There is a long-standing misunderstanding among many 3.5E gamers with regards to the interaction of multiple applications of metamagic to a spell. This misunderstanding is typically stated as "metamagic feats can only be applied to the base spell." The arguments of these misguided gamers are twofold:
What the Rules Actually Say
The rules are quite clear as to the general rule for the interaction of metamagic feats applied to a spell, as stated here:
SRD wrote:
), was overpowered, quite the contrary in fact. I also believed that the higher a spell is metamagicked with multiple feat uses, the more underpowered it is and should scale at some point. You, however, have managed to prove even this entirely wrong, and now I know that in fact metamagic is as balanced as can be and should just be left alone as a solid optional system.Thanks.
An additional balancing factor for Repeated spells veruses Maximized spells is that, even though the repeaters seem to have higher damage potential, and enemy might just get out of the way before the second one hits.
For the cost of a 9th-level spell slot, Mr. Sorcerer can cast the following spells:
Empowered Maximized Cone of Cold: 116 average damage to targets in 60' cone, 135hp max damage
Repeated Empowered Cone of Cold: 158hp average damage to targets in 60' cone (79hp in first round), 270hp max damage (135hp in first round)
Those are both 10th level spell slots, not 9th. So Mr. Sorcerer cannot cast said spells until epic level thus invalidating that particular portion of your analysis. Again, just nit-picking.
I hope everyone gets a chance to read this article so this "debate" can cease to plague our community.
- I'd just assumed that metamagic wouldn't stack, based on the maximize thing, as well as having heard that it worked that way. However, thinking about it, there's really no reason that it shouldn't fully stack - and it makes things a lot less complicated too.And, come to think of it, there's another argument for full stacking, even for spells that can't be numerically compared. A metamagiced spell should be equal in power to a spell of the new level - and since the feats are balanced for the highest powered scenario (Persistent at +6, for instance), the metamagiced spells are sometimes weak for their level. So, for example, Twin Lightning Bolt should be a valid 7th level spell:
Hands of Thunder
Evocation [Electricity]
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Area: Two 120' lines.
As lightning bolt, except as above - two bolts of lightning shoot out, one from each hand.
And if this new spell was Empowered, both bolts would be affected, not just one, thus meaning that, to be balanced with appropriate level spells, metamagic needs to stack.
I believe this may be the reason why Maximize and Empower don't stack - if you made a new spell that was a maximized version of another (say a 6th level Fireball that did exactly 60 damage), then it would no longer be a variable effect, and thus no longer a valid target for Empower. This is just a theory, of course - perhaps the Empower/Maximize thing is just an anomaly based on playtesting that specific combination.
Also, now that you mention it, certain combinations are insanely complex if metamagic doesn't stack. Take, for instance, a Quickened Twinned Ray of Frost (a very poor use of an 8th level slot :P). If Quicken doesn't stack with Twin, then only one of the rays is a quickened action to fire - the other takes the normal standard action. However, that makes Quicken totally useless for this spell - and pretty much all other metamagiced spells, as no other effect would stack with it. I'm trying to imagine what a Quickened Maximized Scorching Ray would look like - 4d6 damage as a swift action, then the remaining damage (24 - what you rolled) after you spend a standard action? And it isn't pretty.
So, I definitely agree - up with metamagic stacking!
First, cone of cold is a 5th level spell, so some of your calculations using it are a level off. (Empowered Maximized or Empowered Repeated CoC=10th level). However, these numbers do apply correctly to a druid's flame strike or the various orb spells. A Twinned cone of cold should be on the table at 105 damage max 180, and an Empowered delayed blast fireball is the same.
Second, as near as I can figure, combining Maximize with Empower is no more imbalanced than anything else (Maximized Empowered fireball=Maximized CoC). So why is this exception spelled out when no others are?
It follows that a 2nd->4th level spell with further +2 metamagic applied will be weaker than a 4th level spell with +2 metamagic applied or a 6th level spell.
In other words, unless the metamagic rules are themselves broken it is not broken to allow metamagic to be cumulatively applied.
My calculations: I haven't the slightest idea how I missed the fact that some of these were 10th-level spells or at least higher than indicated. I thought I'd checked my work pretty well.
But I suppose they can still be useful illustrations because there are a number of abilities (such as the Sudden Metamagic feats, Divine Metamagic, or the artificer's Metamagic Item infusion) that can add metamagic without actually adding to the level.Also, I included Empower and Maximize in the examples so that they could be compared with metamagic that does stack. I felt it would make for a stronger argument to show parity between the Empower-Maximize interaction and all other interactions.
Then again, you could argue that all the methods which break the metamagic cap are overpowered all on their own and that you shouldn’t use broken non core content as an argument to rebalance core content.
Exactly! It's like arguing that because a spell that does ability damage from BoVD is overpowered that all ability damage is overpowered.
I also think Icewraith is right on the money with the saving throw DC problem. I'm currently playing a sorcerer/elemental savant, and thus largely focus on direct-damage spells. My save-or-die spells are nearly useless if I start applying metamagic to them.
Great original article. But I'm chiming in to agree with Icewraith. Metamagicked spells should get the higher save DCs. Of course, the save DC rules for spells is broken. Especially at high levels.
Assuming you mean high level spells have impossibly high saves to make; I'm actually finding the opposite happening in my games. We play multi DM based adventure where DMs have characters and take turns. As a DM I've never had a player fail a save or die (save or remove/charm/etc.) spell, with the exceptions of rolling 1s. I find that unless the saves are deliberately impossible (i.e. DM: "yeah that’s right the demon god's stun effect is DC 75") that the players make their saves on anything under DC 25 and this is only level 14-17 I’m talking about. On the flip side I know also that at least 3 of the players ignore spells with saves because they know the DMs monsters/NPCs won't fail.
In all fairness I don’t usually build power NPC to deliberately destroy my players and I don’t add in +6 Headbands and +5 tomes of Intelligence just to crank of the DCs. But with NPCs with slightly higher than DMG listed stats and gear I expect that the DC shouldn’t be laughed at. On more than one occasion I’ve heard: “DC 21? Oh that’s no problem, unless I roll a 1 I won’t fail, should I bother rolling?” Most of my level 15 players characters have +15 in their average to good saves, and +12 in their weak saves. Some players have +20 in their weakest saves. So that being said I don’t think standard DCs of 17-20 are that threatening when compared to the saves of the same CR to level compared players. (My current level I’m DM is 14-18, but it has happened all the way up)
Anyone else finding that in 3.5 the DCs have taken the opposite turn and become sub par?
I've been playing D&D for years, enough times to become a 5th lvl DM, and my Favored class is Wizard. There is only one thing; you didn't include some of the Complete Arcana's Metamagic feats. One of which I've noticed is broken--Chain Spell. At first this seems simple, but quite quickly the numbers get overwhelming. Spells that are SUPPOSED to deal one damage/effect get across a hell of a lot faster i.e. Scorching Ray.
Multiplying
Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (
Here's a question first. What happens when you have an Incantrix or other prestige class/feat that allows you to reduce metamagic level increases? If you apply two metamagic feats, and all your metamagic spells are at -1 level adjustment, does that mean it's a total of two levels lower than a "normal" sorc/wiz would cast it?
I mean, does a 10th level Incantrix cast quickened, empowered fireballs as 8th level spells? 3rd level + 2 empower, + 4 quicken, -1 Incantrix? Or, as 7th level spells: 3rd level + 2 empower (-1 Incantrix) + 4 quicken (-1 Incantrix)?
This becomes an issue once character optimizers start stacking items, feats and class abilities that reduce the cost of metamagic... Very dangerous if they're applied multiple times.
Great original article. But I'm chiming in to agree with Icewraith. Metamagicked spells should get the higher save DCs. Of course, the save DC rules for spells is broken. Especially at high levels.
That's one reason to support the "cheesy" interpretation of Heighten Spell. After all, it would still cost a feat (Heighten) to gain those benefits.
thanks in advance!
Making more use of extend spell: In a fifth-level slot, you can both smack a Stone to Flesh (requires a fortitude save), and an extended Confusion. You when you encounter a hideous cave-dweller, check if it is a thinker or a though beastie, and use the appropriate spell.
Clearing the way with empower spell: So, the DC for the reflex save will suck with this feat. What if you ram it on top of a spell that doesn't have a save at all? Enervation for example. Hey there you hulk in full plate, care to swing your axe like a sick kitten? It's all about picking your targets when it comes to metamagic.
Roaming the skies with Repeat Spell: The same counts for this feat, but there's more than meets the eye. Take Bull's Strength. Now take it another time. For one fifth-level slot, your ranger's animal companion will turn into a frenzied war machine for a few hours. Oh, did I hear you talking about low save DCs? Not anymore when a repeated Fox's Cunning hits the mage. One fifth level slot less for a +4 DC for your spells, that's what I say.
Creativity I say! Well, until you get to the high levels, but high level D&D is not balanced in any way. All I can say there is to use many spells that don't allow any save (Isaac's spells come to mind).
What is Admixture, but a doubling?
What is Twin Spell, but a doubling?
What is Repeat Spell, but a doubling?
Doing the math on Maximize, you will quickly see that for all purposes, it is just a weak doubling (maximize 10d6 turns 35 average damage to 60).
The "non-interaction rule" is nothing more and nothing less than a restatement of the x2 x2 is a x3, not a x4 rule.
Off-topic: Why is it that when people say, "for all purposes," they really mean, "for some purposes?"
In any case, I disagree, as you are stretching the application of the doubling rule. An analogue to your argument would be the following.
Leap Attack with a one-handed weapon doubles the damage payoff for Power Attack when activated (jumping charge). So a character that takes a -10 penalty to hit receives a +20 bonus to his damage. Okay, so his damage was doubled. Now let's say that prior to his charge the party wizard cast lion's charge on this longsword wielding maniac. This allows him to attack multiple times, say twice, on the charge. Assuming he hits with both, then he has done a total of 40 Power Attack damage. In essence, he has doubled his Power Attack output. Again.
By your extended definition of doubling, then this would not be the case. Instead, he would do +20 on the first hit, then +10 on subsequent hits. This is not the case.
Let A be the statement, "Tarkin's usage of doubling holds true."
Let B be the statement, "The Leap Attack above does +20 on the first hit and +10 on subsequent hits."
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.
-----------------------
Therefore, we can accept a single rule that things don't work the way you want, or we can make a THOUSAND little rules to prevent all the abuses, just to let you get away with something that is not necessary in the first place.
You're making use of a logical fallacy by extending the case of Empower + Maximize to the rest of the universe of discourse; i.e., all metamagic feats. This fallacy is, IIRC, known as the fallacy of composition:
1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This mode of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not guarantee by itself that the class as a whole has those characteristics.
