mostly a Bard/Cleric spell.

Greg


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good point. Missed that.
> 
> Ahh well. Maybe I should just stop trying to try and use logic when it comes to magic in D&D. Nah. I'll just rule 0 the school  from [illusion] to [Abjuration]  *




But it doesn't matter, it's an illusion spell that affects sound, not your hearing.  Reread the Glamer entry from the SRD:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Subject in this case is not a person, it's the sound in the area.  It says it makes it sound like something else, not that you hear something else.  Invisibility is also a glamer, but if you argued that it worked because a creature's vision was effected then it would be subject to SR, and what about creatures whose mind can't be affected, etc.  A Silence spell simply nullifies all sound in the area of effect, and since sonic spells cause damage by sound waves, the logical conculsion is that the spell would stop the damage.

IceBear


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

So if it's just an illusion that makes you deaf and dumb. Then a Horn of Blasting would affect you. (In the description in the DMG p 219 you can see that it damages material things (Like stonewalls)through an ultrasonic wave) And other things in the spelldesciption would also be wrong: It wouldn't actually stop sound from entering or leaving the area.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But it doesn't matter, it's an illusion spell that affects sound, not your hearing.  Reread the Glamer entry from the SRD:
> 
> ...





My point exactly. This is about the same as the afore note Sean K. Reynolds rant about Invisibillity.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *At this point, I'm going to tag Kreynolds.  *




Well, I guess I'm it then. 

None of this matters. The bottom line is that you can't get the results of a 7th level spell out of a pissy little 2nd level spell without throwing caution, logic, and playbalance to the wind. So, quite obviously, Silence does not negate a sonicball.

I don't care about bending lightwaves or twisting soundwaves or tying up spaghetti ultraviolet noodles. I just care about the rules. It would be pretty damn silly for a 2nd level spell to duplicate a 7th level spell while also having it's own unique function, and not a single one of you in your right mind could deny that. Since I don't believe that every single designer at WotC is a complete idiot, I can only come to the assumption that Silence doesn't negate sonic damage, that it wasn't ever meant too, and that the rules don't even suggest such a thing.

Of course, that's the my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *So if it's just an illusion that makes you deaf and dumb. Then a Horn of Blasting would affect you. (In the description in the DMG p 219 you can see that it damages material things (Like stonewalls)through an ultrasonic wave) And other things in the spelldesciption would also be wrong: It wouldn't actually stop sound from entering or leaving the area. *




Wrong...

_Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object.The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use SR, if any. Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive saves and SR, and unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell
provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks, such as command, harpy song, a horn of blasting, etc._

Horn of blasting has been used as an example of what it stops.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Subject in this case is not a person, it's the sound in the area.
> IceBear *




I think that's stretching the definition of a "subject" a little to far. Illusions are mindaltering. I wouldn't say that a sound have a mind.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *A Silence spell simply nullifies all sound in the area of effect, and since sonic spells cause damage by sound waves, the logical conculsion is that the spell would stop the damage. *




No. The logical conclusion would be that a 2nd level spell does not in fact grant you the same crap given by a 7th level spell, immunity to an energy type, and not just you, but a whole 15-foot radius. So, the only logical conclusion is that you're wrong.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think that's stretching the definition of a "subject" a little to far. Illusions are mindaltering. I wouldn't say that a sound have a mind. *




Go talk to Sean Reynolds and his Rant on Invisibility 

I'm sorry, but that *IS* what it's doing.  Invisibility is also an illusion and it is a glamer.  But it doesn't make you invisible because it affects your mind - that's been proven in Sean's rant.

And the word "subject" in the glamer refers to the sound being affected.

IceBear


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wrong...
> 
> ...




I'm arguing why having Silence belonging to the school of illusions is wrong.  



> _Originally posted by the Jester_
> Silence is an illusion in 3e, keep that in mind when talking about it "stopping" anything.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. The logical conclusion would be that a 2nd level spell does not in fact grant you the same crap given by a 7th level spell, immunity to an energy type, and not just you, but a whole 15-foot radius. So, the only logical conclusion is that you're wrong.  *




Who gives a royal, flying buffalo about a 7th level spell being duplicated by a 2nd level spell.  I'd have no issue with this is using energy substitution [sonic] increased the spell level by 3 levels.

The fact that next to nothing is immune to sonic based spells and a wizard can just switch everything to sonic is unbalanced to me.

