And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Aelryinth	And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	Lead	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/01/06 18:40:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None I've got a REAL problem with your ruling on Twin Spell in the most recent Dragon Sage advice. You gave an example of Twin Spell DOUBLING a spell that had been Maximized, allowing a caster to fire off TWO Maximized whatevers. I'm sorry, but you are out of line on this. Are you re-writing the rules for established application of metamagic? Bear with me here. -------------------------------------- Example and precedent...Empower and Maximize. Empower and Maximize Specifically Do Not Stack. A 10d6 Fireball that is both Empowered and Maximized has the effects applied INDEPENDENTLY to the base spell. Thus you get the base spell, maximized to 60, and the base spell Empowered for an Additional +50% damage, or 17 pts. The spell increases 5 levels...three for Maximize, Two for Empower. Your damage is roughly +120%... Now, let's look at Twin Spell. Twin Spell basically duplicates a Spell...i.e. it's exactly the same as a +100% damage modifier. It shares this distinction with a couple other spells, such as Energy Admixture, but it is more flexible since it can be applied to non-damage spells. Like Repeat Spell and ADmixture, it ups the level of the Spell by Four levels. Point One: Empower is a two level adjustment giving +50%, Maximize a Three level adjustment giving +71%, Twin Spell is a 4 level adjustment giving +100%, Max+Empower is a 5 level Adjustment giving +120%. Max + Empower stacking is a damage adjustment of 90/35 = +157% Point Two: Twin Spell is actually like being able to take Empower Twice, except you can Twin spells that don't do any damage, meaning it has more versatility. IT's better then Admixture in this point too, as long as you are using the correct energy type, and it's easier to qualify for (any metamagic feat.) Point Three: Twin Spell + Maximize is the equal of Intensify Spell, an Epic Feat...except it's easier to do, since you can use metamagic rods, it forces two saves instead of one, it doesn't burn an Epic feat, and Twin is usable on more spells then just dice dealers. Point Four: Applying Twin Spell and Maximize Independently results in a +7 level spell with a damage adjustment of +171%, pretty close to being on line with where the damage adjustment should be. (60+35, /35) Twin Spell and Maximize Stacking results in a damage adjustment of +242%. (60x2, /35) Point Five: You are now setting a precedent that any and all kind of Feats that deal with increasing damage stack on one another (except for the specific Maximize/Empower example - i.e. unless it specifically says it doesn't stack, it does!). In other words, every four levels of metamagic I can get my hands on, the spell damage doesn't Add +100%, it DOUBLES. A Twinned, Repeating, Admixtured spell is now x 8 dmg (or +700%) instead of Quadruple dmg (+300%). Adding Split Ray now gets us x16 damage instead of +400%. This is a VERY BAD precedent to have, IMO. Point Six: You just utterly justified complete cheese for the Artificer Metamagic Item damage combos, which had enough balance problems of their own, which use all of the above, since Metamagic Item infusions currently are not shown NOT to stack. ==================== I have always used the base spell as the modification for any and all overlapping effects...it solves all sorts of problems. Is the spell Enlarged and Empowered? Fine, for the normal range (the base spell) it's Empowered, and beyond that the Empowerment doesn't apply. Simple, neat. Widened and Maximized? The normal radius is maxed, the rest is normal damage. I'm not at all sure how you are supposed to apply metamagic effects, but I always went with the more conservative approach from a balance standpoint. Sure, having effects that enhance different aspects of a spell stack probably doesn't violate any barriars (so, Maxing a Widened Fireball probably won't break anything), but I felt that would be a House rule. But effects that overlap were always additive, following the standard stacking rule for 3E that a doubling doubling is additive (+200%), not multiplicative (x4), and you are breaking that rule with your Twin/Maximize example. I'd REALLY like to see a justification on this, and if so, I really need a clearer example of what stacks with what...and if you are going to let this slide, then tell me why in the heck Empower + Maximize doesn't stack. No offense intended, but I'm really not too happy here, and I need to see an informed defense of the ruling before I accept it. ==Aelryinth