-------
Now for the final nail in the coffin of this idea. The examples are poor. The odds of doing max damage for a 8d6 roll is 1/679,616. But that higher damage sure looks convincing. The argument ignores that max damage will, over 95% of the time, give average damage +/- 10 points for anything with 10d6.
I do not understand your problem with his methodology. Both average damage and maximum damage are given for every spell (where appropriate), so the balance decision is not made based solely on the potential maximum damage. Yes, higher average damage will tend to lead to more variance as you say, but that really doesn't have much of an impact on balance. For example, a spell that does 100 damage every time vs. one that does 20-150 damage. The latter is capable of less damage than the former, but also capable of more. This is balanced despite the latter's lower average of 85. The same can be said of the analysis in the OP.
Maximize and Empower has NO business being used as an example. You can't use any combination of Maximize and Empower, unless you use YOUR house rule to calculate the Empowered part.
This is another fallacy, a false dichotomy I believe. The OP used the established rule for the interaction of Maximize and Empower, as that is a special case within the rules. There is no need for him to change the rules in an article designed to show how the rules work as written.
Most importantly, let’s look at that 1/14 numbers. You did not do 14 comparisons. You did three valid comparisons. A valid comparison is area only to area only or single target to single target, one metamagic to two or more metamagic, not using maximize+empower.
As I said above, you are arbitrarily and capriciously limiting the comparisons by disallowing the interaction of Empower Spell and Maximize Spell. Further, the OP did indeed acknowledge the difference inherent to the balance of area effect vs single target spells; specifically he said that it should be expected that single target spells have higher gross damage output than spells with an area of effect.
At epic levels, the suggested rules become blatantly more powerful. That should tell you; if it becomes abusive later on, then you have MISSED the abuse earlier. Either something is abusive at no level, or it is abusive at all levels.
This is a debatable point regarding universal balance. Many of the things in the current ruleset are fine at one level but not at another. This is just one of the aspects of the type of system that an RPG such as D&D is based on.Look at a real comparison:
Fireball, maximized, admixtured, twinned, repeated
Net damage for your idea = 60*2*2*2 = 480 pts.
Freezing Sphere Admixtured, Twinned, Repeated = 52.5*2*2*2 = 420. More than 15% less damage, same spell level.
This demonstrates that the problem is [b]Inherent to the idea of stacking metamagic
A) You forgot to include the variance information; i.e., that the latter spell, while having lower average damage, is capable of generating 720 points of damage, while the former is locked into its damage value. I refer you to my earlier example of two spells' damage (average of 100 vs. average of 85) which uses the same damage ratios as the example that you give.
B) You forgot to mention that freezing sphere has secondary qualities that fireball does not.
C) I know this may be hard to accept, but some things are strictly better than others. Toughness, for example, is a sucky feat. Such cost-benefit analysis was intentionally built into the third edition of the D&D game.
Claims that people should not consider epic and change the rules that let you reduce the cost of metamagic indicates how this idea is weak. It shows the article does NOT solve the base problem, but instead attempts to prevent people from using the suggested rules to the fullest extent because that is when the problem becomes obvious.
Here again we see some fallacies, but let me get down to the nitty gritty. The base metamagic mechanic is fine, as has been shown. The spell level adjustment is a major factor in why metamagic feats are balanced, even with the application of only a single feat. To remove or lessen the balancing factor, the spell level adjustment, is to remove or lessen the balance between a metamagicked spell and an unmodified spell. The balance is necessarily shifted when metamagic costs are shifted.
To the people that think that save or die spells are useless: You have not focused on making your save DCs high. If you do that, then people will never make your save against their bad saves, and usually fail against your good saves. If you intend to use elemental spells, then you need Greater Spell Focus Evocation or Conjuration, and probably need things like Bloodline of Fire and similar feats
Agreed. Whoever said that must be smoking something seriously good. Of course, the best way to do that is with the Incantatrix's Instant Metamagic ability with Improved Heighten Spell. Wheee! Infinitely high save DCs! Whooooo!
Which, I suppose, is another example of how the removal of metamagic costs plays with balance.
More than 15% less damage, same spell level.
And one less feat cost.
Plus it's epic, broken things happen in epic. Metamagic stacking rules are the least of your concerns there.
You're right that metamagic stacking seems to violate the doubling rule, but it doesn't really. It sidesteps it.
To the people that think that save or die spells are useless: You have not focused on making your save DCs high. If you do that, then people will never make your save against their bad saves, and usually fail against your good saves. If you intend to use elemental spells, then you need Greater Spell Focus Evocation or Conjuration, and probably need things like Bloodline of Fire and similar feats
I think the point was that, for example, maximized finger of death is useless. Instead of that take heighten. (And instead of heighten, unless you really want an eighth level finger of death, take wail of the banshee.)
OK, so metamagic stacks... I always thought so, but also always houseruled that it couldn't be done. Why?
Here's a question first. What happens when you have an Incantrix or other prestige class/feat that allows you to reduce metamagic level increases? If you apply two metamagic feats, and all your metamagic spells are at -1 level adjustment, does that mean it's a total of two levels lower than a "normal" sorc/wiz would cast it?
I mean, does a 10th level Incantrix cast quickened, empowered fireballs as 8th level spells? 3rd level + 2 empower, + 4 quicken, -1 Incantrix? Or, as 7th level spells: 3rd level + 2 empower (-1 Incantrix) + 4 quicken (-1 Incantrix)?
This becomes an issue once character optimizers start stacking items, feats and class abilities that reduce the cost of metamagic... Very dangerous if they're applied multiple times.
The problem, here, lies with the incantatrix--a known-problem class. This metamagic interaction is one of the reasons it is a problem.
I don't see why, if metamagic is fine except for the incantatrix, the solution would be to nerf metamagic (through elimination of metamagic stacking) rather than nerfing (or, as almost DM i know does, barring) the incantatrix. If a new prestige class was released in some supplement that broke power attack (by, say, letting you ignore the to-hit penalty and just picking a number to add to your damage) i can't imagine people would go around and nerf power attack to conform to this class. If something warps the game then get rid of it, but make sure you get rid of the right thing!
OK, now that all the love fest is done, let’s start with real discussion.
I was hoping you’d join us, Tarkin, as I’ve enjoyed this on-going debate we’ve been having over the topic.
What is Admixture, but a doubling?
What is Twin Spell, but a doubling?
What is Repeat Spell, but a doubling?
You’re reaching here… the only one that has wording that could be reasonably construed to be doubling is Admixture. Is a fighter with two attacks “doubling” his damage for the round? NineInchNall has addressed the fallacious argument of composition very well, so I won’t add to that point.
The article’s other main argument is that abuses are not created by core rules, but by OTHER rules. You do not claim that your method doesn’t increase power/damage. Instead you claim that such increases do not become abusive unless you include non-core methods The problem with this logic is that the "non-core" you think causes the problem are no less core than the metamagic feats you want.
I’ll partially concede this point, actually. While the mechanic of metamagic feats is core, many of the specific metamagic feats are not. But I’m not suggesting adding a thousand tiny house rules to fix problems with Sudden Metamagic, Divine Metamagic, and metamagic rods, either. I feel that the investment in these feats and items represents an opportunity cost to the improvement of metamagic. A character who takes Divine Metamagic (Twin Spell) and Twin Spell and the metamagic feat they’ll need to qualify for Twin Spell and buys a metamagic rod and takes Sudden Maximize has spent 4 feats and several thousand gp to produce their spectacular result. This represents a significant portion of the character’s total “build resources.”
The argument that the system has to work all the way through epic levels is laughable, frankly. The epic system is so far out of the box to be irrelevant. Too many other structures important to the game (the CR system is a particular one I can think of) get thrown out the window in epic. If metamagic fails in epic, that’s the fault of a jury-rigged epic-level system, not one of metamagic.
In any event, this core-vs-non-core argument wasn’t in the original article because it’s not that strong of a reason to let metamagic stack, to tell the truth. The real reason that it’s okay for metamagic to stack is that it isn’t actually broken and it’s supported by the text of the rules.
Now for the final nail in the coffin of this idea. The examples are poor. The odds of doing max damage for a 8d6 roll is 1/679,616. But that higher damage sure looks convincing. The argument ignores that max damage will, over 95% of the time, give average damage +/- 10 points for anything with 10d6.
I specifically mention in the OP that the maximum damage was only included for sake of completeness. If I didn’t include the maximum values, someone would have come along and said “but you’re not taking the maximum!” (not you, Tarkin, but someone who doesn’t understand statistics). My analysis is made on the average values.
Now, that being said, I did admit to errors in my calculations when they were pointed out, and so I’m going to re-do a bunch of them below. I totally disagree with your point that Maximize/Empower should not be used as examples. The entire point is to compare the examples against Maximize/Empower to show that the rule isn’t overpowered… the Maximize/Empower examples serve as “controls.”
Okay, so some corrected and expanded examples below. I’m just going to leave out the maximum damage values to make Tarkin slightly less unhappy. I’m including controls for each grouping –- examples of unmodified spells of that level, single-metamagic-modified spells, and an example of an appropriate-level Maximized Empowered spell where I can find one. I’m also going to address area-effect spells only for purposes of illustration (someone else can do single target).
Unfortunately, the lower level spell lists have gaps at 2nd-level and 4th-level base spells, so the lowest-level comparisons are incomplete. This makes for a weak argument at the lower levels, I’ll agree, but it doesn’t make a particularly strong case for metamagic stacking being overpowered either. As a result, I’m just going to start at 8th-level and go up from there, including 10th-level and above spells because these make for even better examples than the previous set.
For the cost of a 8th-level spell
Horrid Wilting: 70hp average damage to targets in 40’ radius
Empowered Freezing Sphere: 79hp average damage to targets in 10’ radius
Maximized Cone of Cold: 90hp damage to targets in 60' cone
Repeated Cone of Cold: 105hp damage to targets in 60' cone (53hp in first round)
Maximized Empowered Fireball: 78hp average damage to targets in 20' radius
vs
Repeated Empowered Fireball: 105hp average damage to targets in 20' radius (53hp in first round)
Hm… not much to see here. Note that Maximize + Empower underperforms several of the other control examples, however.
For the cost of a 9th-level spell
Meteor Swarm: 84hp average damage to targets in 40' radius
Empowered Delayed Blast Fireball: 105hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius
Maximized Freezing Sphere: 90hp average damage to targets in 10’ radius
Twinned Cone of Cold: 105hp average damage to targets in 60’ cone
Maximized Empowered (4th-level area spell): okay, I’ll admit, I can’t find a good example spell for this one
vs
Maximized Repeated Fireball: 120hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius (60hp in first round)
Twinned Empowered Fireball: 105hp average damage to targets in 20' radius
Nothing surprising here.
