A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Nice catch there, WhiZard.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

WhiZard wrote...

No, due to rounding, it is equal to maximize.  (Empower gets 3, 4, 6, or 7 which averages 5).

Fair enough.  I suspect Shadow will still be upset about how Maximize isn't BETTER.  Edited prior post.

P.S. See how this works, WebShaman?  If you make an inaccurate statement you acknowledge it, own up to it, and fix it.  You should try it sometime.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 13 février 2014 - 09:58 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               This is better than watching UFC!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MerricksDad]

               *shoots this thread with a vorpal mace
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               First. I dont disagree with anything that Whizard wrote. But what MM wrote is bunch of nonsenses and because he is suggesting how I do interpret something I have to respond because thats not true.

MagicalMaster wrote...

However, imagine GMW gave a 1d(casterlvl) bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say yes.

Now imagine GMW gave a casterlvl/2 bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say no.

Now, what's actually the difference between these?  The former is between by 0.5 damage per level and has random damage but the AVERAGE behavior of both spells is essentially the same.

first there is no spell with a 1d(caster level) so this is only pure theory that is meaningless. Second difference is in a fact that one spell has variable, numeric effect and the other doesn't.

Did you just, like, ignore the second of my post?

Quick quiz:

#1: A spell does (1d6 + 1) per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

#2: A spell does (1d6 + 1) damage per missile and fires one missile per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

First no such spell as #1 exist. So its meaningless, but if it would have existed there is no reason to believe the +1 wouldnt be empowered.

When you do understand that even if you cast a spell #2 on a single target you have to roll 1d6+1 for each missile. You do not empower the total damage output to a single target but each missile. Spells like magic missile has two effects, damage and number of missiles, if a number of missiles was 1d6+1 again it would be empowered again (which is an example of evards). You cannot calculate it this way because you would come into wrong results 10x (1d6+1)*1.5 != (10d6+10)*1.5

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I suggest to read this about dices.

Did YOU read it?

The whole point of that article is how dice versus constants don't matter, ONLY what the resulting range is.

And I said anything that suggest otherwise? I guess we misunderstood each other.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Indeed thats what it seems to indicate. Same as the fact that empower outshines maximized indicate this is not correct.

Hang on...you're fine with Empowering Magic Missile as (1d4 + 1) * 1.5, though?

Jesus, last three pages Im trying to tell you that I never had a problem with empowering (1d4+1) in magic missile! Never claimed it shouldnt be calculated, its not per level bonus and its an example in DnD empower spell description so how could I possibly thought about not adding this +1 to the calculation?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 14 février 2014 - 03:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Aelis Eine]

               

WhiZard wrote...

Evard's in NWN does not reflect the DnD version.  But looking at the NWN, the number of targets (summoned tentacles) is multiplied by 1.5, and their respective damage is multiplied by 1.5.  So long as their damage isn't combined into one source of total damage (as was fixed in the 1.69) there is no pertinent calculation which is multiplied by 2.25.

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

I could make the same argument with barbarian damage reduction if the tentacles deal damage to the barbarian, should I expect the actual damage dealt to the barbarian is multiplied by 1.5 (that is the damage reduction would come before the 1.5 multiplication)? Answer is no.  By limiting the sources to damage, healing and number of targets as calculated by the spell, there is no reason to assume other calculations involving the variable are to come out as 1.5 times normal.

You can't make that same argument '>

I quote your own reference to the SRD:

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

For you to make that argument, Barbarian Damage Reduction would have to first, be variable, and second, be an effect of the empowered spell. It is neither, so the rest doesn't apply.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Fair enough.  I suspect Shadow will still be upset about how Maximize isn't BETTER.  Edited prior post.

P.S. See how this works, WebShaman?  If you make an inaccurate statement you acknowledge it, own up to it, and fix it.  You should try it sometime.

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....


               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Aelis Eine wrote...

WhiZard wrote...

Evard's in NWN does not reflect the DnD version.  But looking at the NWN, the number of targets (summoned tentacles) is multiplied by 1.5, and their respective damage is multiplied by 1.5.  So long as their damage isn't combined into one source of total damage (as was fixed in the 1.69) there is no pertinent calculation which is multiplied by 2.25.

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

No more than half the tentacles can attack a single target. However, that still means that, on average, a target inside a level 20+ Evard's is potentially subject to 2.20x (not quite 2.25x due to roundoff considerations) the damage of the same target inside a non-empowered Evard's. How much damage a target will actually take will depend on other factors, such as damage reduction.

Not that there is a problem with empowered Evard's, necessarily. At least 1.5x-the-tentacles and 1.5x-the-damage-per-tentacle is certainly what the NWN description of empower implies will happen. There is a problem with the fact that empower treats medium creatures as huge ones. I have been staying out of the debate over how empower should work, but this spell at least serves as an illustration of difference between changing a spell because one disagrees with its implementation and changing a spell to fix a clear bug. How the empowered spell ought to work is an implementation decision, whether or not one agrees with it. The fact that the script uses = where it should have used == is a bug.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MrZork, 14 février 2014 - 07:49 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

??

I was replying to WhiZard.  I never took any "shots" at anyone.  And I never ended this discussion here??!!

To what are you referring Elhanan?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               With a one day distance, I have to admit that the correct implementation per DnD rules is to empower everything. It makes no sense that empower outshine maximize but from the enhanced description I see no way to exclude the +x/per x level bonus to the damage anymore. Its "broken", but it seems as intent.

