Maximize Spell + Ice Axe

[Vaern]

Creating a thread due to disagreements in the RAW discussion.

Ice Axe creates a battleaxe made of a frost which lasts 1 round per caster level and deals 2d12 + 1 per caster level points of cold damage on a melee touch attack.

Maximize Spell modifies a spell so that all variable numeric effects of a spell are automatically maximized.

Andezzar argues that the spell only creates an axe, and that attacking with it is not part of the casting and thus the damage would not be affected.

I argue that the damage is a variable numeric effect specified by the spell's description and would be affected. The feat doesn't care whether the spell deals direct damage or creates an object that deals damage, only that it contains some random variable that can be maximized.

[Vaz]

You are correct, if Ice Axe spell is stated to do the damage as listed within its spell entry.

Otherwise that same theory couldcbe applied to things like Maximised Empowered Awakens etc. The effect is the awakening, not the random dice roll.

[Gullintanni]

You are correct, if Ice Axe spell is stated to do the damage as listed within its spell entry.

Otherwise that same theory couldcbe applied to things like Maximised Empowered Awakens etc. The effect is the awakening, not the random dice roll.

Based on my reading of the Awaken Undead spell, it actually grants intelligence to the targeted Undead creature as its primary effect.

Ergo, Awaken Undead could be maximized and empowered. The Awaken spell doesn't read the same way; however.

This spell grants intelligence to mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies.
Undead with Intelligence scores are unaffected.
Mindless undead within the radius gain Intelligence 4+1d6.

Ice Axe:

"This spell creates a battleaxe-shaped formation of jagged, fast-swirling ice shards in your hand. You are automatically considered proficient with the ice axe. Attacks with the ice axe are melee touch attacks. The axe deals 2d12 points of cold damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10) with a successful hit. You cannot be disarmed of the ice axe nor can it be sundered. Since the axe is virtually weightless, your Strength modifier does not apply on damage rolls. If your base attack bonus is high enough to allow for multiple attacks in a round, you can make them with the ice axe."

The spell specifies that it deals 2d12 + 1/2CL damage, rather than saying something like, "This weapon deals damage as a battle axe".

IMO? Maximize and Empower both work here. The damage is a function of the spell, not of the weapon type. It's also subject to spell resistance (further indicating that the damage being dealt is so dealt by an ongoing spell effect), cold resistance, and when Max//Empowered, deals 51 points of damage per hit at caster level 20. I feel like there are better things you can be doing with an 8th level spell slot, but, it's not a total waste.

[Segev]

For whatever my two cents are worth (probably considerably less than 2 hundredths of a USD), I agree that Maximize should make it do 24+(CL) damage, and that Empower would also apply.

The damage is specified by the spell. If Maximize and Empower apply to, say, the Orb spells (stupid conjuration doing evocation better than evocation does grumblegrumblegripe), then they apply to ice axe

[Aimeryan]

Hmm, I think I would be in disagreement with the others here: the spell only creates the axe, so you are only Maximising/Empowering the creation of the axe - which has no variables. The fact that the axe deals variable damage when used in an attack is irrelevant to this.

To get the ruling that Maximise/Empower worked on the axe's hits it would have to state something like "on a successful hit with the axe, which itself deals no damage, the spell deals 2d12 points of cold damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10)".