A silence spell stops sound.  It doesn't stop you from hearing sound, it simply stops sound.  Sonic is a sound based attack.  I'm sorry but that's as simple as it gets for me.

I wish that sonic wasn't a choice in energy substitution and then I wouldn't care.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *...I can only come to the assumption that Silence doesn't negate sonic damage, that it wasn't ever meant too, and that the rules don't even suggest such a thing.*




What do you propose the spell dose Vs. Sonic spells? The spell says that it provides "defence vs Sonic", as well as _"All sound is stopped"_ & _"no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area."_. With out sound there is no Sonic damage. Unless the spells discriptor is Force or something other then Sonic, the damage is nil.

Yes it is a low level spell, however it only affects Sonic's, & only a few classes can use it.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

> *
> ...This spell provides a defense against sonic attacks, such as a horn of blasting...*




If it stops a horn of blasting or a destrachan blast, I'd say it stops a sonic ball.

For game balance equivalent I'd say that silence isn't prepared often due to lack of sonic attacks, but if it were readied against a foe you are prepared against, it'd effectively be a really limited in application anti-magic field.

Of course, you can't retaliate (or at least you are limited to spells without V components), but I'd say it's a fair use of the spell.

Gives second thoughts to the energy substitution sonic people who bypass everything's resistances.

As to Screaming weapons, I have no earthly idea why it says that.  Maybe they meant it that way, maybe they meant to say it doesn't work in a silenced area.  Who knows?

I just thought from the strong verbage in the Silence spell that it'd stop sound and sonic attacks like horns of blasting or sonic balls or great shouts.  I could be wrong...


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger, read Sean Reynold's rant on invisibility here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html

Then remember that both it and Silence are glamers, and remember that it affects an area, not specifically a creature (it just moves with a creature if it's targetted on it).

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm arguing why having Silence belonging to the school of illusions is wrong.
> 
> *



oops, sorry man


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Go talk to Sean Reynolds and his Rant on Invisibility
> 
> ...




Well but I'm just saying that there should be a difference between making something seem like something else and then making something something else.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *Yes it is a low level spell, however it only affects Sonic's, & only a few classes can use it. *




Once again, that's a pretty poor arguement. Sure, it's only a low level spell and it only effects sonic energy. What the heck do you think the 7th level spell does!? It stops, guess what...*1 kind of energy*. Don't you get it? What you and IceBear are proposing is that a 2nd level spell duplicates the effects of a 7th level spell, providing everything within a 15-foot radius complete, total, and absolute immunity to all Sonic energy attacks, and even better still, it completely prevents the casting of all spells that require verbal components.

There's something terribly wrong with that.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Once again, that's a pretty poor arguement. Sure, it's only a low level spell and it only effects sonic energy. What the heck do you think the 7th level spell does!? It stops, guess what...1 kind of energy. Don't you get it? What you and IceBear are proposing is that a 2nd level spell duplicates the effects of a 7th level spell, providing everything within a 15-foot radius complete, total, and absolute immunity to all Sonic energy attacks, and even better still, it completely prevents the casting of all spells that require verbal components.
> 
> There's something terribly wrong with that. *




What 7th level spell are you speaking of? (excuse my ignorance please)


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well but I'm just saying that there should be a difference between making something seem like something else and then making something something else. *




I agree with you there, but without further rules I don't know what that is.  There doesn't seem to be anything different about being invisible and seeming to be invisible so I take that term just to mean that it's not permanently changed.  Also, because they are talking in generalities here, if you made a sword shaped like club, it's still a sword and thus would still cut you if you touched it - I think that's why they say seem.

IceBear


----------



## S'mon (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Once again, that's a pretty poor arguement. Sure, it's only a low level spell and it only effects sonic energy. What the heck do you think the 7th level spell does!? It stops, guess what...1 kind of energy. Don't you get it? What you and IceBear are proposing is that a 2nd level spell duplicates the effects of a 7th level spell, providing everything within a 15-foot radius complete, total, and absolute immunity to all Sonic energy attacks, and even better still, it completely prevents the casting of all spells that require verbal components.
> 
> There's something terribly wrong with that. *




No there isn't.  

Anti-magic shell protects from all magic, but prevents the use of all magic.

Silence protects from all sound, but prevents the use of all sound.