Aelryinth	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#1	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/02/06 02:07:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As a caveat, please note that I'm not campaigning for balanced metamagic feats, I'm asking for consistency in applying them. What we've got here is basic inconsistency in how to apply metamagic...my opinions on which of the two is balanced is irrelevant. I'm looking for consistency and reason of application, and when and how to add feats, and when to actually stack them. What I'm seeing is an inconsistency of application, and I need to see this cleared up, or I have to default to the more conservative application of the rules. ===Aelryinth
kenjenks	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#2	[-]
Posts: 61 (02/02/06 04:40:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Try these shirt-and-tie-and-pants outfits on for size: Widen Spell + Energy Substitution (Cold) + Fireball Widen Spell + Silent Spell + Fireball Heighten Spell + Empower Spell + Fireball Empower Spell + Still Spell + Mirror Image It's kind of hard to argue that Widen Spell + Energy Substitution (Cold) + Fireball should cause a Baked Alaska spell -- cold in the middle and hot around the edges. Or that Widen Spell + Silent Spell + Fireball is quiet, mostly. Or that you have two saving throw DCs involved in a Heighten Spell + Empower Spell + Fireball. It appears to me that the metamagic stacking concept behind Empower Spell + Maximize Spell + Fireball is more the exception than the rule. I suspect that Andy is coming around to that concept, if he isn't there already.
Andy Collins	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#3	[-]
Posts: 1566 (02/02/06 10:54:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I find no support in the rules for the claim that a metamagic effect does not apply to the entire spell being cast (including any other metamagic effects). PH 88 says "A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic effects to a single spell," but unless the rules state otherwise, I can't see how one could conclude that the effects apply to different fractions of the spell. In fact, that way seems to lead to madness. A widened, empowered fireball deals 150% damage over the entire area, not just the original 20-foot radius. A quickened, maximized fireball takes only a swift action to cast--you don't get 10d6 damage after a swift action and (60 minus the result) at the end of the standard action that it didn't take you to cast the spell. The Maximize + Empower combo appears to be a specific exception to this general rule. It's OK to have exceptions, but they don't necessarily create precedent for other areas of the rules. I'd never expect anyone to have to read the Maximize Spell entry to figure out how Empower + Twin works, for instance. Twin Spell could state in its Benefit entry that it only causes the base (unmodified by metamagic) spell to take effect twice, but it does not. Without issuing official errata (something beyond the scope of Sage Advice), I believe that reading that into the benefit would be an incorrect assumption. Sage Advice is not an avenue for comment upon rules balance. Whether or not I think applying Twin Spell to a maximized fireball should create a second maximized fireball or just a regular fireball has no bearing on what answer the rules support. In every answer, I endeavor to provide a supportable conclusion based on the rules as they are written. In cases where no such support can be found, I try to avoid making any statement that resembles an official ruling (and, if appropriate, I forward the issue on to R&D's errata process). For better or for worse, D&D is an immensely complex web of rules, intents, assumptions, hidden references, precedents, and leftover concepts from previous editions. Even taking a strict approach to reading the rules, one can at times be led astray by an incorrect deduction, an insufficiently thorough search, or just a simple misreading. The Sage is as vulnerable to this as anyone, and when he screws up he'll own up to the error. At this point, though, I don't yet see the error of this conclusion. I would encourage anyone who can find another useful rules reference to share it here (include source & page #, please). Thanks! Andy Collins Developer Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D
Tiburon Silverflame	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#4	[-]
Posts: 2372 (02/02/06 14:18:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A widened, empowered fireball deals 150% damage over the entire area, not just the original 20-foot radius. A quickened, maximized fireball takes only a swift action to cast--you don't get 10d6 damage after a swift action and (60 minus the result) at the end of the standard action that it didn't take you to cast the spell. And therein lies the rub. Some feats clearly should stack; others, it's a great deal more debatable. However, identifying what should, and shouldn't stack, is fairly complex. I'm not a fan of twinned, maximized fireballs doing 120 damage either, but reconciling all the possible combinations is not simple.