For the cost of a 10th-level spell
Empowered Horrid Wilting: 105hp average damage to targets in 40’ radius
Maximized Delayed Blast Fireball: 90hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius
Twinned Freezing Sphere: 105hp average damage to targets in 10’ radius
Maximized Empowered Cone of Cold: 116hp average damage to targets in 60’ cone
vs
Repeated Empowered Cone of Cold: 158hp average damage to targets in 60’ cone (79hp in first round)
Twinned Maximized Fireball: 120hp damage to targets in 20’ radius
The twinned maximized fireball is 3.4% better than maximized empowered cone of cold, although significantly better than its maximized delayed blast fireball cousin. The 14% difference between this and the empowered horrid wilting is reasonable considering the large area of horrid wilting
For the cost of an 11th-level spell
Empowered Meteor Swarm: 126hp average damage to targets in 40' radius
Maximized Horrid Wilting: 120hp damage to targets in 40’ radius
Twinned Delayed Blast Fireball: 140hp damage to targets in 20’ radius
Maximized Empowered Freezing Sphere: 116hp average damage to targets in 10’ radius
vs
Twinned Empowered Cone of Cold: 158hp average damage to targets in 60’ cone
Twinned Admixtured Fireball: 140hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius
Again we have one example, the twinned empowered cone of cold that comes out somewhat ahead of the pack (12%), but can be mitigated by the cone-like affect that must originate at the caster.
For the cost of a 12th-level spell
Maximized Meteor Swarm: 144hp average damage to targets in 40’ radius
Twinned Horrid Wilting: 140hp average damage to targets in 40’ radius
Maximized Empowered Delayed Blast Fireball: 155hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius
Maximized Twinned Freezing Sphere: 116hp average damage to targets in 10’ radius
vs
Twinned Maximized Cone of Cold: 180hp average damage to targets in 60’ cone
Twinned Maximized Empowered Fireball: 155hp average damage to targets in 20’ radius
The twinned maximized cone of cold does impressive damage, but again is a cone effect.
In all these examples, the best difference in damage you’re seeing between the top examples is on the order of 10-15%, and most of the time this can be hand-waved due to the nature of the areas. Even considering that the average damage tends to be somewhat higher, this should be expected in good game design: using your build resources on feats should actually provide some benefit when compared to not spending it on those feats. This is hardly enough reason to start jumping up-and-down about it being overpowered.
Roaming the skies with Repeat Spell: The same counts for this feat, but there's more than meets the eye. Take Bull's Strength. Now take it another time. For one fifth-level slot, your ranger's animal companion will turn into a frenzied war machine for a few hours. Oh, did I hear you talking about low save DCs? Not anymore when a repeated Fox's Cunning hits the mage. One fifth level slot less for a +4 DC for your spells, that's what I say.
Enhancement bonuses do not stack.
I guess it all boils down to a personal perception of if something is broken or not. What is broken? I am of the camp that if one characters development has taken away from the game for the rest of the characters, the character type, if SRD approved or not, is broken.
Originally Posted by Turin
In all these examples, the best difference in damage you’re seeing between the top examples is on the order of 10-15%, and most of the time this can be hand-waved due to the nature of the areas. Even considering that the average damage tends to be somewhat higher, this should be expected in good game design: using your build resources on feats should actually provide some benefit when compared to not spending it on those feats.
Actually, given the low saves on metamagic improved spells the real-game effectiveness of metamagic becomes highly situational, which makes statistical analysis difficult at best.
Then you start blasting out quickened, twinned, empowered, maximized, enhanced, horrid wiltings... at the rate of 6 per round.
and do potentially 540 points of damage for a grand total of 3240 hit points in one round after 6 castings.
Does that seem heinous or is that just 37th level. Yeah we know epic has problems but if it's ok at 18th level should it still be ok at 20+? I mean where do you draw the line? If you expanded the area of a maximized fireball is the damage in that area maximized as well? The PH seems to be clear about allowing the stacking except in the specific case of maximize. If it weren't for that line we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
These are questions that WOC should be answering but as we all know they shy away from the hard questions. Hell I wanna know if implosion works on undead? I've written the sage but he never answered. This is an obvious issue that Wizards must know about but instead of dealing with it they just keep their silence. WOC or the sage should have addressed this meta-issue long ago but instead we are left to fight amongst ourselves. I only threw in my two cents because it seems that epic is always overlooked.
So, somewhere between Calculus and Einstein, some of us got lost. Knew we should have made that left at Albuquerque. While the discussion seemed rational and realistic, were it not past midnight I might recrunch the numbers to double check. I'll give a little blind faith that he was in the ballpark of correctness (+/- 40 hp margin of error). The part of the argument that was missing was where metamagics fit in the character concept. If he is "Mr. Unpredictable" known for tossing personal, unusual spell touches to the spells he casts, about the only meta I'd expect is energy adaption trees.
Calculus? Einstein? I believe the discussion was regarding the numerical comparison between spells unaffected by metamagic and their highly modified counterparts, not intraparty effectiveness issues and certainly not whether certain feat choices are appropriate for a given character concept. Character concept is irrelevant to discussions of game balance. What does it matter in terms of power balance that one party member's Sorcerer likes cats while the other likes dogs? Nothing. The point of the article was to point out and debunk a common misconception regarding the rules for metamagic application, not to determine what feats help to fill out the concept for a Sorcerer specializing in summoning and controlling allies.
I guess it all boils down to a personal perception of if something is broken or not. What is broken? I am of the camp that if one characters development has taken away from the game for the rest of the characters, the character type, if SRD approved or not, is broken.
No. No, it does not all boil down to a personal perception of "broken." Not in this case, as the tone of the original post was that of a rational debate. In that context one cannot retreat to an appeal to personal perception, as shared definitions are inevitably necessary for the gears to turn, so to speak. Without an agreed upon understanding of the meaning of a given word, meaningful arguments cannot be made using that word. What you are suggesting is relativism and the end of the discussion.
The original post was referencing the similarity of mechanical effectiveness among metamagicked spells making use of stacking effects and unmodified spells. So, as I said before, intraparty balance issues are not the topic; intraspell issues are.
While I have certainly enjoyed reading this article, and stand firmly in favor of metamagic stacking and stand in agreement with your analysis on most points, I feel obliged to point out that your damage comparison is incomplete on one count. It does not take into account caster level. While at maximum caster level metamagic spells do roughly the same amount of damage as spells of the same level, they are almost strictly superior when the damage cap of the metamagic spell has been reached and the damage cap of the non-metamagic spell has not, let me give you some examples:
Cone of Cold: 10d6 damage, average 35
Empowered Fireball: 15d6 damage, average 52.5
Chain Lightning: 12d6 damage, average 42
Maximized Fireball: 60 damage
Empowered Split Ray Scorching Ray: 24d6 damage, average 84
Delayed Blast Fireball: 14d6 damage, average 49
Admixtured Fireball: 20d6 damage, average 70
Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray: 72 + 6d6 damage, average 93
Horrid Wilting: 16d8 damage, average 72
Admixtured Orb of Fire: 30d6 damage, average 105
Maximized Cone of Cold: 90 damage
Empowered Twin Scorching Ray: 36d6 damage, average 126
At 9th level spells the analysis is more or less accurate because meteor swarm has no caster level dependancy for damage.
I still agree that the other benefits of the higher level spells (higher save DCs, generally better areas of effect/damage types/ranges/etc) more than outweigh this difference in damage, but it should be noted that your damage comparison is only true at the highest levels, and metamagic spells do significantly more damage than non-metamagic counterparts when those counterparts have yet to reach their dice caps.
The twinned maximized cone of cold does impressive damage, but again is a cone effect.
While cones do stink up the joint, I don’t believe you can discount the spell level just because the example spell uses a cone. A same level Burst or Spread spell would have the same damage levels.
PS Blast of Flame 4th level Cone, 10d6 damage.
Take a look at a particular "house rule" that is in use in the CoCo (Woot! Turin's a pitlord! ).
Casters cannot use more than 1/3rd of their spell power in an arena fight.
Why: because in a one-on-one fight any caster class (other than a bard) is both overpowered and broken.
Overpowered = If the spells go off the opponent is pwned in one round.
Broken = Mr.x only get so many chances then the mage is pwned no matter what.
Seems like we have a similar situation with metamagic.
Some work really well together (namely damage). Some don’t (namely effects). Remember that the "average damage" is 1/2 or 0 to a rouge or monk of equivalent level... you have to hit with scorching ray.. these things are supposed to mitigate... but yeh. The one hit kill (while very "realistic" when you think about it) isn’t really "all together" in the game.
Or so_to_say "broken"
@ OP ;) Message received. All someone had to do was mention twin quicken. And I thought "yeah, it doesn’t just effect the first one." You should really add a Quicken Twin example. It makes the "only applies to the base spell" seem patently absurd in a very tactile way.
Then you start blasting out quickened, twinned, empowered, maximized, enhanced, horrid wiltings... at the rate of 6 per round.
and do potentially 540 points of damage for a grand total of 3240 hit points in one round after 6 castings.
By casting the equivalent of six twenty-fifth level spells in a single round. After the investment of at least 17 feats, 12 of them Epic. If the targets fail their saves (not very hard DCs at 37th level, really) and aren't immune to the damage and if their spell resistance is overcome, etc.
And if you think that's bad, well... go look at the Epic boards to see what pepole can do with Epic Spellcasting. Just for the sake of comparison, that's one feat vs. seventeen. Four Epic arcane spells per day as a 37th level wizard. +100 Intelligence for a week, anyone? That's actually pretty tame, though. How about a world-spanning Cloudkill? Goodbye, humankind!
I could also show you a character who does similar damage-per-round on a charge, but would that prove anything? No.
There's a very simple counter-example to all this nonsense. One that demands metamagic stacking.
Silent, stilled magic missile.
Does the silent part not stack with the stilled part? Is it half-quiet, half-still? If you cast that while waiting in ambush do you give away your position? If you're a wizard in chains and really, really need to cast that: can you?
Unless you're willing to say that the above spell is effectively identical to a regular, old magic missile then you must also concede the following:
Silent, maximized magic missile.
Is only the non-maximized damage silent? Do you have to, again, cast the spell partly out loud and partly not?
The argument--that metamagic doesn't "stack"--results in silliness like the above. By your argument: not only does metamagic not "stack" but one application of some metamagic is ruined the application of other metamagic.
Before you go and say "Well, that's just how it has to be for balance to be sustained!" keep in mind that the silent, stilled magic missile (really, fill in the spell) has actual rules surrounding it. For example, with spellcraft to determine the spell's identity.
There's a very simple counter-example to all this nonsense. One that demands metamagic stacking.
Silent, stilled magic missile.
Does the silent part not stack with the stilled part? Is it half-quiet, half-still? If you cast that while waiting in ambush do you give away your position? If you're a wizard in chains and really, really need to cast that: can you?