A spell that protects from an attack formm but _still allows_ you to use that attack form is a lot more powerful.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

The one thing that isn't being said here, is sure, maybe Silence does nerf a sonicball better than a second level spell could nerf a fireball, but you know what:

1) The original spell was a fireball, don't use energy substitution on it if you think they will counter with silence.

2) Not everyone is going to have silence, and if they do, casting silence upon themselves actually hinders them too.  So sure, it might protect them from the sonicball, but now the spellcasters have to move out of the area of effect to cast their own spells.  I'm fine with that.

IceBear


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

And by the way kreynolds, what I'm saying here is only my opinion and is my house rule if you will.  I don't know of any offical ruling saying that I'm right, so lacking that then I have to assume that it doesn't stop it.

All I'm saying is that by my understanding of the spells and how sound works it's how it *should* work in my mind.

This is much like the TS vs Mindblank thing.  By the actual reading of the spells I say that it should work.  However, that opened a bad can of worms so I'm ok with not allowing it just because of the problems.

The same here....I'm not currently convinced (in MY games) that this would be unbalancing and thus I go with what makes sense from a mechanics point of view.  If I find that it *is* unbalancing, then I would stop using it.  But right now, if they cast silence on an enemy spellcaster, then he can just step outside the area of effect and cast at them.  The only way to be sure it will block the sonic damage is to cast it on themselves which then has the consequences of making their own lives more difficult.

IceBear


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Bonedagger, read Sean Reynold's rant on invisibility here:
> 
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link... Hmm. I can remember 2 Ed. when very high Int could make you immune to illusions.... 

Deleted.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *2) Not everyone is going to have silence, and if they do, casting silence upon themselves actually hinders them too.  So sure, it might protect them from the sonicball, but now the spellcasters have to move out of the area of effect to cast their own spells.  I'm fine with that. *




That's a very good point, but I'm not quite convinced yet.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *This is much like the TS vs Mindblank thing. *




Yeah, I remember how that one turned out too.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

K.R. again I ask...
What 7th level spell are you speaking of? (excuse my ignorance please)


Antimagic Field? (it's only 6th lvl)


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *What do you propose the spell dose Vs. Sonic spells? The spell says that it provides "defence vs Sonic", as well as "All sound is stopped" & "no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area.". With out sound there is no Sonic damage. Unless the spells discriptor is Force or something other then Sonic, the damage is nil.*




KR, I never did get an R.S.V.P. about this. What do you say?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *No there isn't. *




Yes there is.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Anti-magic shell protects from all magic, but prevents the use of all magic. *




Yup, but that spell is pretty clear.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Silence protects from all sound, but prevents the use of all sound. *




Evident by the fact that the spell description even states that it prevents casting of spells that require verbal components.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *A spell that protects from an attack formm but _still allows_ you to use that attack form is a lot more powerful. *




I agree. But we aren't talking about a wizard making himself immune to sonic energy and allowing him to hurl sonicballs out of the field. We are talking about a 3rd level wizard negating a much higher level spell cast from even a 20th level wizard. It just makes Silence seem too overpowered, and the way I always understood areas of magical silence functioned was this: Elemental energy sonic attacks still hurt like hell, but the silenced area cancels out any secondary effects, such as deafness, etc.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, I remember how that one turned out too.   *




I'm sorry....I'm not arguing for who's right or who's wrong, so don't go there.  I'm just saying that if I had a wizard in my group that kept casting sonicballs, I'd have a major issue.  Now, if sonic substitution added some levels I wouldn't have an issue, but it doesn't.  Seeing how silence works in 3E, the "mechanics" seems to say that sound would be countered.  Without saying "it's magic" I don't know how the silence spell stops sound but allows the vibrations to still kill you as the actual sound travels along those vibrations. 

I still believe that Mind Blank would stop Truestrike for exactly the same reason that Monte said.  I also think that that is too powerful so I'm fine with going with the Sage in that case.  The "mechanics" of the spells are overriden by what's best for the game.  If there is an official ruling here that silence doesn't cancel the sound waves when it cancels the sound (because it's magic) I can go along with that but I won't like it much.