Neutronium Dragon	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#5	[-]
Posts: 346 (02/02/06 16:17:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	> I'm not a fan of twinned, maximized fireballs doing 120 > damage either, Given that you'd be dealing with a 10th level spell and an abnormally low save DC, it's not such a big deal. Neutronium Dragon
Aelryinth	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#6	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/02/06 21:07:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	But if you are going to pull this off, you are a) going to use Efficent Metamagic in some form (such as an incantatrix, or Divine Metamagic) or b) use a Rod of Metamagic. I went with the conservative approach because it's pretty easy to adjucate secondary effects. A Fire and ICe fireball thats Widened +Cold may sound weird...but it's easy to apply the rules. Quicken is about the only thing which breaks it...obviously the entire spell has to go off at once, if possible. But, I could easily see a Quickened Twinned spell, one going off as a free action, the other at the normal casting time. It'd look weird, but you could explain it... Given how the Twin + Max violates the damage scaling rules, and gets even sillier when compared to the Empower/Maximize precedent (put in there just to avoid such stuff for 3.5...remember when you could stack empowers and multiply them?), I'm just at a loss why this ruling violates the doubling doubling = a triple rule that applies to the rest of the game, and why it violates what seems to me to be clearly established precedent for damage inflicting spells. And if this is allowed..why isn't Empower+Max combo's restrictions being waved??? From a balance perspective, it's less abusive then Twin+Max. Sure, there's a web of metamagic spells...but it looks like the later ones are just taking precedent from Core and throwing it out the window. Twin is especially powerful compared to metamagic feats that came out before it. ==Aelryinth
Aelryinth	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#7	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/02/06 21:46:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lastly, something occured to me while posting at SKR's board... there's a reason Empower + Maximize should be used as setting Precedent. It's very simple. Look at ALL the Core metamagic feats. Exactly how many of them directly affect damage? Exactly TWO. Empower and Maximize. Assuming that all OTHER effects of Metamagic feats stack, why did they state that these two feats did not? To establish Precedent. And now we have other feats that affect damage, that ignore this Precedent established in the Core feats. Hence, you can sum up the Core metamagic rules thusly... All Metamagic Feats stack, unless those feats affect Damage. All Metamagic feats that affect damage are applied independently. Presumably, this was done with Damage Balance in mind, and later ability to pay for metamagic levels. It solves a lot of problems...it includes ALL new damage affecting metamagic, abuse via efficent metamagic, and steps around the double double rule and keeps it precisely with the rest of the game. With Andy's Ruling, what we have is... ALL Metamagic feats stack, except for the two damage dealing feats found in the Core rules, and those do not stack only with one another. And now the Core Damage feats just look incredibly stupid, because they are the only Damage feats that don't stack with one another. It's not logically consistent. Double double = a triple, except for casting spells, where it's a quadruple? ===== Here's another way to look at it. Imagine you make up a feat called Secondary Empower. It does the same sort of thing as Empower, except you can stack it. In effect, its sort of like 3E Empower, which you could apply to a spell two or three times if you liked. Because there's no language stating that Secondary Empower and Maximize don't stack...they do! I'll just leave it out of the feat, and not bother to edit Maximize, is all. In 3e Empower + Empower resulted in a doubling of damage, +100%, each applied independently for +50%. Equal to Twin Spell, Admixture, etc. This kind of stuff was quickly quashed...2 Empowers was better at most levels then a spell 4 levels higher for dealing damage. Now, with Andy's ruling, Empower + Secondary Empower MULTIPLIES! I apply Secondary Empower to the whole spell, and end up with 225% damage...