Otherwise, we should rule similarly that Flaming, Shocking, etc. enchants on weapons can be Empowered and Maximised. Or, have Maximised/Empowered Fabricate create weapons that hit for more than just a Fabricate weapon.

~~~

I would agree that something that boosted caster level would work here, though - the static damage value is dependent on the caster level at the creation of the axe, so increasing caster level would create an axe that was stronger in the static damage that is added.

[Andezzar]

Hmm, I think I would be in disagreement with the others here: the spell only creates the axe, so you are only Maximising/Empowering the creation of the axe - which has no variables. The fact that the axe deals variable damage when used in an attack is irrelevant to this.

To get the ruling that Maximise/Empower worked on the axe's hits it would have to state something like "on a successful hit with the axe, which itself deals no damage, the spell deals 2d12 points of cold damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10)".I agree. Also the spell does no more damage anyone than the spell Summon Monster damages anyone. On the other hand, if you used SM II to get d3 creatures from the SM I list, the spell could functionally be maximized, summoning three of those creatures.


I would agree that something that boosted caster level would work here though - the static damage value is dependent on the caster level at the creation of the axe, so Empowering this would create an axe that was stronger in the static damage that is added.Empower Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#empowerSpell) does not change the effective CL of the caster. It augments the variable numeric effects of a spell. E.g. 2d8 become 3d8. But yeah, CL boosts would increase the damage of the axe.

[Zanos]

Empower Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#empowerSpell) does not change the effective CL of the caster. It augments the variable numeric effects of a spell. E.g. 2d8 become 3d8. But yeah, CL boosts would increase the damage of the axe.
Per PHB 93 example, empower considers flat additions to dice part of the variable numeric effects of a spell.

[Rangô]

Hmm, I think I would be in disagreement with the others here: the spell only creates the axe, so you are only Maximising/Empowering the creation of the axe - which has no variables. The fact that the axe deals variable damage when used in an attack is irrelevant to this.

To get the ruling that Maximise/Empower worked on the axe's hits it would have to state something like "on a successful hit with the axe, which itself deals no damage, the spell deals 2d12 points of cold damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10)".

~~~

I would agree that something that boosted caster level would work here though - the static damage value is dependent on the caster level at the creation of the axe, so Empowering this would create an axe that was stronger in the static damage that is added.

I think you're contradicting yourself if you agree with the static damage increase value which depends on CL. The fact of the creation is precisely max/empowered, so in that moment the cleric is using the metamagic feat to create an axe that doesn't depend on random dice, it's a perfect ice axe that does the maximum damage.

[Aimeryan]

I agree. Also the spell does no more damage anyone than the spell Summon Monster damages anyone. On the other hand, if you used SM II to get d3 creatures from the SM I list, the spell could functionally be maximized, summoning three of those creatures.

Empower Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#empowerSpell) does not change the effective CL of the caster. It augments the variable numeric effects of a spell. E.g. 2d8 become 3d8. But yeah, CL boosts would increase the damage of the axe.

Agreed.

Yeah, used "Empower" when I meant caster level increase, doh! Corrected, now.


I think you're contradicting yourself if you agree with the static damage increase value which depends on CL. The fact of the creation is precisely max/empowered, so in that moment the cleric is using the metamagic feat to create an axe that doesn't depend on random dice, it's a perfect ice axe that does the maximum damage.

I do not see any contradiction - unless you are saying the random damage value is rolled once at creation of the axe and then always does that damage on a successful hit?

[Segev]

The difference between this and a summon monster spell is that this conjures an ice axe, and the spell damages those hit with said ice axe. A summon monster spell conjures a creature, which has its own statistics regardless of the spell.

Any argument which says that the ice axe damage isn't affected would seem to me to also say that any Conjuration spell is unable to have its damage amplified by these metamagic feats, for the same reason: all the Conjuration spell does is call forth the item or energy, which does damage independent of the spell. (This is, incidentally, the justification for why Orb spells offer no SR, and a reason why they probably wouldn't be stopped by an AMF, either: the orb of fire conjured real fire and flung it, so the fire itself isn't magical.)

[Andezzar]

The difference between this and a summon monster spell is that this conjures an ice axe, and the spell damages those hit with said ice axe. A summon monster spell conjures a creature, which has its own statistics regardless of the spell.That is just a difference for brevity. including the stats for all possible monsters in the summon monsters spells, or even worse polymorph, would make the PHB way too big. I don't see any functional difference.


Any argument which says that the ice axe damage isn't affected would seem to me to also say that any Conjuration spell is unable to have its damage amplified by these metamagic feats, for the same reason: all the Conjuration spell does is call forth the item or energy, which does damage independent of the spell. (This is, incidentally, the justification for why Orb spells offer no SR, and a reason why they probably wouldn't be stopped by an AMF, either: the orb of fire conjured real fire and flung it, so the fire itself isn't magical.)Is there a rule saying that creation spells can be maximized?

[Segev]

That is just a difference for brevity. including the stats for all possible monsters in the summon monsters spells, or even worse polymorph, would make the PHB way too big. I don't see any functional difference. They could've just said it was a standard axe made of ice, which would've made the difference. Instead, the axe does cold damage with a special damage code, suggesting it's the spell's magic in play.