Brilliant :D
Maximize and Empower, I believe, do not stack for 2 [related] reasons. Firstly, Empower works only on variable numeric effects. Maximize makes the numbers non-variable. Therefore using Maximize makes a spell invalid for empowering. Kind of like Quicken and sorcerer spells.
Secondly, from a balance point of view, Empower + Maximize is a slightly broken combination.
Maximize is +3 spell level, for +50% of max base damage (since you usually do 50% max damage on average). Empower is +2 levels, for +25% damage. But, if Maximize and Empower stacked, Empower would effectively become +50% of max base damage - on par with Maximize.
Anyway, I agree with those who said earlier in the thread that it's bypassing metamagic caps that's broken. Things like the Artificer's metamagic spell trigger/completion. Or Divine Metamagic. Especially when you get people throwing around spells of level equivalent to way more than they can cast - like 7th level artificers casting equivalents of 9th level spells (or more!), or level 1 clerics casting level 7 spell equivalents (Persistent, anyone?). But as mentioned, this is an issue with these classe /abilities, not with metamagic itself.
Hey, you won! As of today's FAQ update, metamagic feats "officially" stack. Now should we all house rule that maximize and empower stack too?
The purpose of the OP was to show that a) the rules do not support the "base spell" concept, and b) the result is not unbalanced. Empower and Maximize already stack; their interaction is just clarified as a special case.Balance: Stacking makes sense for the power of a Wizard casting spells -after all if you Twin a 4th level spell, you should get 24th level spells regardless of whether it's an Orb of Acid or an Empowered Scorching Ray. The balance problem arises when you stop 'paying' for your Metamagic. Artificers and DMM basically. Disallowing stacking cuts into the abuse there but the problem is really with the Artificer and DMM rather than the stacking.
What does that mean? A 9th level spell is awesome. It may not do as much damage as a metamagicked 3rd level spell though.
But let's look at what the 3rd level spell doesn't have going for it. Firstly, it's completely negated by a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability (or it's bigger cousin). Secondly, it's subject to Spell Immunity, if it's one of the chosen spells. Thirdly, it's counterable with it's 3rd level counterpart (or any 3rd level spell of that school for improved counterspelling). Fourthly, it's save DC is effectively 30% worse than the 9th level spell, giving you a 30% better chance to only be taking half damage. Need I move on?
If you look at metamagicked spells in terms of only cold hard damage vs. level numbers, yeah, metamagic spells are going to look shinier than same-level spells. But the reason why Heighten Spell costs adjustments is that without leaving the spell the same level, other metamagic feats *are* broken. Without the (often significantly) better chance of taking half (or no) damage, the ability to be counterspelled by (often significantly) lower-level spells, and the ability to be negated by (often significantly) lower-level effects, these spells effectively *are* better than spells of the same level.
However, the fact that the DCs and the actual spell levels are lower is the other balancing factor. You don't need to balance metamagic down, it's already there. What's the point of doing 115% or 150% the damage of a spell of the same level if the DC is low enough that you're almost ensured to take half (none with evasion, or improved evasion)?
Heighten Spell isn't just for the DC. Any effect that looks for spell level is seeing the spell's level, not the modified 'effective spell level' for preparation. As above, spell immunity, lesser/globe of invulnerability, counterspelling. And at epic levels, Improved Heighten Spell is important. Immunity and permanent spell turning for 1st through 9th level spells is a DC 68 spellcraft check and 7500 XP away. (After the cost of development, of course.)
Another common misconception is that metamagic is only for arcane magic. I have yet to see anyone besides me use metamagic on a divine spell, and have had several people tell me that you cannot apply metamagic to divine spells. I read through the PHB, DMG and errata, and could not find anything saying that metamagic does not apply to divine spells.
This thread is still going? Well, anyway, nice to see that the Sage agrees with me, even if I half the time I think he's on crack (see recent ruling on flurry of blows & grappling).
Here's a question first. What happens when you have an Incantrix or other prestige class/feat that allows you to reduce metamagic level increases?
I was wondering the same thing. You could take the Practised Metamagic feat prior to epic levels to create some devastating effects. But isn't that the point of taking the feats, to become more effective? I haven't read the Incantrix, so if someone could tell me where that's from I would be grateful. By the sounds of it though, that's it's only real ability.
Kirby179 covered most of my ideas to solve the metamagic problem. Globes of Invulnerability and whatnot. Make an NPC that is a master of counterspelling. If he knows a 0 or 1st-level spell from every school, takes Heighten Spell, Improved Counterspelling and Accelerated Metamagic then he could shut up the Incantrix unless the Incantrix uses real high spell levels, but that would mean he isn't applying as much metamagic and the problem's solved anyhow.
As far as epic goes, what about the 37th level Ranger with Distant Shot that can shoot you apart as long as he can see you? He can hide on a mountain and shoot miles away if he puts his spot up enough. Or the Barbarian with Mage Slayer and Blinding Speed so that you can't get away and he keeps disrupting your spellcasting (that is, assuming he doesn't kill you first). Epic can't be used to prove an argument, and that's why it isn't used as proof. Epic characters are leaders and win wars, but I am of the mind that epic characters should stop adventuring as soon as you can wrap up the campaign.
The last thing is I don't understand where everyone's getting the idea that Empower Spell and Maximize Spell don't stack. I think I missed an errata or something so could someone point that out to me? All I know is that it says:
Maximize Spell
...An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result. An empowered, maximized fireball cast by a 15th-level wizard deals points of damage equal to 60 plus one-half of 10d6.
Which means to me that you guys must know something I don't because all I've got is the Player's Handbook for a lead.
Here's the part that everyone leaves out. The further you add to the flash of a spell without adding to the substance of a spell, the more you're actually losing.
What does that mean? A 9th level spell is awesome. It may not do as much damage as a metamagicked 3rd level spell though.
But let's look at what the 3rd level spell doesn't have going for it. Firstly, it's completely negated by a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability (or its bigger cousin). Secondly, it's subject to Spell Immunity, if it's one of the chosen spells. Thirdly, it's counterable with its 3rd level counterpart (or any 3rd level spell of that school for improved counterspelling). Fourthly, it's save DC is effectively 30% worse than the 9th level spell, giving you a 30% better chance to only be taking half damage. Need I move on?
If you look at metamagicked spells in terms of only cold hard damage vs. level numbers, yeah, metamagic spells are going to look shinier than same-level spells. But the reason why Heighten Spell costs adjustments is that without leaving the spell the same level, other metamagic feats *are* broken. Without the (often significantly) better chance of taking half (or no) damage, the ability to be counterspelled by (often significantly) lower-level spells, and the ability to be negated by (often significantly) lower-level effects, these spells effectively *are* better than spells of the same level.
However, the fact that the DCs and the actual spell levels are lower is the other balancing factor. You don't need to balance metamagic down, it's already there. What's the point of doing 115% or 150% the damage of a spell of the same level if the DC is low enough that you're almost ensured to take half (none with evasion, or improved evasion)?
Heighten Spell isn't just for the DC. Any effect that looks for spell level is seeing the spell's level, not the modified 'effective spell level' for preparation. As above, spell immunity, lesser/globe of invulnerability, counterspelling. And at epic levels, Improved Heighten Spell is important. Immunity and permanent spell turning for 1st through 9th level spells is a DC 68 spellcraft check and 7500 XP away. (After the cost of development, of course.)
You're assuming that the monster or player you are attacking has a good save. A 20th level wizard can get a save DC of 25+ on a 3rd level spell. Is the fighter realistically going to make that Ref/Will save? Not likely, even with a cloak of resistance.
Suppose a monster does have a strong Reflex against your artillery mage (but doesn't have Evasion), meaning it's going to save against everything. The Empowered/Maximized Fireball does 90 points of damage, 45 if the target saves. The eighth level attack spell does. . . 20d6 (70ish/35ish)? Thus the two feats give you a guaranteed better shot at the monster.
As for Globe of Invulnerability/Spell Immunity, how often do these spells actually come into play, really? A wizard/sorcerer has to both anticipate a lot of mage battles in his future to bother learning Globe, and will have to count on fighting a metamagic mage in order to even memorize it later on in his career, realistically. I can't think of any monsters that possess these spells.
I don't personally think metamagic is overpowered, but it's hardly inferior that often to same-level non-meta'd spells. Plus, it offers the mage added versatility with his low-level spells.
Maximize and Empower, I believe, do not stack for 2 [related] reasons. Firstly, Empower works only on variable numeric effects. Maximize makes the numbers non-variable. Therefore using Maximize makes a spell invalid for empowering. Kind of like Quicken and sorcerer spells. Secondly, from a balance point of view, Empower + Maximize is a slightly broken combination. Maximize is +3 spell level, for +50% of max base damage (since you usually do 50% max damage on average). Empower is +2 levels, for +25% damage. But, if Maximize and Empower stacked, Empower would effectively become +50% of max base damage - on par with Maximize.
Anyway, I agree with those who said earlier in the thread that it's bypassing metamagic caps that's broken. Things like the Artificer's metamagic spell trigger/completion. Or Divine Metamagic. Especially when you get people throwing around spells of level equivalent to way more than they can cast - like 7th level artificers casting equivalents of 9th level spells (or more!), or level 1 clerics casting level 7 spell equivalents (Persistent, anyone?). But as mentioned, this is an issue with these classes/abilities, not with metamagic itself.
Your math is off here, the damage variance should be figured on the average damage.
Since Empower adds 50% of dice, it effectively raises the dmg 50% for +2 levels. This dovetails nicely with the Repeat/Split/Twin/Admixture series, that double dmg (+100%) for +4 levels.
Maximize adds about +75% for +3 levels. (10d6 fireball average is 35, max is 60, 60/35 is 1.71, or about +71%).
These effects are additive because technically they ARE stackable (apply Empower first, and you can certainly Maximize a 15d6 fireball, right?) and thus they don't stack, they add. Stacking assumes they interact effortlessly and include one another. Additive does not, and assumes much of the strange silliness of feats not interacting pointed out above.
Ergo, damage has always been in its own category, specifically adding, not stacking until the new feats came along, and suddenly damage now stacks, because there's no mention of them not stacking. It also breaks the damage multiplier rules for doubling a double damage. Magic gets a true quadruple, whereas in all other instances you get a tripling. Magic can thus get a X16 multiplier where another effect would get a mere x5.
Aelryinth
I flip opinions on this from time to time. On the one hand, it seems ridiculous to pay +6 levels for the first 24 hours and +1 for the second. On the other, dropping four feats to effectively get 2 all-day spells at a reasonable level seems like more of a fair trade than blowing everything into 1 spell.
These effects are additive because technically they ARE stackable (apply Empower first, and you can certainly Maximize a 15d6 fireball, right?) and thus they don't stack, they add. Stacking assumes they interact effortlessly and include one another. Additive does not, and assumes much of the strange silliness of feats not interacting pointed out above.