+50% of 150% damage. It's better then 3E! And now we've got far more tools to break the metacap, too... =================== In short, what you've got is a Major Rules inconsistency. The Core Rules governing damage dealing specifically make exception to the stacking rules...and they only mention each other because these are the only two feats that existed at the time that affected damage. Now, we have tons of feats that do...and they ignore this Precedent because, well, including the names of every spell that affects damage would be pretty stupid every time you came up with a spell that affected damage. I'm pretty big on Precedent, which is the whole reason I made this post. Precedent says, Damage doesn't stack. I'll happily go along with everyone and say everything else does. Simplifies a lot. ================== Andy, you are using expansion rules to set Precedent...i.e. all the OTHER damage dealing effects. Shouldn't you be looking at the Core Rules for your guidance, and not stuff that came out in Expansions? And if not, then why this stupid incidence of Empower + Maximize not stacking with ONLY one another? The only two CORE damage feats? ==Aelryinth
Tiburon Silverflame	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#8	[-]
Posts: 2372 (02/03/06 09:36:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Actually, there's a much better one. There IS a basic rule which applies, albeit not exactly in this context, but it's this: A doubled double is a triple, not a quadruple. Imagine a twinned, admixtured fireball...is that 30d6 or 40d6? By Andy's argument, it has to be 40d6. Even the twinned, maximized, is effectively a quadrupling. The "doubled double = triple" is a core rules concept which has been used as an official rules basis in many places. The "damage doesn't stack" isn't bad, but the doubled double can occur in many other ways: --Twin --Admixture --Repeat --Split Ray Any combination of these two, gives you a doubled double situation, and these aren't strictly in the damage-causing tree. So it doesn't consider the issue far enough. Also: if your concern is primarily due to the metamagic rods: ditch the ()&@$@&#$ rods. From the boards, THEY'RE the #1 problem, or channel for abuse. If the issue is limited to the feats alone, as others have noted...I don't think there's a balance issue with a twinned, empowered fireball doing 30d6 for a 10th level slot. Allowing a doubled double to be a quadruple is probably ok with metamagic, because the linear increase in the spell slot, does NOT adequately reflect the overall cost increase...that is to say, IMO, the +4 and +4 = +8 spell levels, in itself, is a "quadruple cost." For the feats: divine metamagic is an issue, I won't deny that. I think the incantatrix ability, and the epic Impoved Metamagic feat...all you need is a ruling that says, the cost reduction applies to the total cost of ALL the feats, it doesn't apply on a feat by feat basis. I also wouldn't allow a Minis Sudden Metamagic feat to mix with a standard metamagic feat.
Andy Collins	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#9	[-]
Posts: 1566 (02/03/06 10:26:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Precedent can be useful, but it's bad rules design to expect people to assume that a single exception is setting the rule for other game elements. What you're talking about is a precedent for design & development, not for game play. If R&D wanted the Max + Emp to set a precedent, they would have used its language in other metamagic entries, or much better yet have simply inserted language to that effect into the metamagic rules. The only time that you should have to read Rule B to find out how Rule A works is if Rule A clearly relies on Rule B. It's OK to have to read invisibility to know how greater invisibility works, because the second spell tells you to. It's OK to have to read the glossary entry for fatigue to know how touch of fatigue works, because that's what the glossary's for. It's not OK to have to read Maximize Spell to know how Twin Spell or Energy Admixture works, because nothing in any those feats indicates that you should. Unless your intent is to create a house rule, you can't make rule interpretations based on what you want the answer to be. Regardless of how broken or not broken metamagic combos are perceived to be, the rules as written offer no support for the conclusion that the effects don't stack. Andy Collins Developer Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D
Tiburon Silverflame	Re: And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...	#10	[-]
Posts: 2372 (02/03/06 18:45:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That doesn't address the doubled-double issue, tho, Andy. Are you saying that a) The doubled double is not really a rule; or, b) This isn't a doubled double situation? As a sidebar: the way Max+Empower works, DOES adhere to the doubled double principle.