More to the point, though, it's a variable, numeric effect of the spell, listed in the spell effect. Summoned monsters' damage is not listed in the spell effect. That IS a functional difference when discussing whether something is part of the spell or not.

That said, we also have fun questions regarding the effects of Invisible Spell applied to the summon monster line, so...whee!


Is there a rule saying that creation spells can be maximized?
If they have variable, numeric effects, the Maximize feat says that it does so when applied to them. Creation spells are spells, after all.

[Andezzar]

They could've just said it was a standard axe made of ice, which would've made the difference. Instead, the axe does cold damage with a special damage code, suggesting it's the spell's magic in play.

More to the point, though, it's a variable, numeric effect of the spell, listed in the spell effect. Summoned monsters' damage is not listed in the spell effect. That IS a functional difference when discussing whether something is part of the spell or not.The effect of Summon monster is "One summoned creature". The stats of that creature are as much part of the spell as the stats for the ice axe. Without the stats you cannot use either spell. The only difference is that the Ice Axe spell spells them out, and the Summon monster spell only spells out the reference to the MM.


That said, we also have fun questions regarding the effects of Invisible Spell applied to the summon monster line, so...whee!I'm not sure what you are getting at. Invisible spell is pretty clear.
You can make your spell effects invisible.

[...]

You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation.So the effect (one summoned creature) becomes invisible. Nothing unclear there. Overpowered maybe, but not unclear.



If they have variable, numeric effects, the Maximize feat says that it does so when applied to them. Creation spells are spells, after all.If they have a variable numeric effect, yes. Orb of acid however does not. Its effect is one orb of acid.

[Segev]

If they have a variable numeric effect, yes. Orb of acid however does not. Its effect is one orb of acid.

Then you've answered the question for yourself, certainly. That is the consistent way to read it if you read ice axe as not being maximized.

Incidentally, it's an interesting thing that makes the Conjuration damage-spells have a point of disfavor vs. Evocations, which is a good thing.


However, um... does this mean you can't Maximize a cure spell? It is also Conjuration (creation).

[DarkSoul]

Maximize Spell: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized.

Ice Axe: The axe deals 2d12+ 1/2 caster level cold damage.

The damage is wholly produced by the spell, and therefore would be eligible to be maximized. Compare the effect of maximizing this spell to that of Ice Gauntlet on the next page. The bonus cold damage would be maximized, but the damage of the spiked gauntlet would not, because it's striking as a standard weapon.

If Ice Axe created a battleaxe or greataxe that dealt bonus cold damage then I'd say the damage of the axe isn't eligible, but because the damage of the weapon is set by the spell and is a variable numeric effect it can be maximized.

Incidentally, the orb spells are the same way. Variable numeric effects.

[Andezzar]

However, um... does this mean you can't Maximize a cure spell? It is also Conjuration (creation).No, it is not. It is a Conjuration (Healing) spell. Also it does not have an effect outside its description. So the variable hit points must be the effect.


Maximize Spell: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized.

Ice Axe: The axe deals 2d12+ 1/2 caster level cold damage.

The damage is wholly produced by the spell, and therefore would be eligible to be maximized. Compare the effect of maximizing this spell to that of Ice Gauntlet on the next page. The bonus cold damage would be maximized, but the damage of the spiked gauntlet would not, because it's striking as a standard weapon.

If Ice Axe created a battleaxe or greataxe that dealt bonus cold damage then I'd say the damage of the axe isn't eligible, but because the damage of the weapon is set by the spell and is a variable numeric effect it can be maximized.I disagree. The axe does not deal any damage unless the caster attacks, just like a summoned monster or the new form gained by polymorph. Neither are directly part of the spell and thus not variable numeric effects of the spell. All three are variable numeric effects of the attacks.

[DarkSoul]

I disagree. The axe does not deal any damage unless the caster attacks, just like a summoned monster or the new form gained by polymorph. Neither are directly part of the spell and thus not variable numeric effects of the spell. All three are variable numeric effects of the attacks.Does that mean Chill Touch can't be maximized? How about Scorching Ray? Polar Ray? Disintegrate? Vampiric Touch? By the RAW, all of these have variable numeric effects and thus are able to be maximized. However, by the logic you're applying to Ice Axe, they're ineligible because they don't do anything unless you hit with them.