First, this (the bold portion) is not how Empower Spell works. The feat does not add extra damage dice. Instead, it multiplies the result of the roll by 1.5. Further, your equating the effects of Maximize Spell to an additive increase is fallacious in this context. To wit, allow me to quote myself from an earlier portion of this thread.
What is Admixture, but a doubling?
What is Twin Spell, but a doubling?
What is Repeat Spell, but a doubling?
Doing the math on Maximize, you will quickly see that for all purposes, it is just a weak doubling (maximize 10d6 turns 35 average damage to 60).
The "non-interaction rule" is nothing more and nothing less than a restatement of the x2 x2 is a x3, not a x4 rule.
Off-topic: Why is it that when people say, "for all purposes," they really mean, "for some purposes?"
In any case, I disagree, as you are stretching the application of the doubling rule. An analogue to your argument would be the following.
Leap Attack with a one-handed weapon doubles the damage payoff for Power Attack when activated (jumping charge). So a character that takes a -10 penalty to hit receives a +20 bonus to his damage. Okay, so his damage was doubled. Now let's say that prior to his charge the party wizard cast lion's charge on this longsword wielding maniac. This allows him to attack multiple times, say twice, on the charge. Assuming he hits with both, then he has done a total of 40 Power Attack damage. In essence, he has doubled his Power Attack output. Again.
By your extended definition of doubling, then this would not be the case. Instead, he would do +20 on the first hit, then +10 on subsequent hits. This is not the case.
Let A be the statement, "Tarkin's usage of doubling holds true."
Let B be the statement, "The Leap Attack above does +20 on the first hit and +10 on subsequent hits."
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.
Ergo, damage has always been in its own category, specifically adding, not stacking until the new feats came along, and suddenly damage now stacks, because there's no mention of them not stacking. It also breaks the damage multiplier rules for doubling a double damage. Magic gets a true quadruple, whereas in all other instances you get a tripling. Magic can thus get a X16 multiplier where another effect would get a mere x5.
Second, you're committing the compositional fallacy that I mentioned earlier in the thread, extending from the specific to the general without a valid justification. One of the game's designers, Andy Collins, has, by way of example, shown exactly what has been repeated many times before: the interaction of Empower and Maximize is a special case. This very fact is sufficient to contradict your initial premise, hence invalidating your entire chain of reasoning. Further, you assert that metamagic is the only method to attain multiplicative increases to damage. This is not the case, as has been shown many a time on the CO board. The prime example of this is the effect of Leap Attack. I refer you to Tempest Stormwind's build using multiplicative Power Attack damage through Leap Attack: The Lancer.
Third, as I mentioned in the relevant thread on the CO board, the feat mechanics themselves provide all necessary information for their application in a manner consistent with that presented both here and in the FAQ. A metamagic feat's basic mechanic is "target spell changes in manner X." Quicken changes the target spell's casting time to one swift action; Extend doubles the target spell's duration; Persistent changes the target spell's duration to 24 hours. A Extended spell works by first doubling the target spell's duration. We may then Quicken that Extended spell -- the target of the Quicken feat in this case is the Extended spell, for there [is no longer a non-Extended version of the spell in play.
As an analogy to the programming realm, let's say that there are functions Spell extendSpell(Spell S) and Spell quickenSpell(Spell S). To Quicken and Extend a spell we execute preppedSpell = quickenSpell(extendSpell(sp_mageArmor)).
Let's see:
Apply Empower Spell and Repeat Spell (+5 levels): The spell goes off and is empowered. The following round the spell goes off again and is also empowered. The non-cumulative heathens would say that the repeated spell is not empowered. The fools! This seems reasonable.
Apply Empower Spell and Twin Spell (+6 levels): The spell goes off empowered, the same spell goes off and it is an exact duplicate so it is also empowered. The non-cumulative folks would say that the twin is not empowered (or rather that the empowerment is not twinned).
Apply Twin Spell + Repeat Spell (+7 levels): The spell goes off and an exact duplicate goes off at the same time. The following round the spell goes off again, but the metamagic is cumulative so this repeat must also be twinned. But metamagic is cumulative so the twin must also be modified by Repeat spell. So the spell will go off yet again (the non-cumulative types, scream: "No, the base spell is twined once and repeated once, the two feats do not modify each other) but the enlightened see otherwise. If metamagic is cumulative then each twin must be repeated and each repeat must likewise have a twin. Note that the same effect is not being applied twice: I am not paying for Twin Spell or Repeat Spell twice, simply taking advantage of the fact that they are cumulative and each resultant spell is modified by both. This is fun.
So Hold Person becomes a 9th level spell, the subject needs to make 2 Will saves per round or he gets held. And the spell is recast twice per round. Forever. Magic Missile becomes an 8th level spell, it does 10d4+10 automatically every round to a single target of your choice (which can't be changed) forever (or until it gets out of range). Create Food and Water becomes a 10th level spell; you need to be epic level to pull it off, but it is an end to famine. It will create enough food and water for 6 humans or 2 horses every round. Forever. You still have to get it to the people and it can rot normally, but the spell will just keep making more (and you can cast it daily because it doesn't even cost XP).
The double double = a triple rule ALSO sets a precedent. This precedent clearly applies to things that cause damage...one is spells only, one is universal.
The 15d6 argument is a smokescreen. I use it because it makes the number easier to see. The substance of that argument is that you CAN stack the two if you so desire. But, you aren't allowed to then they add, they don't stack. Specifically! And that set a precedent, which following feats ignored.
Your example of altering melee attacks is effectively the same as a ruling on Quicken spell...but Quicken spell has always had restrictions, namely the use of once/round. Note that with multiple attacks, you have less chance of hitting, and thus less chance of doing double damage...thus, clearly not the same as using Twin, Repeat or Admixture, where you statistically DO double your damage...and again, and again, and again.
Leap Attack and similar items add, they don't stack. Full Attacks on a charge are nice, but not a true doubling, although they might well end up doubling damage. So you don't have a true comparison here.
==Aelryinth
Apply Empower Spell and Repeat Spell (+5 levels): The spell goes off and is empowered. The following round the spell goes off again and is also empowered. The non-cumulative heathens would say that the repeated spell is not empowered. The fools! This seems reasonable.
And it is reasonable, but by your later reasoning it would also be repeated. I'll deal with that in a minute. ;)
Apply Empower Spell and Twin Spell (+6 levels): The spell goes off empowered, the same spell goes off and it is an exact duplicate so it is also empowered. The non-cumulative folks would say that the twin is not empowered (or rather that the empowerment is not twinned).
Again, this is a reasonable effect, as the average damage (assuming failed saves on a 3rd level spell DC) is 105. This is flat out worse than meteor swarm, and so is a poor use of the feat investment.
Apply Twin Spell + Repeat Spell (+7 levels): The spell goes off and an exact duplicate goes off at the same time. The following round the spell goes off again, but the metamagic is cumulative so this repeat must also be twinned. But metamagic is cumulative so the twin must also be modified by Repeat spell. So the spell will go off yet again (the non-cumulative types, scream: "No, the base spell is twined once and repeated once, the two feats do not modify each other) but the enlightened see otherwise. If metamagic is cumulative then each twin must be repeated and each repeat must likewise have a twin. Note that the same effect is not being applied twice: I am not paying for Twin Spell or Repeat Spell twice, simply taking advantage of the fact that they are cumulative and each resultant spell is modified by both. This is fun.
Okay, no. You're breaking the rules. If the metamagic is to be applied cumulatively, then order must matter. Furthermore, each feat is a complete function, not the open ended silliness that you suggest.
Twin Spell creates a duplicate of its target. With the way you're applying it and Repeat Spell, Twin would create an exact duplicate of itself infinitely and on its own. Let's say you cast a twinned fireball. Since the "spell goes off and an exact duplicate goes off at the same time," that means that the exact duplicate is a twinned fireball. So an exact duplicate of that occurs ad infinitum. Applying Twin and Repeat to the fireball does not cause two twinned, repeated fireballs to appear this round and the next. Your use of the feats is totally wrong. How about looking at how things really work?
Let's say you cast a repeated, twinned melf's acid arrow. So we first apply Twin Spell. Okay, so that means that two arrows will go flying simultaneously. Now we apply Repeat Spell. Okay, so that means that a twinned acid arrow will fire both in this round and the next. Note that there is no feedback loop set up because I complete the application of each metamagic feat.
Let's say you cast a twinned, repeated melf's acid arrow. So we first apply Repeat Spell. Okay, so that means that one acid arrow will fly this round, and one will fly in the next. Now we apply Twin Spell. Okay, so that means two repeated acid arrows will fire this round, for a total of two arrows this round an two the next. Note that there is no feedback loop set up because I complete the application of each metamagic feat. I hope that clears things up for you.
Now for aelryinth.
You have to keep in mind one other thing, however, Nails. In the core game, there are ONLY two feats that affect the amount of damage--Empower and Maximize. Thus, they set the precedent for how all other damage spells interact.
No, as I have said before, you are extending from one feat to the who class of feats. Further, you're incorrect. Extend affects damage as well for spells with durations, and it has no additional rules text to suggest that its behavior changes depending upon other metamagic applications. Empower and Maximize, btw, apply not only to damage, but to any variable quantity.
So you are wrong in saying that they are the only two feats that affect the amount of damage a spell deals. That immediately invalidates your argument. The precedent of which you are speaking has even been denied by the game's designers. That also invalidates your argument.
The 15d6 argument is a smokescreen. I use it because it makes the number easier to see. The substance of that argument is that you CAN stack the two if you so desire. But, you aren't allowed to then they add, they don't stack. Specifically! And that set a precedent, which following feats ignored.
It is not a smokescreen. It recognizes a fact that you want to deny: without the interaction specification within Maximize Spell, the interaction of those two feats is completely uncertain. Does a maximized, empowered fireball even work? Maximize turns a variable into a constant. To then apply Empower would not work, as the feat only acts on variables. Switching the order creates a similar issue. Empower multiplies the variable numeric (effects) of the spell by 1.5. To then add Maximize would remove the variable, again invalidating the Empower.
So what do the designers do? They specify exactly how the two work together so that neither invalidates the other. Furthermore, the text of Maximize Spell does not say that the two feats only affect the "base spell", but rather it says that the spell gains the separate benefits of each feat. In other words, the two feats stack, but they do it in a specific way so that neither invalidates the other.
Your example of altering melee attacks is effectively the same as a ruling on Quicken spell...but Quicken spell has always had restrictions, namely the use of once/round. Note that with multiple attacks, you have less chance of hitting, and thus less chance of doing double damage...thus, clearly not the same as using Twin, Repeat or Admixture, where you statistically DO double your damage...and again, and again, and again.
