A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Gray area, awesome, I could have used this argument too for the caster level bonus. I mean seriously? As explained in some of the FAQs at the start, the description lists what you cant do, and everything else is allowed - to list everything that can be done is simply not a possible. If you want to use this argument then we can throw up the whole 8 pages of debate whether is the +1/per caster level meant to be empowered or not (where I found The Krit's explanation for this very convincing before)

 

The FAQs list both what you can and can't do (remember magic missile- you can increase damage).  Things outside the original can and cannot are to be considered accidental placement of variables, that is DnD tries to avoid placing variables in places that do not fall neatly into one of these categories.  If one is found, it should tried to be reasoned what is the best category that it should fall into.  For example if there were a spell that half of the time would attempt to stun a creature, should an empowered version increase the frequency of being able to stun (because "half" is equivalent to a single outcome of a d2 roll and thus might be considered variable).  I would posit this case, probability in general, in the same category as "checks" or "opposed rolls." Just because a variable shows up in a spell description doesn't mean that it was intended for use with empower.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

That is what I mentioned.  The discussion on whether the tentacles are to be considered a creature is regarding their grapple attack 1d6 damage (which is modified by the +4 strength modifier).  Does the damage also get empowered?  My ruling is that for 3.0 Evard's that the damage stays at 1d6 +4.  The other interpretation is that the damage is at (1d6) * 1.5 + 4 (that is the base damage for the tentacles is empowered).  You might want to post the second half or go back to page 12 of this discussion where I posted the entirety of the 3.0 description from the SRD.

 

No need to go back. The tentacles are a conjuration that lasts as long as the spell is active. Therefore, you're quite correct when you maintain that their damage is not empowered. The damage is caused by the tentacles grapple attack, not directly by the spell itself. Thus, the damage, which is not an effect of the spell but of the tentacles, should not be empowered. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

That is what I mentioned.  The discussion on whether the tentacles are to be considered a creature is regarding their grapple attack 1d6 damage (which is modified by the +4 strength modifier).  Does the damage also get empowered?  My ruling is that for 3.0 Evard's that the damage stays at 1d6 +4.  The other interpretation is that the damage is at (1d6) * 1.5 + 4 (that is the base damage for the tentacles is empowered).  You might want to post the second half or go back to page 12 of this discussion where I posted the entirety of the 3.0 description from the SRD.

Okay. I get this argument, but if the tentacle is something more than a missile and it is a truly creature (and this didn't changed across 3.0 and 3.5 as I pointed above) then, if anything, there is no empowering of its damage at all.

The FAQs list both what you can and can't do (remember magic missile- you can increase damage).  Things outside the original can and cannot are to be considered accidental placement of variables, that is DnD tries to avoid placing variables in places that do not fall neatly into one of these categories.  If one is found, it should tried to be reasoned what is the best category that it should fall into.  For example if there were a spell that half of the time would attempt to stun a creature, should an empowered version increase the frequency of being able to stun (because "half" is equivalent to a single outcome of a d2 roll and thus might be considered variable).  I would posit this case, probability in general, in the same category as "checks" or "opposed rolls." Just because a variable shows up in a spell description doesn't mean that it was intended for use with empower.

Nice example of something that nobody would ever considered to be "empowerable". How would it even worked lol. We are talking here specifically about a variable effect duration. In a terms of the rules the spell creates some object/effect (missile, hand, cloud) that does something. We know that while the caster creates a missile, he also can affect the missile power at the same time. Why this would be any different now?

 

What I wanted to say with the "can do/cannot do in FAQ" is that when something isn't said there its allowed as long as its not said you cannot do this.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

No need to go back. The tentacles are a conjuration that lasts as long as the spell is active. Therefore, you're quite correct when you maintain that their damage is not empowered. The damage is caused by the tentacles grapple attack, not directly by the spell itself. Thus, the damage, which is not an effect of the spell but of the tentacles, should not be empowered. 

So when the magic missile creates a missile, its damage is not an effect of the spell itself and shouldnt be empowered?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

So when the magic missile creates a missile, its damage is not an effect of the spell itself and shouldnt be empowere

 

So when the magic missile creates a missile, its damage is not an effect of the spell itself and shouldnt be empowered?

 

Good point. This is how I look at it...