The reason that maximize doesn't apply to summoned monster or polymorph is because the damage the creatures deal isn't called out by the spell, the same way the damage of the gauntlet isn't called out in Ice Gauntlet on the facing page to Ice Axe in the Spell Compendium. If Polymorph said that all the new form's attacks dealt XdY damage, or Ice Gauntlet set the damage of the gauntlet attacks, they would absolutely be eligible for maximization. The same is true for the summon spells. Maximize doesn't care what variable effect the spell has. If it's described in the spell as having an effect based on dice rolls, the feat applies.

You're free to disagree, but the RAW are on the side of the OP in this one.

[Andezzar]

Please quote the rule that calling stats directly in the description is to be handled differently from calling them by reference.

Polymorph and summon Monster actually do say that the damage is in the form of xdy. Just look at the stats of monsters.

Either both the stats in the description and the reference (and thus the stats themselves) are part of the spell's effect or they aren't.

Additionally ice axe clearly calls "Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice" the effect (singular) of the spell as do the orb spells with "one orb of [energy]". So this cannot be one of the effects of the spell but it must be the only effect of the spell.

[DarkSoul]

Read the text of the spell. Is there a roll required to determine the effects of the spell? That's a "variable numeric" effect. Maximize affects it. The way the feat applies is pretty clear. Since you want a quote:


Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one you make when you cast dispel magic) are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.Emphasis mine. Here's another one:


This spell functions like alter self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm), except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#aberrationType), animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType), dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#dragonType), fey (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#feyType), giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType), humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType), magical beast (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#magicalBeastType), monstrous humanoid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#monstrousHumanoidType), ooze (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#oozeType), plant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#plantType), or vermin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#verminType). The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#incorporeal) or gaseous form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#gaseousForm). The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.

Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#abilityDamage) and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead).
The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities) or spell-like abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities).
Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#polymorph), and a creature with the shapechanger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#shapechangerSubtype) subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions).
Material Component

An empty cocoon.

Now, tell me where, exactly, the polymorph spell text contains any kind of random result. It doesn't. Maximize doesn't apply.


The only part of a summon that can be affected by maximize is the number of creatures you get, because those are variable numeric effects of the spell. The damage the monsters deal has nothing to do with the spell; only what you summon and how many you get, or what form you take.

Again, you're wrong. The stats in the description of the spell are all that matters. If there's not a die roll called out IN THE SPELL, maximize doesn't apply. There's no "either/or" here.

Your argument about the orb spells doesn't hold up either. The "Effect" line doesn't even appear in fireball and it's clearly able to be maximized.

It's easy to see whether Maximize is usable on a spell. Are there dice rolls in the spell's description? Maximize can affect them. You're just making it difficult for some reason.

[Vaern]

Either both the stats in the description and the reference (and thus the stats themselves) are part of the spell's effect or they aren't.
No, there's a huge difference between the two. One says "This spell creates something something unique to its casting, which works like this," and the other one says "This spell summons or creates something which already exists and has predetermined stats, which are found elsewhere."


Additionally ice axe clearly calls "Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice" the effect (singular) of the spell as do the orb spells with "one orb of [energy]". So this cannot be one of the effects of the spell but it must be the only effect of the spell.
The "effect" only summarizes how the spell manifests, not what it actually does. In these cases, it literally means nothing as far as metamagic is concerned. At best they might describe something as having a spread or area which can be affected by Widen Spell. Short of that, there isn't a single spell whose "effect" declares that a spell actually does anything that can be augmented by metamagic. That's determined in the spell description. Otherwise, you could rule that not a single ray spell could affected by metamagic, nor could any other spell with an "effect" line in its description simply because it has an "effect".

[Zanos]

I am rather curious what the "threshold" is for you Andezzar. Can a fireball be maximized? That creates an explosion of flame which deals damage, which appears to be the degree of separation you require to have maximize/empower not function. Ice Storm? Acid Arrow? Cloudkill? Acid Fog?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I am rather curious what the "threshold" is for you Andezzar. Can a fireball be maximized? That creates an explosion of flame which deals damage, which appears to be the degree of separation you require to have maximize/empower not function. Ice Storm? Acid Arrow? Cloudkill? Acid Fog?
Continuing this line of questioning: If fireball can be maximized, how about a delayed blast fireball?