*sigh* I'll play along, but your argument is inconsistent. Twin and Repeat do not give a flat doubling to your damage, as the target is given extra saves. Energy Admixture would be the only doubling to be found by your reasoning. But then, it doesn't really matter anyway, as that sort of doubling is irrelevant.
Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (
If he is "Mr. Unpredictable" known for tossing personal, unusual spell touches to the spells he casts, about the only meta I'd expect is energy adaption trees.
I'll cast a Treeball, followed up by a Cone of Trees!
Sorry, and I know what you meant, but that's a hilarious mental image...
Firstly, repeat Spell isn't truly a doubling because it doesn't happen in the same round. You have to apply a discount factor, much the same as you would in finance. But that's such a phony-baloney thing to ask for that I'd rather not think about it. So repeat spell is out.
From what I've noticed, metamagic seems to increase spell damage in a linear progression. I'll assume that everything but Empower and Maximize stack. Here's Mr. Sorcerer's CL 20 fireball:
Plain Fireball, level 3: 10d6 = 35 damage.
Empowered Fireball, level 5: 10d6*1.5 = 52.5 damage
Maxxed Fireball, level 6: 60 damage
Twin or Admixxed Fireball, level 7: 70 damage
Empowered, Maxxed Fireball, level 8: 60 + 10d6/2 = 77.5
(here's where the stacking comes in)
Empowered, Twin Fireball, level 9: 10d6*1.5*2 = 105
Maxxed, Twin Fireball, level 10: 60*2 = 120
Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 11: (10d6+10d6)*2 = 140
Empowered, Maxxed, Twin Fireball, level 12: (60 + 10d6/2)*2 = 155
Empowered, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 13: (10d6 + 10d6)*1.5*2 = 210
Maxxed, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 14: (60 + 60)*2 = 240
Empowered, Maxxed, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 16: (60 + 10d6/2 + 60 + 10d6/2)*2 = 310(!)
~~~~~~~~
Notice that before the stacking comes in, each damage increase is about 9 points per level. Afterwards, there are massive jumps in damage. Yeah, yeah, it's epic and everything at epic is broken. An Incantatrix with Arcane Thesis can do that last one as a 9th level spell, however.
Things to remember, the save DC is still a 3rd level spell. Also it's elemental damage which everyone gets immunity to with a 7th level spell. Plus, as someone on the boards said to me once, "A minor globe is going to ruin your day hard."
Let's take a look at how damage progresses with feats applying only to the original spell.
Empowered, Twin Fireball, level 9: 10d6*1.5 + 10d6 = 87.5
Maxxed, Twin Fireball, level 10: 60 + 10d6 = 95
Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 11: 10d6 + 10d6 + 10d6 = 105
Empowered, Maxxed, Twin Fireball, level 12: 60 + 10d6/2 + 10d6 = 112.5
Empowered, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 13: 10d6*1.5 + 10d6 + 10d6 = 122.5
Maxxed, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 14: 60 + 10d6 + 10d6 = 130
Empowered, Maxxed, Admixxed, Twin Fireball, level 16: 60 + 10d6/2 + 10d6 + 10d6 = 147.5
~~~~~~~~~~~
Here, we have the same linear progression of roughly 9 extra points of damage for every level of increase. I really can't say which is more reasonable though. For the sake of taking sides, I'll go with megamagic not stacking.
Linear increases would be appropriate if enemy hit points also increased linearly. They don't. They gain hit dice, but their con periodically rises as well.
On the other hand, the astronomical marginal gains with level for each spell under stacking metamagic seem even worse. That's why the author of the FAQs needs to consider revisiting his answer.
Okay, no. You're breaking the rules. If the metamagic is to be applied cumulatively, then order must matter. Furthermore, each feat is a complete function, not the open ended silliness that you suggest.
Twin Spell creates a duplicate of its target. With the way you're applying it and Repeat Spell, Twin would create an exact duplicate of itself infinitely and on its own. Let's say you cast a twinned fireball. Since the "spell goes off and an exact duplicate goes off at the same time," that means that the exact duplicate is a twinned fireball. So an exact duplicate of that occurs ad infinitum. Applying Twin and Repeat to the fireball does not cause two twinned, repeated fireballs to appear this round and the next. Your use of the feats is totally wrong. How about looking at how things really work?
Let's say you cast a repeated, twinned melf's acid arrow. So we first apply Twin Spell. Okay, so that means that two arrows will go flying simultaneously. Now we apply Repeat Spell. Okay, so that means that a twinned acid arrow will fire both in this round and the next. Note that there is no feedback loop set up because I complete the application of each metamagic feat.
Let's say you cast a twinned, repeated melf's acid arrow. So we first apply Repeat Spell. Okay, so that means that one acid arrow will fly this round, and one will fly in the next. Now we apply Twin Spell. Okay, so that means two repeated acid arrows will fire this round, for a total of two arrows this round an two the next. Note that there is no feedback loop set up because I complete the application of each metamagic feat. I hope that clears things up for you.
So to simply your response: Each of these feats applies to the base spell (fireball or whatever) and does not modify each other. Just as was previously assumed before this thread was started.
Thus, we have no hint as to the designer's intent on managing damage via spells, save the precedents established in the PHB. Without each and every feat saying that it acts thus and so with EVERY PREVIOUS FEAT PUBLISHED, we have only precedent to go by...and precedent established that damage via spells stacked, it did not multiply.
--------------------
The addition of saving throws for Twin Spell and Repeat Spells has absolutely NO effect on the average damage. It's all math. One saving throw for Big Damage or Small Damage, vs Two Saves for Big Damage, Medium, Medium and Small damage averages out to Medium Damage for both effects. That is a fallacious assumption and should be stricken from your posts as misleading and erroneous.
--------------------
Andy Collins' ruling follows the letter of the feats. In the absence of rulings otherwise, the damage of spells MULTIPLIES with these feats, they do not STACK/ADD.
This violates PRECEDENT, it does not violate rules (unless you count the doubling doubling = 3x, not 4x, as a Rule).
We have no idea if the designers intended to have these doublings taking place, save PHB Precedent. Certainly, with the Metamagic Efficiency effects of various classes, feats and whatnot, the multiplier effect is ripe for all manner of abuse.
--------------------
I will buy the argument that without Metamagic Efficency, there is NO problem with these spells doubling. It's not a question of balance then. With Metamagic Efficency, we quickly enter into Problems.
--------------------
Thus, the arguments you are making are deflective and moving off the key points.
In Summation
Metamagic Efficiency dominates the Balance issue. I don't believe anyone is disputing this.
Precedent was clearly established in the PHB, via the Doubling rule and how the only damage-causing Metamagic feats stacked. This was the ONLY aspect of Metamagic that clearly was not intended to stack with one another.
Both of these Precedents are completely violated with stacking 'twinning' style metamagic feats.
The Letter of the RAW is not violated by their doing so, because the 'non-core' new feats do not refer to any other damage causing feats to restrain themselves. The Sage ruling is precise and clear on this regard, and he explained why he ruled this way on his own boards.
However, it is the violation of Precedent, and the abuse of Metamagic Efficiency, which drives this whole argument. If you take the Conservative 'Additive' viewpoint on damage, then this all basically becomes a non-issue.
It is when you DO allow them to Stack, as the rules for non-Core feats seem to allow, that you start getting into messy territory.
===Aelryinth
Now for aelryinth.
No, as I have said before, you are extending from one feat to the who class of feats. Further, you're incorrect. Extend affects damage as well for spells with durations, and it has no additional rules text to suggest that its behavior changes depending upon other metamagic applications. Empower and Maximize, btw, apply not only to damage, but to any variable quantity.
Example: You just jumped through an Extended Wall of Fire. Did you take more damage?
You just got hit by an Extended Melf's Acid Arrow. You pull it out and dump your wine flask on the acid. Did you take extra damage?
Extended is a misdirecting argument. Please keep it on base. It no more increases direct damage dealt then Extended Rage increases Melee Weapon Damage. It increases Potential Damage, the same way that Quicken delivers double damage at the cost of an extra spell, Widen allows you to start fireballing sooner, and Enlarge lets you include 4x as many mooks in the area of effect. None of these increase direct damage.
We are dealing purely with feats that directly affect damage dealt. That is the sole discrepancy in metamagic feats, and the whole issue of the topic at hand.
So you are wrong in saying that they are the only two feats that affect the amount of damage a spell deals. That immediately invalidates your argument. The precedent of which you are speaking has even been denied by the game's designers. That also invalidates your argument.
See the above. You are getting off the path of the argument.
Please cleave to the basic argument and kindly don't throw up a smokescreen on the designers. I've also had discourse with Andy Collins and he indicated nothing of the sort. My argument is perfectly balanced and valid as it stands and it's rather presumptuous of you to invalidate it out of hand with no authority to do so.
It is not a smokescreen. It recognizes a fact that you want to deny: without the interaction specification within Maximize Spell, the interaction of those two feats is completely uncertain. Does a maximized, empowered fireball even work? Maximize turns a variable into a constant. To then apply Empower would not work, as the feat only acts on variables. Switching the order creates a similar issue. Empower multiplies the variable numeric (effects) of the spell by 1.5. To then add Maximize would remove the variable, again invalidating the Empower.
So what do the designers do? They specify exactly how the two work together so that neither invalidates the other. Furthermore, the text of Maximize Spell does not say that the two feats only affect the "base spell", but rather it says that the spell gains the separate benefits of each feat. In other words, the two feats stack, but they do it in a specific way so that neither invalidates the other.
That is indeed correct. However, it would have been just as easy for them to say "in cases where these two feats interact, simply maximize the variables and increase that number by 50%." or " increase the variables by 50% and then maximize the new variables."
That's intuitively what most people would do. Instead, they added a completely different mechanic...instead of the multiplying mechanic above which you are championing, they went completely against type and added an Additive mechanic.
Now tell me, why would they do that? The only thing the feats have in common is that they directly affect damage dealt, and so the dmg cap/rd. But instead, they introduce a completely non-intuitive mechanic to resolve the situation?
And you believe that doing something like this is not a display of game designer intentions?
*sigh* I'll play along, but your argument is inconsistent. Twin and Repeat do not give a flat doubling to your damage, as the target is given extra saves. Energy Admixture would be the only doubling to be found by your reasoning. But then, it doesn't really matter anyway, as that sort of doubling is irrelevant.
Please follow this math.
You have an attack that deals 100 pts, 0 on a save. The chance of a save is 55%.
How much average damage does this attack do?
How much do 100 fireballs in a row do, on average?
How much do 25 attacks of 4 fireballs at a time do, on average?
The answer is the same...on average, 55 per fireball. This is a case of averages...your 'multiple saves' is a non-issue that is again attempting to deflect the core argument. Please stick to the main topic. The only case where your point might be relevant is 'save-or-die' spells, but we are not discussing those.