 

Magic Missile is an evocation - the energy that formulates the missile is created by the spell and thus, as a direct manifestation of the spell, is subject to empowerment. Conjuration spells call matter into being - in the case of Evards a set of tentacles. Since the damage from Evards is caused by the conjured tentacles and not directly by the spell, its damage cannot be empowered.

 

In reality you can interpret the physics of D&D anyway you want. The trick is finding an interpretation that is consistent. You like Empower one way, I prefer it another. I've come to realize that doesn't make my jelly doughnut tastier than yours - they're both still good.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

in reality you can interpret the physics of D&D anyway you want. The trick is finding an interpretation that is consistent.

 

absolutely agree, but the problem is that Bigbi hands are also an evocation, but they are creating exactly same effect as evard '> .

 

(oh gosh this quoting is so stupid there)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

*FACEPALM*

 

Well, by golly this debate just goes round and round. You're right of course - so much for trying to apply logic to DnD. How about this - Bigby's isn't empowered because Bigby didn't have the feat when he created those spells  '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Im not going to let this be however. You ve persuded me with argument "its not written in description/faq" that the caster level bonus is added to the empower calculation althought it makes it unbalanced. Now, when I brought different matter suddenly your argument is - its not written in description/faw so its gray area and suggesting that this can't be profeed so Im again wrong? Seriously, be at least consistent in what you are saying.

 

If you recall properly my understanding of the empower and bonus to the dice was that there are two types of bonuses, direct (such as described in magic missile) and indirect which is caster level dependant. The Krit has a very nice and logical explanation for this too on a nwn wiki ("Variable" numeric effects means numbers that are not known before the spell is cast. That is, it means the result of dice rolls, not numbers based on the caster level.). Now, there is nothing in FAQ that could without doubt confirm or disprove this and this is what I accepted and changed my opinion about what is meant to be correct accordingly. And that applies also for both empowering a damage of evards tentacles/bigbi's hands (where I would before agreed that its not meant to be empowered too - as it makes no sense) and duration of the secondary effects of the spell (where I see absolutely no reason why this wouldnt be empowered).

 

But my main concern is a wiki. Now if you say this cannot be proofed and its detabable, then how can wiki say "its meant to be this way" then? And I am asking again whether this will be changed or not.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Dammit - forum ate my reply and I don't really fell like retyping it. Therefore, I'll sum up where I'm at...

 

Magic Missile - Empower the damage because it is a direct effect of the spell - kind of like fireball.

 

Evards - Do NOT empower because the damage is not a direct effect of the spell. The damage is the direct result of a successful grapple attack by the tentacles.

 

Bigby's - After reading the description in the PHB again, I think BioWare got this one wrong. Any damage dealt is the result of actions taken by the hand and not a direct effct of the spell. Furthermore, this spell sounds more like a conjuration than an evocation so I'd also say WotC messed that up as well. Evocations tend to create something that has an immediate effect. Conjurations linger around.

 

Hmmm,..you got me on that one ShaDoOoW. The more you look at these "exceptions", the more I get a headache. Anyway, I've got a Pathfinder game to GM in an hour and quite frankly I'm found that my renewed interest in PnP RPGs has afforded me MORE - MUCH MORE - fun than this antique game ever will. BTW, the toolset makes one hell of a map making program.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Im not going to let this be however. You ve persuded me with argument "its not written in description/faq" that the caster level bonus is added to the empower calculation althought it makes it unbalanced. Now, when I brought different matter suddenly your argument is - its not written in description/faw so its gray area and suggesting that this can't be profeed so Im again wrong? Seriously, be at least consistent in what you are saying.

 

If you recall properly my understanding of the empower and bonus to the dice was that there are two types of bonuses, direct (such as described in magic missile) and indirect which is caster level dependant. The Krit has a very nice and logical explanation for this too on a nwn wiki ("Variable" numeric effects means numbers that are not known before the spell is cast. That is, it means the result of dice rolls, not numbers based on the caster level.). Now, there is nothing in FAQ that could without doubt confirm or disprove this and this is what I accepted and changed my opinion about what is meant to be correct accordingly. And that applies also for both empowering a damage of evards tentacles/bigbi's hands (where I would before agreed that its not meant to be empowered too - as it makes no sense) and duration of the secondary effects of the spell (where I see absolutely no reason why this wouldnt be empowered).

 

But my main concern is a wiki. Now if you say this cannot be proofed and its detabable, then how can wiki say "its meant to be this way" then? And I am asking again whether this will be changed or not.