kkarty	we've covered this...	#11	[-]
Posts: 259 (02/03/06 19:49:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In this thread: p198.ezboard.com/fgamesch...=631.topic I stated my own opinions on page 2. It comes down to this: balance doesn't really become an issue until you have high level spells with boosts (such as rods). An empowered maximized fireball is 8th level, and if these feats stack (which they don't), then that's 15*6 = 90 hp. Which is, btw, the same as a maximized cone of cold cast at 15th level. Go figure. The issue is what happens when you have a maximized split ray twinned range touch attack doing 20d6 damage base (6th level). Which is possible with items and boosts. But even then, that's _hard_ at L20 and lower, and I don't think it's game breaking yet. Heck, personally i believe damage-dealing spells are so underpowered relative to other spells and to fighter attacks that any increase at those levels is good. The game breaking comes into play at epic levels, when stacking these feats yields exponential damage curves. I gave my 5,000 HP damage examples in the other thread. All of that said, I would have to agree with Aelyrinth that it seems more in the spirit of the rules and in line with precedent for these things NOT to stack. Sillinness arises only in a couple cases, and you can easily fix this by saying that NOT stacking is the default, and a handful of feats alter the base spell (heighten, energy transformation, etc...). This is also in the spirit of a doubled doubling being a tripling, not a quadrupling. Maximize nearly doubles spell damage, and twin does double. So stacking is basically a doubled doubling. If you extend Andy's explanation to a twin split d-grate, you'd get 4 d-grate spells. I rather think that along THIS path lies madness. So I would agree more with Aelyrinth than Andy in this case. All of that said, the tone of Aelyrinth's email makes me cringe. Dude, you're on someone's website by courtesy, so show some in return. I mean, slamming Skip Williams is one thing, but Andy's doing you a favor, nor is he an egotistical idjut who disregards everyone else's opinions in favor of poorly reasoned informal re-rewrites of the rules that demonstrate he has no clue how most people play D&D. Not that I do or do not hold this opinion of Mr. Williams... Good day all
Aelryinth	Re: we've covered this...	#12	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/03/06 20:31:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yes, my original post is over the top, but it did convey how I feel about the issue. Slamming Skip and praising Andy is counter-productive. Both men know each other, both know and love the game, and both are doing their best. Andy is on the hot seat now, and he's going to get his share of protest mail. I respect the vast majority of his rulings, I just don't know why this issue was never brought up on any of the boards I visited. From my perspective, it's clearly an internal inconsistency in the applied metamagic rules...and no one is daring to call him on it, when most people would at least be debating the issue. I'm solidly down on the side of any feat concerning damage not stacking by the precedent of the Core rules and the overall double double rules of the 3E game. Andy, however, has to look at the overall game and what has been published, and abide by the decisions WoTC has approved as 'official' feats, not just Core feats. They've been ignoring precedent, and so he has to go along with the trend. He doesn't make the rules...he just has to arbitrate them and relay them on. ==Aelryinth
ShadoStahker	Re: we've covered this...	#13	[-]
Posts: 938 (02/23/06 15:40:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In the FAQ now: *Quote:* If my wizard applies Energy Admixture (Complete Arcane, page 7 and Maximize Spell to the same spell, does he get a spell that deals double its maximized damage (maximum normal damage in two different energy types)? If he also applied the Twin Spell feat (Complete Arcane, page 84) to the same spell would it duplicate the entire effect? Yes and yes. Assuming your character can cast 13th-level spellsthe slot required by a 2nd-level spell affected by these metamagic featsa scorching ray so affected would create two sets of three rays each, with each ray dealing 24 points of fire damage (4d6, maximized) and 24 points of a second energy type (as appropriate for your Energy Substitution feat), for a grand total of 288 points of damage . . . assuming all six rays hit their target
Aelryinth	Re: we've covered this...	#14	[-]
Posts: 401 (02/23/06 19:03:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's the item that prompted my post in the first case. It does not require you be able to cast 13th level spells...it requires that you be able to meet the costs of the metamagic feats. There is a VERY healthy distinction there, and it brings into play a lot of brokenness, especially regarding the artificer. ==Aelryinth
thorianm	Re: we've covered this...	#15	[-]
Posts: 69 (02/23/06 20:34:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Not only does the artificer present a problem, but so do a lot of other combinations. The equivalent of a 13th level spell isnt that hard to cast, if you use the right tricks. Here are 3 simple ways: metamagic rods, metamagic song feat, divine metamagic feat. Not to mention using metamagic cost-reducing classes like the Incantatrix and the Halruaan Elder. In hindsight, all of those methods should have included the limitation of not being able to cast a spell of higher effective level than you could normally.