Not that this fact would have any impact on the issue that started this debate, just so you know and don't continue in this anymore...
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 14 février 2014 - 02:04 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Aelis Eine wrote...

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

If all the damage were combined and the description read "This spell creates tentacles which attempt to pull the target apart for a total damage of (10 + (1d4)/2) * (1d6 + 4) damage," then the total damage output when empowered would be 1.5 * (10 + (1d4)/2) * (1d6 + 4), not 1.5 * (10 + (1d4)/2 * 1.5 * (1d6 +4).  By having the damage as allocated to each tentacle, rather than a combined (coordinated) spell attack, BioWare gave justification for allowing the 2.25 multiplication when empowered.  Needless to say, DnD does not do this.  Its 3.5 version does not have a variable number of tentacles and thus the empowered would only be at 1.5

Aelis Eine wrote...

I could make the same argument with barbarian damage reduction if the tentacles deal damage to the barbarian, should I expect the actual damage dealt to the barbarian is multiplied by 1.5 (that is the damage reduction would come before the 1.5 multiplication)? Answer is no.  By limiting the sources to damage, healing and number of targets as calculated by the spell, there is no reason to assume other calculations involving the variable are to come out as 1.5 times normal.

You can't make that same argument '>

I quote your own reference to the SRD:

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

For you to make that argument, Barbarian Damage Reduction would have to first, be variable, and second, be an effect of the empowered spell. It is neither, so the rest doesn't apply.

I was assuming you were taking the stance of interpreting this portion

An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal

as meaning that all mechanics of final damage output are to be 1.5 of the final damage output of the spell cast normally.  That was your point, no?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WhiZard, 14 février 2014 - 02:36 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

WebShaman wrote...

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

??

I was replying to WhiZard. I never took any "shots" at anyone. And I never ended this discussion here??!!

To what are you referring Elhanan?

Was not you I was ref; was another that continued to take personal shots after you had left the debate.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Needless to say, DnD does not do this.  Its 3.5 version does not have a variable number of tentacles and thus the empowered would only be at 1.5

Actually got out the 3.0 SRD and it does seem that the 2.25 damage interpretation could be applied for each empowering of the spell.

Black Tentacles
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: 1d4 tentacles + one tentacle/level, all within 15 ft. of a central point
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell conjures many rubbery black tentacles. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. There are 1d4 such tentacles, plus one per caster level, appearing randomly scattered about the area. Each tentacle is 10 feet long (Large) and saves as the character does. It has AC 16, 1 hit point/per caster level, an attack bonus of +1/per caster level, and a Strength score of 19 (+4 bonus). It is immune to spells that don’t cause damage (other than disintegrate).
Each round that a tentacle is not already grappling someone or something, starting the round after it appears, it makes a grapple attack at a random creature or object within 10 feet of it. These attacks take place on the character's turn. The tentacles do not attack each other, nor do they attack objects that are smaller than a Medium-size creature. The attacks are like regular grappling attacks, except that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from opponents. Also, they cause 1d6 points of normal damage (+4 for Strength), not subdual damage. A tentacle maintains its grapple even after its subject is dying or dead.

Unlike 3.5 tentacles, the 3.0 tentacles can easily be killed off with AoE spells or great cleave.  However looking at the 3.0 description the variable damage seems to be more a description of the creature rather than a description of what the spell does (it is listed with all the other creature stats).  So my interpretation is 3.0 get 1.5 times the number when empowered, while 3.5 get 1.5 times the damage when empowered.  BioWare seems to have gotten the best of both worlds.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WhiZard, 14 février 2014 - 02:50 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Elhanan wrote...

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

Yes, suggesting that someone should be more honest and forthright in their dealings is such a dastardly and terrible thing to say.  It must reflect rather poorly on my moral character to think that people should acknowledge and fix their mistakes like I just did rather than evading issues.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

With a one day distance, I have to admit that the correct implementation per DnD rules is to empower everything.It makes no sense that empower outshine maximize but from the enhanced description I see no way to exclude the +x/per x level bonus to the damage anymore. Its "broken", but it seems as intent.

I agree that it makes no sense for Empower to outshine or equal Maximize but it makes even LESS sense for Empower to only add like 10% and Maximize 15% to some spells while adding 50% and 71-77% to 95% of them.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Maximizing a NEB and only getting a 14.2% bonus is wierd and unintended.  We just think it's even WEIRDER and MORE unintended to make Empower only give a 9% bonus.

It's a lesser of two evils, Shadow.

Or, in other words, no one has ever disagreed with one of your main points, we simply think a different point has higher priority.

But thank you for being willing to change your mind after consideration.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 14 février 2014 - 05:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               Comparing Empower to Maximize only on averages misses part of the value of Maximize - predictability. When you cast, you know how much damage you will deal. Flattened risk can be incredibly valuable in the real world, and has obvious carryover implications in D&D mechanics as well. Consider by way of example a spell that, when maximized, is guaranteed to kill a creature, save or no (setting aside spells subject to, for example, improved/evasion). Unless the full range of the empowered version of that spell is able to make the same guarantee, what you are paying for with that extra metamagic level is certainty.

That said, I still don't think Max is generally worth the full extra level. If mechanics allowed, it'd probably be worth more like 2.2 metamagic levels - in part because it requires a great deal of information and knowledge to use to maximal effect, which the person casting will often either not have access to, or will not have time to compute (like current remaining hit points).

Funky
               
               

               

                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 14 février 2014 - 06:00 .