 

Not sure the "you" on this, but as the "grey area" seems to be me I'll answer.  3.0 SRD mechanics would have 1d4 + 1 in its entirety as empowerable simply because the expression constitutes a value that is evaluates as variable and is expressed in the spell as a whole. The Krit's reasoning doesn't follow any established guidelines either from BioWare or from DnD.  1d4 + 1 per caster level is a single numeric value because it is expressed that way.  If one wanted to express them separately to be added together there are ways to accomplish that (including the use of parenthesis).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

.  If one wanted to express them separately to be added together there are ways to accomplish that (including the use of parenthesis).

You mean like this?

 

Cure light wounds

"When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)."

 

and

 

Ray of enfeeblement

"The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1."

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

You mean like this?

 

 

Nope like this (from 3.0 Evard's)

 

 

Also, they cause 1d6 points of normal damage (+4 for Strength), not subdual damage.

 

See how the parentheses are for a value that is in addition to another value already there.  The values you have only have the parentheses for maximums (not additions) which does nothing but present another value which represents their upper bound.  That is you have x (maximum y) meaning when empowered, x * 1.5 (maximum y * 1.5); this hardly does anything to separate out caster level from the variable.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Nope like this (from 3.0 Evard's)

 

 

See how the parentheses are for a value that is in addition to another value already there.  The values you have only have the parentheses for maximums (not additions) which does nothing but present another value which represents their upper bound.  That is you have x (maximum y) meaning when empowered, x * 1.5 (maximum y * 1.5); this hardly does anything to separate out caster level from the variable.

I guess I should be more specific. I didnt suggested that my two examples uses the parentheses.

 

You wrote: "If one wanted to express them separately to be added together there are ways to accomplish that".

 

See again the two examples above and notice that one has the damage described as 1d8 points of damage +1 per level (max +5) and the other 1d6+1 per level max (1d6+5). Ive already brought this argument on the page 8 or somewhere but it was counterargumented to me that since its one effect it doesnt matter how its written and per description it is as a one effect multiplied together.

 

 

Anyway your reasoning for the evards is off, also because the reason you used is not valid anymore in 3.5 where the tentacles behaves exactly the same.

 

I would agree with Pstemarie's  interpretation "damage is result of the object attack not a spell" but my point is that the argument you have used to "prove" that the caster level bonus is empowered too can be used in this case with the same success as well because this is not written in FAQ anywhere and the description doesn't exclude this. Its custom interpretation same as the "direct/indirect" bonus to the dice and has no support in official rules.

 

Because this could be interpreted as a way that the caster does make the whole object (missile, hand, tentacle, ray) empowered which affect its damage/effects.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Anyway your reasoning for the evards is off, also because the reason you used is not valid anymore in 3.5 where the tentacles behaves exactly the same.

 

 

Let's stay in 3.0 land for the time being.  Remember the 3.0 description for empowerment.

 

 

Empower Spell [Metamagic]

Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, etc., as appropriate. Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one the character makes when the character casts dispel magic) are not affected. Spells without random variables are not affected. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

 

I have added bolding to the curative words which are in parallel to that "half and again as much damage as normal", implying "half again as many hit points (as normal)".  What spells would actually cure 50% more hit points than normal?

 

Cure light wounds (Note the wording is very similar to the NWN wording you brought up).

 

When laying the character's hand upon a living creature, the character channels positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (up to +5).

 

Cure moderate wounds

Cure serious wounds

Cure critical wounds (all of these are phrased the same way as cure light wounds)

 

Healing circle

 

Positive energy spreads out in all directions from the point of origin, curing 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +20) to nearby living allies.

 

Regenerate

 

The subject’s severed body members, broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise. Regenerate also cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (up to +20).

 

 

3.0 reasoning strongly asserts that the + 1 point per caster level is included with the die roll when multiplying by 1.5.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

BTW the description of the empower metamagic match in both 3.0 and 3.5. In the 3.5 PHB the description is exactly the same, the SRD only uses the short version.

 

quote

Cure light wounds (Note the wording is very similar to the NWN wording you brought up).

 

I quoted from DnD 3.5 actually.

 

3.0 reasoning strongly asserts that the + 1 point per caster level is included with the die roll when multiplying by 1.5.

Oh you persuaded me about that. But now you are not willing to use that argument about similar issue. The 50% more damage can be used for tentacles and suddenly its not what description meant. This is my entire point, that your explanations for different matters aren't consistent.