IceBear


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

Wizards can cast Silence?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *K.R. again I ask...
> What 7th level spell are you speaking of? (excuse my ignorance please) *




Energy Immunity, page 88, T&B.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Wizards can cast Silence? *




No


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry....I'm not arguing for who's right or who's wrong, so don't go there. *




No, no, no. That's not what I meant by that.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *Wizards can cast Silence? *




No. Typo on my part.  But it doesn't matter. The point is the same.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *KR, I never did get an R.S.V.P. about this. What do you say? *




I already answered. Look up a few posts.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Energy Immunity, page 88, T&B. *




1. many people (but not me) would snicker because...
"it's a splat book and doesn't really count."
(This is not my view point, just one that I've noted on this board)

2. That spell allows you to cast, & lasts for 24 hours. It's god like in comparison to silience.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *2. That spell allows you to cast, & lasts for 24 hours. It's god like in comparison to silience. *




Actually, it's not that powerful. Energy immunity, if chosen to protect you from Sonic attacks, does not render you immune to secondary effects, such as deafening, only the main damage is stopped.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I already answered. Look up a few posts. *




My point is what do you think they mean by, _"provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks"_, & the whole stopping sound thing. Are you saying that the Sonic discriptor is really a code word for [sonic/force]?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

I don't agree with Sean Reynold on the illusion part. 

Invisibility can be detected by a secondlevel spell, Can be detected by a spot check only fools the visual senses and none of the examples he mentioned would be fooled by invisibility (It's very unlikely that is).

I would say that it is as said in the Corerules. It affects senses through some magic in place.

Sorry to hijack the hijack


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Then if you walked into a room with creatures that were immune to mind affecting spells, they would automatically see you?

If you cast invisibilty when surrounded by 100 creatures with SR, you'd have to roll for SR for each of them to see whether or not you affected their minds.

Again, read the glamer entry - it affects the sensory characteristics of something.  In the case of invisibility, it affects light reflecting off of you.  In the case of silence, it affects sound in the area of effect.

I too had issues with these spells being illusions at first, but as you can see glamers are mind effecting spells.

IceBear


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *My point is what do you think they mean by, "provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks", & the whole stopping sound thing. *




I think the it means that the spell stops all sonic-based effects, such as deafness and stunning, but I don't think it stops raw sonic damage.



			
				Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *Are you saying that the Sonic discriptor is really a code word for [sonic/force]? *




No. I'm saying that I think allowing Silence to block all sonic damage is too powerful.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

I don't simply because there are so few spells that cause sonic damage, and because to use it to protect yourself with can cause more trouble than it's worth.  If you use energy substitution, switch to a different energy type.

I admit that there isn't a 2nd level spell that would protect so well against another element, but there are enough creatures immune to the other elements that this helps offset.  There needs to be some penalty with using sonic spells (other than the entire dungeon hearing you of course).

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I think the it means that the spell stops all sonic-based effects, such as deafness and stunning, but I don't think it stops raw sonic damage.*




How is Sonic damage caused then if not by Sonic's? Force, Fire, Water, ect? If the damage is caused by different type of energy then it would cause damage. But in the example of a sonic - fire ball, the source of the damage would be sound (sonic), which would/could not exist in the area of effect of the silience spell.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

I didn't realize Kyrenolds was still arguing over here. I would've stuck around longer.  I was over at the other thread. 

Anyways, here's a point that hasn't been desputed: Here's something else. Look at the Silence spell. It says sonic attacks. It gives spesific mention of the Horn of blasting.

From the SRD: 




> This horn appears to be a normal trumpet. It can be sounded as a normal horn, but if the command word is spoken and the instrument is then played, it has the following effects, both of which happen at once:
> 
> A 100-foot cone of sound issues forth from the horn. All within this area must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 16). Those who succeed are stunned for 1 round and deafened for 2 rounds. Those failing the saving throw take 1d10 points of damage, are stunned for 2 rounds, and are deafened for 4 rounds.
> An ultrasonic wave 1 foot wide and 100 feet long issues from the horn. The wave weakens such materials as metal, stone, and wood. This effect deals 1d10 points of damage to objects within the area, ignoring their hardness.
> If a horn of blasting is used magically more than once in a given day, there is a 10% cumulative chance with each extra use that it explodes and deals 5d10 points of damage to the person sounding it.





Nowhere does it mention Sonic Damage. It says Damage. But it doesn't give a descripter of Sonic Damage. The base spell that is used to create it, Shout, does not give a Sonic Damage descriptor.

Look at Fireball, Cone of Cold, Lightning Bolt, etc. They all say they do Fire, Cold, Electricity damage. Shout does not Spesify what the damage is.