Both create a bead that can be fired (with a ranged touch attack) through small openings. In the case of fireball, that bead is mostly fluff; in the case of delayed blast fireball, the bead can be gathered up and covered in quintessence. Would Empower Spell only be able to affect the number of beads you create?



The RAW reading is, I would say, the reading that allows Empower and Maximize to affect all variable, numeric effects called out in the spell description that are eligible, according to the feat description, for the feat's effects. Not summon monster's resulting creature(s) - their stats are not defined by the spell - but definitely the number of creatures, defined in SMI.

[Zanos]

That's the threshold I would use, too. If it's defined by the spell effect, it's eligible for those feats. If it's not, it isn't. So you couldn't use control winds to create a tornado that dealt maximum damage, or summon a monster with maximum health that always got natural 20s, but fireball, orb of acid, acid fog, and ice axe all work fine.

[Aimeryan]

The separation for me is whether or not mechanically the spell itself is dealing the damage/effect.

Take fireball; the spell is mechanically doing the damage - it is not how you throw the fireball that deals the damage but the explosion created by the spell itself that deals that damage.

Similarly with delayed blast fireball; the damage is done mechanically by the spell. The fact that a bead is created that for some time does nothing doesn't matter.

The Ice Axe spell says it "creates a battleaxe-shaped formation of jagged, fast-swirling ice shards". It goes on to say "The axe deals ... damage ... with a successful hit" and "Attacks with the ice axe...". It also says "Since the axe is virtually weightless, your Strength modifier does not apply on damage rolls". Why would it bother saying this if the damage is mechanically dealt solely by the spell? Clearly, at least some of the damage is being dealt mechanically by you (not the spell); otherwise it would need not mention this at all.

This is no different than any other weapon; you deal a variable amount of damage on a successful hit. If you have an magic enhancement bonus you deal additional static damage based on the enhancement value. You also deal damage based on Strength (unless Finessed).

Therefore, using normal weapons as a template, it is quite obvious what is happening here regarding damage; the spell that created the axe also provided the axe with a magic enhancement bonus based on your caster level. The Strength bonus damage that you would normally deal is taken away (explained as being too light) - but you probably weren't going to have a bonus based on Strength, anyway - indeed, you might of had a penalty if this hadn't been the case.