MindWandererB	Re: we've covered this...	#16	[-]
Posts: 884 (02/23/06 22:55:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This topic has been beaten to death in the WotC boards. You can look for it there without even trying. I used to agree with the "no" side, but I was eventually won over by two main points: 1) Empower+Maximize is specifically an exception. If they wanted to add that text to Twin, or Empower, or anything else, they could have, and they chose not to. In fact, the XPH has Twin and Empower and Maximize all in the same book, and only Empower+Maximize gets the "exception" text. So as written, everything else stacks. 2) It's actually not unbalanced to let them stack, with very, very few exceptions that let you eke out a few extra points with certain combinations--at a massive hit to save DC's. Ray attacks (especially the Orbs) are one of those exceptions, but even with those, it's doesn't add up to a major deal--and the caster is paying feats for all this, after all. This tendency starts to break down at epic levels, though, so a Maximized, Twinned, Admixed Orb of Acid might be a bit strong compared to other options. But Epic breaks down in other ways, anyway.
shadracht	Re: we've covered this...	#17	[-]
Posts: 485 (02/24/06 05:08:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Doesn't complete arcane have a feat that lets you lower the metamagic modifier by one, and you can take it multiple times? I know I saw that feat somewhere. With enough feats available, you can do that 288 with a fifth level slot, if all the metamagics were lowered to a single bump. edit: Nevermind. It's an epic feat. You ought to be able to do stuff like that in epic. I see epic as sort of D&D super heroes. Cthulhu for president! Stop choosing the lesser of the evils.
Tessarael	Re: we've covered this ...	#18	[-]
Posts: 138 (02/24/06 06:07:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Quote shadracht, "You ought to be able to do stuff like that in epic." I'm not so sure about that. I think it is one of the things that makes a mess of epic level spell progression and epic feats for spellcasters. For balance purposes, it helps if a spell of a given power has at least a minimum level. Nothing wrong with giving an epic spellcaster more spells of higher level, but it is strange when an epic spellcaster is throwing out automatic maximized automatic quickened magic missiles for example ... I don't mind those spells if we realise that they take 8th level slots, but they are clearly better than the 1st level slots that are getting used.
Neutronium Dragon	Re: we've covered this ...	#19	[-]
Posts: 346 (02/24/06 09:42:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	While that's true, he's spent two epic feats for the privilege, and it's basically only acting to keep those 1st level slots from losing their impact entirely by that high a level. Even so, it means 25 damage/round extra. Given the damage output at epic levels, it's not that significant for the price you've paid. Neutronium Dragon
shadracht	Re: we've covered this ...	#20	[-]
Posts: 485 (02/24/06 10:49:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The extra damage might be good against hordes of low level stuff, but against a CR appropriate creature... Anaxim, a CR 22 abomination has an average of 420 hit points, and is capable of doing 94 - 204 damage if it hits with it's 7 ranged attacks. Against stuff like that, you need to have the super powers that epic seems to throw forth. Now, that said, it is somewhat sad that the game from 1-20 is basically a completely different game from 21+ Cthulhu for president! Stop choosing the lesser of the evils.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...

And a second Rules Q for you, ANdy...

Quick Reply