The spell prevents Sound attacks. Bardic abilities, harpy cries, they all require the person to Hear the attack, just like a Language comprehension spell.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

And yet the effects of a horn of blasting are negated by silence.  Specifically.

This only further reinforces that if the attack is sound based, and you can have no sound in the area, then the attack doesn't work.

If no fire can function in a specially warded area, then a fireball will do no damage.  If no sound can function in a specially warded area then a great shout will do no damage.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *And yet the effects of a horn of blasting are negated by silence.  Specifically.
> 
> This only further reinforces that if the attack is sound based, and you can have no sound in the area, then the attack doesn't work.
> 
> If no fire can function in a specially warded area, then a fireball will do no damage.  If no sound can function in a specially warded area then a great shout will do no damage. *




I don't see how that furthers your arguement. My point is that it doesn't say sonic damage. It says sound. Then it just says damage. 

Besides, the spell says 'Sonic Attacks'. Is an Energy type an attack?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Then if you walked into a room with creatures that were immune to mind affecting spells, they would automatically see you?
> 
> If you cast invisibilty when surrounded by 100 creatures with SR, you'd have to roll for SR for each of them to see whether or not you affected their minds.
> 
> ...




I do see your point 

Actually I normally call invisibility "bending of lightwaves". Sorry. Got carried away. I used to work with the concept of simple  illusions not being subject to SR (Bending of lightwaves sounds so none-illusionary ). Must have gotten it mixed up.

I must be tirred.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

A fireball is an energy [fire] attack, so yes.  I'd say energy is an attack.

Furthermore, I'd say a sonic fireball is an energy [sonic] attack and is thus disqualified from causing damage in the radius of a silence spell as a sound based attack.

No?

EDIT: Clarified (or over complicated) second assertion.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

But I don't see how sonic damage (a wave compression of the medium) can still occur if sound (a wave compression of the medium) is surpressed.  To me they are one and the same.  Now, if sonic damage is 50% sound and 50% force, that's different.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't see how that furthers your arguement. My point is that it doesn't say sonic damage. It says sound. Then it just says damage. *




But what He's getting at is the example of a weapon that causes damage by using "sound" is useless Vs Silience. 

[Sonics] is a discriptor for "sounds", regardless of the fact that it isn't used in this case of the horn. They are both the same type of energy.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 17, 2002)

And Silence is definately the best spell to maximize.  

(Sorry, we are well over 200 replies now to this thread and the title of the thread struck me as humorous.)


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *But what He's getting at is the example of a weapon that causes damage by using "sound" is useless Vs Silience. *




But sonic weapons, such as Screaming weapons, are not useless within an area effected by Silence. In fact, they still inflict their bonus damage.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

So basically:

    Silence negate)

Normal sound: Yes

"Forcefull pressurewaves"?: Yes (As per description of _Horn of Blasting_)

Sonic energy?: If it is pressurewaves then yes. If it is energy where sound is a secondary effect then no (But why then sonic energy?)


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *But sonic weapons, such as Screaming weapons, are not useless within an area effected by Silence. In fact, they still inflict their bonus damage. *




Not all sonic weapons. Why are you using a reference to a weapon that has already been agreed upon as an Anomaly to the rules?

Shout is a better example, a spell with a [sonic] descriptor that causes damage. _"The shout spell cannot penetrate the spell silence."_


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *Sonic energy?: If it is pressurewaves then yes. If it is energy where sound is a secondary effect then no (But why then sonic energy?) *




Me start thinking sonic energy bad idea in first place.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

I liked Caliban's interepation on sonic weapons working.  Sound waves require a medium to transmit their energy and the silence is stopping it from moving through the air.  However, the weapon itself would probably be vibrating and that would be the cause of the extra damage (like Vibroswords out of Shadowrun) 

IceBear


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *Why are you using a reference to a weapon that has already been agreed upon as an Anomaly to the rules?" *




You referrenced it in the first place. Look...



			
				Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *But what He's getting at is the example of a weapon that causes damage by using "sound" is useless Vs Silience. *




Emphasis is mine.



			
				Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *Shout is a better example, a spell with a [sonic] descriptor that causes damage. "The shout spell cannot penetrate the spell silence." *




Shout might be a better example, but shout is a spell, not a weapon. You said weapon, not spell.