I see nothing here that requires a deviation from the standard weapon template - so, why go out of the way to suggest one? Occam's Razor.

~~~

If you want to rule that weapons created by spells have their damage susceptible to Maximise/Empower then I would love to use Fabricate in your gaming sessions. I would also be very vocal about being able to Maximise/Empower special abilities added to weapons/armour, since the ability is based on a spell - one which could of been Maximised/Empowered. Would love me a Maximised/Empowered +1 Corrosive, Desiccating, Flaming, Frost, Shock, Thundering, Fabricated Greatsword!

[ExLibrisMortis]

The separation for me is whether or not the spell itself is dealing the damage/effect.
This is a separation not present in the rules. It is a fluff matter if anything. The rules only care about where something is defined: the spell, or elsewhere.


Take fireball; the spell is doing the damage - it is not how hard you are throwing the fireball but the spell itself that deals that damage. The damage is mechanical (the explosion), but the spell itself is responsible for the explosion (and thus the damage).

Similarly with delayed blast fireball; the damage is done by the spell. The fact that a bead is created that for some time does nothing doesn't matter.
Right, so if a spell creates a bead that explodes, that's damage done by the spell, but if a spell creates and sustains an axe that cuts, that's clearly not the spell? You're making an arbitrary, fluffy, non-RAW distinction here. If the target is protected/debuffed by an antimagic aura, the axe cannot harm it. If the target has spell resistance, the axe may fail to harm it. The presence of magic and the activity of the spell are crucial for the axe to deal damage.

If it helps fluff-wise: the spell is spinning ice shards 'round the axe blade, like a chainsaw. The caster moves the spell's effect near their target, using regular ol' weapon skills, and the spell then deals damage with those shards. It doesn't even have to hit with force: just a touch will hurt, because spinning ice shards.


The Ice Axe spell says it "creates a battleaxe-shaped formation of jagged, fast-swirling ice shards". It goes on to say "The axe deals ... with a successful hit". It also says "Since the axe is virtually weightless, your Strength modifier does not apply on damage rolls". Why would it bother saying this if the damage is done solely by the spell? Clearly, at least some of the damage is being dealt mechanically by you (not the spell); otherwise it would need not mention this at all.

This is no different than any other weapon; you deal a variable amount of damage on a successful hit. If you have an magic enhancement bonus you deal additional static damage based on the enhancement value. Regardless, you also deal damage based on Strength (unless Finessed).

Therefore, using normal weapons as a template, it is quite obvious what is happening here regarding damage; the spell that created the axe also provided a magic enhancement bonus based on your caster level. The Strength bonus damage that you would normally deal is taken away - but you probably weren't going to have a bonus based on Strength, anyway - indeed, you might of had a penalty if this hadn't been the case.

I see nothing here that requires a deviation from the standard weapon template - so, why go out of the way to suggest one? Occam's Razor.
Actually, the ice axe deviates from the standard weapon template on numerous points, so Occam's Razor suggests we should probably just heed the spell description, instead of trying to find spurious parallels with actual battleaxes, which then require reinterpetation of the spell to make everything fit together.

The spell does not create a battleaxe; it creates a battleaxe-shaped weapon that has its own weapon statistics (as defined in the spell description, it has 2d12+CL/2 damage, which, you have to admit, is a rather strange damage die for a weapon), requires its own proficiency (granted by the spell), and does not allow you to use your strength to hit harder (so the damage is clearly not being dealt by your force - you're also using 'mechanically' where you mean 'fluff-wise'). The spell certainly doesn't provide a 'magic enhancement bonus', because it doesn't say it does, and because that'd be ridiculous. You'd be overcoming DR/epic by level 12, which would be broken, if it weren't pointless, because you only get it with a weapon that ignores DR altogether (cold damage).

Why would the spell bother saying the things it does, using weapon terminology? That's a good question; it could just be a touch-range spell with 2d12+CL/2 cold damage. However, the current wording has some special implications, which make the spell more interesting. For one, not being a touch spell, you can Persist it. You can also use in in martial maneuvers, for attacks of opportunity, in full attacks and on charges, and so on. You can use it to Trip, Sunder, and Disarm. You can make multiple sneak attacks per round with it, flank with it, and presumably even parry with it. In other words: it says the things it does, it uses weapon terminology, because it's trying to define a something different than the usual touch spell: a spell that creates and sustains a weapon.

A quick reading of the Complete Arcane rules on weaponlike spells suggests that ice axe does not meet the requirements, thus it is not eligible for Weapon Focus (touch spell), unlike a touch attack variant. However, the axe created by the spell might be viable for WF and cousins, keeping in mind that you only have proficiency while the spell is in effect.


If you want to rule that weapons created by spells are susceptible to Maximise/Empower then I would love to use Fabricate in your gaming sessions. I would also be very vocal about being able to Maximise/Empower special abilities added to weapons/armour, since the ability is based on a spell - one which could of been Maximised/Empowered. Would love me a Maximised/Empowered +1 Corrosive, Desiccating, Flaming, Frost, Shock, Thundering, Fabricated Greatsword!