Not a single one of these metamagic feats is a multiplier. None of them is a flat "times two" or "times three." The rule above is for multiplying a number or die roll. Nowhere is this done in any of these feats. Furthermore, the wording of the rule is not that each multiplier applies to the "base" number, but is in fact combined with the other multipliers to create one super multiplier. This mechanic does not have any application to metamagic, even to ones that are "really similar" to doubling.
I'm afraid you have utterly lost me with trying to draw lines between a number gained by rolling 2d6 for Greatsword damage and 10d6 for fireball damage. The result is still a number. You are still doubling the number, and then doubling it again, and the rule you quoted would apply directly. You are making an artificial distinction between metamagic and the entire rest of the game, which is not a very logical argument. If you can find an addendum to that rule you quoted that specifically excludes metamagic as not subject to this very broad and inclusive rule, I will concede both your logic and this point. I do not, however, think that you can.
Leap Attack stacks multiplicatively with other things. It increases the damage return of your Power Attack, which is then added to your weapon damage and relevant bonuses - for a greatsword we take a -10 penalty and get a +20 bonus which is then doubled to +40). Then we tack on a x2 critical, and lo and beyold we get 4d6 + 80 damage. Either that or it's -10 --> +20 --> +30 --> +60. I'm not sure what the errata intends.
So yes, I do have a true comparison.
Leap Attack adds +100% of your Weapon Damage. By distinct errata, that's an ADDITIVE effect, not a STACKING effect.
A Leap Attack works as Weapon Dmg, +100% Weapon Damage.
On a critical, Its Critical Mod x Weapon Dmg, +100% Weapon Damage.
You are trying to compare Leap Attack, a potential multiplier effect, to Power Attack, an additive effect.
Power Attack is akin to Edge, Extra Edge, Acid Sheathe, Ray Specialization, and similar things in that it adds a fixed number to the base attack. It doesn't add extra dice...we all know extra dice is not multiplied on crits, right?
Leap Attack, because the phrasing DID lead to multiplier abuse, was instead brought back down to the Additive rules for damage, instead of the stacking rules for damage.
In short, Weapon Damage (or base spell damage), x Potential Critical Multiplier (rays only), +Extra Multipliers (Leap attack here would directly compare to Twin Spell, Repeat Spell or Admixture).
In short, you just made an example arguing my point. In cases where multipliers of damage exist from feats or spells, Wizards has AGAIN set precedent that such things should Add, not Stack on one another. And then, in a remarkable display of inconsistency, they have turned around and ruled that such things do indeed, stack.
Thus, they violate precedent they established with Empower And Maximize (i.e. if they wanted them to stack, why didn't they just say they stacked thus and so?), and they violate their own doubling doubling rules that they have repeatedly enforced, to the extent of taking a weapon feat and reducing it to +additional damage, instead of adding it to a multiplier effect.
Empower and Maximize have had multiple occasions to be redefined and follow the stacking mechanic of all other metamagic feats. They were NOT redefined as doing so...they were redefined as additive.
Further errata's have been done to insure that potential multiplier effects for damage have been reduced also to additive effects. Damage is the key thing linking all of these. And we, the very curious, are wondering why they are being so very, very inconsistent with such precedent where metamagic is concerned.
====Aelryinth
Example: You just jumped through an Extended Wall of Fire. Did you take more damage?
No, but that is irrelevant.
You just got hit by an Extended Melf's Acid Arrow. You pull it out and dump your wine flask on the acid. Did you take extra damage?
No, but that is irrelevant.
Extended is a misdirecting argument. Please keep it on base. It no more increases direct damage dealt then Extended Rage increases Melee Weapon Damage. It increases Potential Damage, the same way that Quicken delivers double damage at the cost of an extra spell, Widen allows you to start fireballing sooner, and Enlarge lets you include 4x as many mooks in the area of effect. None of these increase direct damage.
It is not a misdirection. You're simply providing mitigating phenomena and circumstances that prevent the completion of the effect. For example, if I were to create a metamagic feat that doubled damage in every round past the first, then by your reasoning that feat would not be considered to increase damage as it could be stopped before the second round began. Extend spell does indeed double damage output, albeit (arguably) indirectly.
We are dealing purely with feats that directly affect damage dealt. That is the sole discrepancy in metamagic feats, and the whole issue of the topic at hand.
Fine. Only feats that directly affect damage dealt. Okay. I don't see how that is a relevant distinction.
Using your own method of response to Extend Spell, I just jumped through your maximized wall of fire while immune to fire. Did I take more damage? No, but the potential damage of the spell was maximized.
The introduction of external, mitigating factors does not have any bearing on the immediate effect of the metamagic feats involved.
See the above. You are getting off the path of the argument.
Please cleave to the basic argument and kindly don't throw up a smokescreen on the designers. I've also had discourse with Andy Collins and he indicated nothing of the sort. My argument is perfectly balanced and valid as it stands and it's rather presumptuous of you to invalidate it out of hand with no authority to do so.
There is no smoke involved; your argument introduces inaccurate distinctions among the feats. You stated that Empower and Maximize are the only core metamagic feats that affect damage. This was demonstrated to be false. As a response, you provided situations that end the target spell's effects prematurely. This in no way counters the argument that Extend Spell increases damage output. And reason alone is authority enough.
That is indeed correct. However, it would have been just as easy for them to say "in cases where these two feats interact, simply maximize the variables and increase that number by 50%." or " increase the variables by 50% and then maximize the new variables."
That's intuitively what most people would do. Instead, they added a completely different mechanic...instead of the multiplying mechanic above which you are championing, they went completely against type and added an Additive mechanic.
Now tell me, why would they do that? The only thing the feats have in common is that they directly affect damage dealt, and so the dmg cap/rd. But instead, they introduce a completely non-intuitive mechanic to resolve the situation?
And you believe that doing something like this is not a display of game designer intentions?
Neither of the alternative phrasings that you provide results in the same effect as the current set up, so I am not quite sure where you are going with this. Further, the maximized, empower fireball (CL 10) still has a maximum damage of 90 hp, the same value as the intuitive application of Maximize Spell and Empower Spell that you posit. How has any damage cap per round been affected?
The designers did what they did a) in order to resolve an application sequence problem, and b) because that's the way they thought of doing it. Hey, maybe they wanted to retain some amount of randomness, I don't know. Neither do you, though, and when Andy Collins, one of the designers involved, says that metamagic feats interact in a certain way, well, that tends to provide real insight into the intentions of those designers as to how metamagic feats interact.
Please follow this math.
You have an attack that deals 100 pts, 0 on a save. The chance of a save is 55%.
How much average damage does this attack do?
How much do 100 fireballs in a row do, on average?
How much do 25 attacks of 4 fireballs at a time do, on average?
The answer is the same...on average, 55 per fireball. This is a case of averages...your 'multiple saves' is a non-issue that is again attempting to deflect the core argument. Please stick to the main topic. The only case where your point might be relevant is 'save-or-die' spells, but we are not discussing those.
I twin a fireball (CL 10). Both fireballs hit their target, the one doing 36 damage, and the other is saved against and does 18 damage. Is it your position that said metamagic feat doubled my damage output that round? Yes, the average damage output over a sufficiently large sample of X twinned fireballs and 2X fireballs will approach equivalence, but that is not really relevant. The issue is whether Twin doubles one particular casting's damage. It does not.
I'm afraid you have utterly lost me with trying to draw lines between a number gained by rolling 2d6 for Greatsword damage and 10d6 for fireball damage. The result is still a number. You are still doubling the number, and then doubling it again, and the rule you quoted would apply directly. You are making an artificial distinction between metamagic and the entire rest of the game, which is not a very logical argument. If you can find an addendum to that rule you quoted that specifically excludes metamagic as not subject to this very broad and inclusive rule, I will concede both your logic and this point. I do not, however, think that you can.
There is no unnecessary distinction being made. My focus was on the wording of the rules. I will reiterate. Not a single one of these metamagic feats is explicitly a multiplier. None of them is a flat "times two" or "times three." The rule that is constantly being cited is for multiplying a number or die roll. Nowhere is multiplication performed in any of these feats. This mechanic does not have any application to metamagic, even to ones that are "really similar" to doubling, since nowhere do we "multiply damage more than once," as per the SRD.
Leap Attack adds +100% of your Weapon Damage. By distinct errata, that's an ADDITIVE effect, not a STACKING effect.
A Leap Attack works as Weapon Dmg, +100% Weapon Damage.
On a critical, Its Critical Mod x Weapon Dmg, +100% Weapon Damage.
You are trying to compare Leap Attack, a potential multiplier effect, to Power Attack, an additive effect.
So when something says that it adds +100%, that is neither a doubling nor even a multiplicative effect? If that is the case, then surely Empower Spell's "increased by one-half" line, as directly equivalent to +50%, is not a multiplicative effect and not subject to the multiplication rules. Maximize certainly isn't.Power Attack is akin to Edge, Extra Edge, Acid Sheathe, Ray Specialization, and similar things in that it adds a fixed number to the base attack. It doesn't add extra dice...we all know extra dice is not multiplied on crits, right?
Just to clarify, Leap Attack adds 100% Power Attack bonus damage. It is indeed multiplied on a critical.
Leap Attack, because the phrasing DID lead to multiplier abuse, was instead brought back down to the Additive rules for damage, instead of the stacking rules for damage.
... Could you reread that feat and its entry in the Complete Adventurer errata, please? I think that your rebuttal to the Leap Attack comparison was based on a faulty understanding of the feats involved, and I want to see what you have to say.
In short, you just made an example arguing my point. In cases where multipliers of damage exist from feats or spells, Wizards has AGAIN set precedent that such things should Add, not Stack on one another. And then, in a remarkable display of inconsistency, they have turned around and ruled that such things do indeed, stack.
Thus, they violate precedent they established with Empower And Maximize (i.e. if they wanted them to stack, why didn't they just say they stacked thus and so?), and they violate their own doubling doubling rules that they have repeatedly enforced, to the extent of taking a weapon feat and reducing it to +additional damage, instead of adding it to a multiplier effect.
(bold portion
That's what they did. The mechanics for their stacking are presented in their entirety in the PHB and SRD, right in those feats' entries. There is no inconsistency here.No, but that is irrelevant.
Then why did you bring the effect into a damage discussion?
No, but that is irrelevant.
Please repeat your point?
It is not a misdirection. You're simply providing mitigating phenomena and circumstances that prevent the completion of the effect. For example, if I were to create a metamagic feat that doubled damage in every round past the first, then by your reasoning that feat would not be considered to increase damage as it could be stopped before the second round began. Extend spell does indeed double damage output, albeit (arguably) indirectly.