----------



## IceBear (Jun 17, 2002)

See my vibrosword post above.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *You referrenced it in the first place. Look...
> *




I mean your referrence to the Screaming weapon from the FRCS. My spell example was to illustrate the [sonic] discriptor being countered by the silience spell


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I liked Caliban's interepation on sonic weapons working.  Sound waves require a medium to transmit their energy and the silence is stopping it from moving through the air.  However, the weapon itself would probably be vibrating and that would be the cause of the extra damage (like Vibroswords out of Shadowrun)
> 
> IceBear *




I can agree with this. The weapon says that it's not effected by silience.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 17, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I mean your referrence to the Screaming weapon from the FRCS. My spell example was to illustrate the [sonic] discriptor being countered by the silience spell *




as it had come into question that the [sonic] discriptor wouldn't be stopped by the silience spell. Not in referrence to the weapon. 

Crap I think I've just confused myself...


----------



## Jalon Odessa (Jun 18, 2002)

Just a couple of quick questions for those of you interpreting Silence to prevent sonic damage (the logical conclusion of which being that 'sound' and 'sonic damage' are interchangeable) - 

- Would casting Protection from Elements[Sonic] on a character render them deaf?

- Given that your interpretation effectively transforms Silence into 'Negate Sonics in a 15 Foot Radius', would you allow energy substitution (or a researched spell) to create 'Negate Electricity in a 15 Foot Radius', or 'Negate Cold in a 15 Foot Radius', at second level?  

[/devil's advocate]

(Negate cold - I like that concept.  Remember kids:  D&D physics is wonky, especially when magic enters the equation.  Using real-world physics to explain invisibilty or silence gives inadequate results.)

Another question - if I cast invisibility on a door, could I see what was on the other side?  

(No, please, don't answer that - I'm not ready for another thousand post-long thread....)


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

Jalon Odessa said:
			
		

> *Just a couple of quick questions for those of you interpreting Silence to prevent sonic damage (the logical conclusion of which being that 'sound' and 'sonic damage' are interchangeable) -
> 
> - Would casting Protection from Elements[Sonic] on a character render them deaf?
> *




Of course not.   It only protects against damage, it doesn't prevent you from feeling it.   Protection from elements (Fire) doesn't prevent you from noticing fire or heat, it just prevents you from taking damage from them. 

Protection from elements (cold) won't prevent snow from accumulating on you if you stand still in a blizzard, but it will allow you to be completely covered by snow while naked without taking any cold damage.

*



			- Given that your interpretation effectively transforms Silence into 'Negate Sonics in a 15 Foot Radius', would you allow energy substitution (or a researched spell) to create 'Negate Electricity in a 15 Foot Radius', or 'Negate Cold in a 15 Foot Radius', at second level?
		
Click to expand...


*
The Silence spell doesn't have an energy discriptor, so energy substitution wouldn't work. 

I could see researched versions of the other spells, but they would need to be at least 3rd or 4th level, because they don't have the obvious drawbacks that Silence does.  (It is hard to see how they would affect your spellcasting, so it would be much easier to cast them on yourself and still cast spells.)   

*



			Another question - if I cast invisibility on a door, could I see what was on the other side?  

Click to expand...


*
If you could cast invisibility on a door, then yes.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 18, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree. But we aren't talking about a wizard making himself immune to sonic energy and allowing him to hurl sonicballs out of the field. We are talking about a 3rd level wizard negating a much higher level spell cast from even a 20th level wizard. It just makes Silence seem too overpowered, and the way I always understood areas of magical silence functioned was this: Elemental energy sonic attacks still hurt like hell, but the silenced area cancels out any secondary effects, such as deafness, etc. *




We can agree to disagree, K - BTW I appreciate that you are polite to people you disagree with, unlike others I could mention. 

Energy-substitution sonicballs haven't come up in my game yet, but when they do, after reading this thread I've decided that Silence will protect against them (and against Screaming weapons) in my game.  Back in 1e I always loved the trick of casting silence 15' radius on a stone and throwing it into the enemy spellcaster's Globe of Invulnerability, forcing them to leave the globe or be unable to cast spells (as the globe only prevents spell effects ingressing from outside).  I like the idea that sometimes simple spells and strategies can defeat high-powered magic, very Leiberesque.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 18, 2002)

And since invisibility can be cast on objects, it seems legal.  Though of course, anyone on the other side will also see you.  I wonder if you opewned the door hard and slammed it into someone, if that would count as the door attacking.

Actually..this could be fun.  you are running from an ogre.  you close the door, turn it invisible and watch the orge run face first into it.


----------



## Jalon Odessa (Jun 18, 2002)

Sorry, the invisibility/door thing was a joke.

The last time that question was asked on rgfd, the resulting thread was enormous - which was especially amusing, given the seemingly obvious answer.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 18, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *BTW I appreciate that you are polite to people you disagree with *




That isn't always the case, so don't give me any more credit than I deserve, and when it comes to whether or not I'm polite, I'm afraid I shift from one to the other far too often to deserve any credit at all. I appreciate the gesture though.


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That isn't always the case, so don't give me any more credit than I deserve, and when it comes to whether or not I'm polite, I'm afraid I shift from one to the other far too often to deserve any credit at all. I appreciate the gesture though.  *




You can have the angry hat back now, K. I'm done with it.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

What can I say? I concede defeat. 



> Howdy Skip,
> 
> Would a Silence spell negate the damage caused by a Sonicball (Energy Substituted Fireball), if the Sonicball was detonated within the area effected by the Silence spell? I'd say no, but not 100% sure.
> 
> ...


----------



## IceBear (Jun 19, 2002)

Yeah for my team 

I do see your points kreynolds, and if balance becomes an issue (which I don't think it will in *my* campaign) then I might rule against it.

Right now I'm too busy playing NWN.  Got my first online DM session tonight.

IceBear


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 19, 2002)

yippy! 

>Magic Rub waves a little (very little) team Ice Bear flag<


----------



## IceBear (Jun 19, 2002)

Well, I think it was Magic Rub and Darklore who founded the team....I'm just a member 

IceBear


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I'm just a member  *




Oh, you're a *member* alright! IYKWIM, AITYD.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 19, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Well, I think it was Magic Rub and Darklore who founded the team....I'm just a member
> 
> IceBear *





Hee hee "Member"


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 19, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, you're a member alright! IYKWIM, AITYD.   *




Is there some type of on line dictionary I don't know of that will translate all this web speak stuff. GDAIEC, IWSWCMI


----------



## RogueJK (Jun 19, 2002)

IYKWIM, AITYD = If you know what I mean, and I think you do.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 19, 2002)

RogueJK said:
			
		

> *IYKWIM, AITYD = If you know what I mean, and I think you do. *




I knew that. I did actually want to know if there was an online dictionary of web speak. But thank you for the translation all the same.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

Magic Rub said:
			
		

> *I knew that. I did actually want to know if there was an online dictionary of web speak. But thank you for the translation all the same. *




There's a dictionary of stuff like this on WotC's boards, but I can't get to them right now. I think they're havin' some trouble.

EDIT: Ah. Here it is.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 20, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There's a dictionary of stuff like this on WotC's boards, but I can't get to them right now. I think they're havin' some trouble.
> 
> EDIT: Ah. Here it is. *




Thanks


----------



## IceBear (Jun 20, 2002)

Hey, that's Mr. Member to you 

Anyway...completely offtopic, but have you guys tried NWN yet?  Man, that thing is awesome...ran a quick online adventure last night and the only issues were with my newbie-ness with the application.

IceBear


----------



## hong (Jun 21, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Anyway...completely offtopic, but have you guys tried NWN yet?  Man, that thing is awesome...*




*Lalala I can't hear you*


Hong "st00pid Austrian release dates" Ooi


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 21, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Hey, that's Mr. Member to you  *




Alright. Mr. Member, it is. 

By the way...has anyone noticed Caliban has started putting his name at the bottom of his posts?

...Russ Stanley...

Is it just me or does that sound like a stage name from a skin flick. Ah well. I guess it just goes to show that you never really know someone. Just pokin' Cal...I mean, Russ.


----------



## Magic Rub (Jun 21, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Alright. Mr. Member, it is. *




...Mr. Member <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

ect. ect. ect.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *By the way...has anyone noticed Caliban has started putting his name at the bottom of his posts?
> ...Russ Stanley...
> Is it just me or does that sound like a stage name from a skin flick. Ah well. I guess it just goes to show that you never really know someone. Just pokin' Cal...I mean, Russ.  *




...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

...titters <Magic Rub titters like a little Girl>

Oh wait... Russ Stanley...   skin flick?

LMAO


----------