And since we are talking about direct damage dealing, your entire point is fallacious. And then you quote a feat which doesn't exist, simply to make a non-logical inference, when such a feat would specifically increase damage...but at a greatly reduced % because now the fact of damage avoidance possibility is built right in.
Fine. Only feats that directly affect damage dealt. Okay. I don't see how that is a relevant distinction.
Because the core feats we are talking about both have one thing in common. They directly affect direct damage.
Using your own method of response to Extend Spell, I just jumped through your maximized wall of fire while immune to fire. Did I take more damage? No, but the potential damage of the spell was maximized.
And you also take none from your extended version. Now remove the immunity to fire, and Maximize increased damage, and yours did not.
The introduction of external, mitigating factors does not have any bearing on the immediate effect of the metamagic feats involved.
And since none of your Metamagic examples had immediate effects increasing the damage, you are contradicting yourself?
There is no smoke involved; your argument introduces inaccurate distinctions among the feats. You stated that Empower and Maximize are the only core metamagic feats that affect damage. This was demonstrated to be false. As a response, you provided situations that end the target spell's effects prematurely. This in no way counters the argument that Extend Spell increases damage output. And reason alone is authority enough.
Your argument and reason are based on an illogical foundation, as was noted above, and this is not a valid response.
Neither of the alternative phrasings that you provide results in the same effect as the current set up, so I am not quite sure where you are going with this. Further, the maximized, empower fireball (CL 10) still has a maximum damage of 90 hp, the same value as the intuitive application of Maximize Spell and Empower Spell that you posit. How has any damage cap per round been affected?
Unless your fireball rolls those 10d6 as all 6's (making Maximize redundant), it increases the average damage. And I gave the two examples as a rejoinder to your language argument. It would have been just as easy for the designers to say they did act like all the other metamagic feats...But they Did Not. They established a precedent where feats affecting direct damage directly did not stack when they just as easily could have.
The designers did what they did a) in order to resolve an application sequence problem, and b) because that's the way they thought of doing it. Hey, maybe they wanted to retain some amount of randomness, I don't know. Neither do you, though, and when Andy Collins, one of the designers involved, says that metamagic feats interact in a certain way, well, that tends to provide real insight into the intentions of those designers as to how metamagic feats interact.
And having spoken to Andy Collins on this issue, I do know where he stands. Meaning you again have a non-argument here.
I twin a fireball (CL 10). Both fireballs hit their target, the one doing 36 damage, and the other is saved against and does 18 damage. Is it your position that said metamagic feat doubled my damage output that round? Yes, the average damage output over a sufficiently large sample of X twinned fireballs and 2X fireballs will approach equivalence, but that is not really relevant. The issue is whether Twin doubles one particular casting's damage. It does not.
This entire discussion becomes MEANINGLESS unless we are talking about multiple castings. Maximize is an utterly worthless feat if you roll all 6's, too. Empower means nothing if you roll all 5's and 6's this casting. Individual examples are utterly meaningless...this is all about averages.
This entire discussion is about DOT by means of multiple castings and averages.
There is no unnecessary distinction being made. My focus was on the wording of the rules. I will reiterate. Not a single one of these metamagic feats is explicitly a multiplier. None of them is a flat "times two" or "times three." The rule that is constantly being cited is for multiplying a number or die roll. Nowhere is multiplication performed in any of these feats. This mechanic does not have any application to metamagic, even to ones that are "really similar" to doubling, since nowhere do we "multiply damage more than once," as per the SRD.
Creating a copy of a spell is doubling the spell. That is a double damage. Allowing that spell and its copy to be Repeated is again doubling the spell. You are now clearly following a mathematical trend of x2 and x2, which increases with Admixture and various other effects. If you are incapable of following a multiplicative progression explained in non-standard terms, why are you arguing so vociferously?
Just to clarify, Leap Attack adds 100% Power Attack bonus damage. It is indeed multiplied on a critical.
Actually, if you go reread the errata, it is not simply because of the abuse that went along with it. The +100% is added on at the end of the attack. Therefore, it isn't a true multiplier for weapons, because it is not subject to special conditions for criticals. And you are again being self-contradictory, citing first that +100% is not multiplicative, and now citing that it is?
Could you reread that feat and its entry in the Complete Adventurer errata, please? I think that your rebuttal to the Leap Attack comparison was based on a faulty understanding of the feats involved, and I want to see what you have to say.
Could you go reread the errata on this abused feat and how it works?
(bold portion
Since they don't stack, you are utterly correct. And of course, you are then ignoring the broader issue of why other feats that affect damage don't act the same way, OR why these feats stand alone when it would have been easier to act like all the other feats, AND why later feats get to violate the double double = triple rule.
[Regdar’s note: please let’s keep this debate friendly as we go forward. Thanks.]
1) This spell is not balanced compared to other spells of its level (the spell's lower DC, and the required feat taken into consideration). Thus the twinned spell metamagic is an unbalanced feat.
2) This spell is balanced compared to other spells of its level (the spell's lower DC, and the required feat taken into consideration). Thus applying more metamagic to it, should also be balanced.
In case number 2, it seems to me, that applying another metamagic feat to something that's balanced should again be balanced, whether there's already a metamagic feat in place or not. So either the first metamagic applied created something overpowered and is unbalanced as it is, or it didn't and there's no problem with metamagic stacking.
Or
Spell X receives a first metamagic feat. It now takes up a level Y spell slot and is on par with level Y spells. A level Y spell gets a metamagic feat and takes up a level Z slot. Should the metamagic apply only partially to the level Y spell that was actually created with another metamagic feat? No unless that first metamagic feat already made the spell imbalanced for its level.
I probably explained this in a very unclear way. Anyone who understood what I'm trying to say and can reiterate it in proper understandable English is welcome to do so.
Creating a copy of a spell is doubling the spell.
No. It’s not. Creating a copy of a spell is the same as gaining an extra attack. From Cleave or TWF or Haste or.....
That is a double damage. Allowing that spell and its copy to be Repeated is again doubling the spell.
No, You are incorrect. Now you are in the realm of gaining an extra attack off the extra attack. Cleaving off your Haste attack, etc.
You are now clearly following a mathematical trend of x2 and x2, which increases with Admixture and various other effects.
Wrong again. Admixture is bonus damage. It is equivalent to getting Sneak Attack damage.
If you are incapable of following a multiplicative progression explained in non-standard terms, why are you arguing so vociferously?
I'd say it’s because you are reading a narrowly defined, highly specific rule to apply in an extremely broad method.
Since they don't stack, you are utterly correct. And of course, you are then ignoring the broader issue of why other feats that affect damage don't act the same way, OR why these feats stand alone when it would have been easier to act like all the other feats, AND why later feats get to violate the double double = triple rule.
They don’t stack because they are mechanically incompatible. You have to roll dice to get an Empowered effect, you don’t roll dice with a Maximized effect. Without the special rule, the feats CANNOT be used on the same spell.
That's one reason to support the "cheesy" interpretation of Heighten Spell. After all, it would still cost a feat (Heighten) to gain those benefits.
That is exactly how I "houserule" it, and for that exact reason. Also, augmentation of a lot of Psionic powers also increases the save DCs. This is somewhat comparable to using metamagic to increase the power of a low level spell.
What happens if you twin a split ray maximized empowered energy admixtured polar ray. Can a caster control which feat applies when, the order I mean? You would think so considering their control of magic, having so many meta magic feats and a 25th level slot to cast the spell.
So, if you spit the ray thin twinned it; would you have 4 rays or 3? Would all rays be energy admixtured, empowered and maximized? Would the dice from the empower and energy admixture be maximized? If they all stacked, it would be 1800 damage if I have my simple math right?
Also, if you applied the feat from Frostburn that would make the spell Polar Ray ignore cold resistance and deal half damage to creatures immune, would all 4, or 3, rays have that effect, or only the first?
2. Past Max+Empower, Metamagic stacking is a must in my games. Sadly, since I’m the only power-gamer, I’m stuck as DM while everyone else RPs. Strangely I'm enjoying this way more than constantly trying to tick off D&D gods.
3. PHB2, p61 FTW
A proposed question:
What happens if you twin a split ray maximized empowered energy admixtured polar ray. Can a caster control which feat applies when, the order I mean? You would think so considering their control of magic, having so many meta magic feats and a 25th level slot to cast the spell.
So, if you spit the ray thin twinned it; would you have 4 rays or 3? Would all rays be energy admixtured, empowered and maximized? Would the dice from the empower and energy admixture be maximized? If they all stacked, it would be 1800 damage if I have my simple math right?
Also, if you applied the feat from Frostburn that would make the spell Polar Ray ignore cold resistance and deal half damage to creatures immune, would all 4, or 3, rays have that effect, or only the first?
The ruling is all effects stack unless specifically denied.
Empower and Maximize don't stack. So there's your base dmg. I'm going to use 20d6 as the base. Your base dmg is 120 + 10 d6.
Twin is now 240 + 20d6. (two rays)
Admixture is now 480 +40d6 (additional set of Fire Rays)
Split ray is now 960 + 80 d6 (each ray forks).
Assuming you shot them all at one target, your average dmg if they all hit and it's not resistant is 960 + 80*3.6, or 1280 dmg. You'd have to find a way to pay for, what, +18 spell slot levels ('only' +13 with Arcane Thesis) or be an Artificer.
No. It’s not. Creating a copy of a spell is the same as gaining an extra attack. From Cleave or TWF or Haste or.....
It's creating a second spell, no more, no less. Whether the effects of the spell can stack on themselves is a function of the spell, not of the feat. And we are distinctly talking about direct damage spells.
No, You are incorrect. Now you are in the realm of gaining an extra attack off the extra attack. Cleaving off your Haste attack, etc.
I'm now cleaving off each of my three extra attacks from Haste, twinned...except Haste doesn't work that way. It's specifically noted as not stacking on itself. Let's restrict the spells to the direct damage spells that are at the heart of the discussion?
Wrong again. Admixture is bonus damage. It is equivalent to getting Sneak Attack damage.
? So if I admixture a Scorching Ray and score a crit, it doesn't double??? (You know, like SA dmg doesn't.) Please reread the rules and rethink this statement.
I'd say it’s because you are reading a narrowly defined, highly specific rule to apply in an extremely broad method.
Like, say, the double double = a triple rule for the d20 system?
They don’t stack because they are mechanically incompatible. You have to roll dice to get an Empowered effect, you don’t roll dice with a Maximized effect. Without the special rule, the feats CANNOT be used on the same spell.
As I noted above, it is just as easy for them to say "Maximize all variables and increase them 50%", or "add 50% of variables, then maximize them" as it is to say to apply them independently. The above explanation is actually MORE intuitive then them not stacking. Without specific examples, it is exactly how people would handle the problem. Thus, this rule is a showcase of designer intent, more then it is a display of how to manipulate the English language to justify an outcome after the fact.
:D
to save this resource:D