The statistics for weapons are not defined in the fabricate spell, thus cannot be affected by metamagic feats.
The statistics for weapon and armour enchantments are not defined in the descriptions of the spells those enchantments are based on, thus cannot be affected by metamagic feats.
Enchantments are not spells, thus cannot be affected by metamagic feats.
Enchantments are not affected by the strength of the spell used to craft them. For example, you don't need to have a CL 15 spell on hand to craft a CL 15 item [of that spell]. You just need a CL 15 crafter and the spell [at any CL]. Thus, even if affected by a metamagic feat, a spell cannot add that metamagic feat to an item crafted with it.
(as an aside, Empowering and/or Maximizing weapon damage or enchantment damage is not a bad houserule in a high-OP game)

That's four reasons why your argument makes no sense. In fact, it is your non-RAW reading that creates this problem. You go from "Empower affects variable spell effects" to "Empower affects any number ever involved in using any spell" without considering that your distinction is purely fluff-based, not RAW-based.

[Aimeryan]

...

The spell itself is not mechanically causing this damage - you are by attacking. It specifically states you have to make attacks to cause damage. Mechanically that damage is caused by you, not a spell. Maximising/Empowering the spell does not Maximise/Empower you or your attacks, so Maximising/Empowering the Ice Axe spell does not Maximise/Empower the damage that of being caused mechanically by you.

I am aware that the spell/magic is responsible for the the axe existing, I don't see how that changes anything at all, but thank you for that reminder.

Ice Axe spells creates a weapon that does not deviate from the standard weapon properties other than exactly how it states it does. It creates a weapon with a weapon proficiency required (which the spell informs that you meet), an attack made with the weapon required to deal damage (deviated from normal to a touch attack by stating this), a damage die, a static damage bonus (deviated from the normal enhancement bonus to caster level based bonus by stating this), and a Strength bonus by weapon type (deviated from normal to no Strength bonus by stating this). It does not state that the weapon die deviates from the standard - so why presume it does?

I should have said "magic enhancement bonus-like", instead - my apologies for this misunderstanding. I was not meaning to imply that the caster level based bonus was in all respects a "magic enhancement bonus".

As for Fabricate, of course it doesn't list the stats of every weapon, armour, and object it can make - that would be preposterous! I do not see why this needlessly rules it out, however. A reference, inheritance, or direct statement is applied to the functioning of a spell all the same to me (unless an exception is stated) - indeed, many spells would utterly fail if you did not do this.

As for special abilities/enchantments (which I am not serious about... much), it may be worth noting this from the Magic Item Compendium page 232 "Psionics and crafting magic items":

"If an item includes a spell prerequisite, but the effect of the
item does not directly implement that spell, then a psionic
power of similar flavor can be substituted."

The spell itself is indeed what the item (with the special ability/enchantment) implements - so an Empowered/Maximised spell used in the creation should create an item that implements the Empowered?Maximised spell.

[hifidelity2]

Ice Axe:

"This spell creates a battleaxe-shaped formation of jagged, fast-swirling ice shards in your hand. You are automatically considered proficient with the ice axe. Attacks with the ice axe are melee touch attacks. The axe deals 2d12 points of cold damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10) with a successful hit. You cannot be disarmed of the ice axe nor can it be sundered. Since the axe is virtually weightless, your Strength modifier does not apply on damage rolls. If your base attack bonus is high enough to allow for multiple attacks in a round, you can make them with the ice axe."


For my 2 penny worth

You can maximize the spell as its not your strength that does the damage it’s the cold ice particles against the targets skin than does the damage. The spell states that its weightless and no STR damage modifier. Weapons do damage by allowing you transfer energy (E=1/2mV^2 ) into a small area (the blade). This is why a heavier Axe will do more damage that a light axe and a light axe will do more damage than an axe made of feathers.

Normal weapon limitations are then your ability to wield a heavy axe (and is why a 2H sword / Axe does more damage than a 1H sword / axe)

So…. image that someone is sleeping & you sneak up and gently caress them with the an axe and with the Ice Axe (so we are assuming auto hit)
Axe will do zero damage
Ice Axe will do 2D12+1 / CL (or maximized if that was cast)

[Andezzar]

This is a separation not present in the rules. It is a fluff matter if anything. The rules only care about where something is defined: the spell, or elsewhere.The rules make no such distinction. The question is whether the damage is an effect of the spell or an effect of something else. The rules are clear. The singular effect of the spell is the ice that looks and behaves somewhat like an axe. That is what the entry says. It does not say "effects include a Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice". If it did you would have reason to say that there could be other effects.
The damage is caused by the attack, not directly by the spell, just as damage from summon monster or polymorph.

Also if you follow the reasoning that the damage was part of the effect, the spell would require the caster to move into an enemy's space to do any damage at all:

Range: 0 ft.

A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted.So either the damage can only occur in your space, or the damage is not an effect of the spell.

A target's SR also does not come into play either because the effect never reaches the target, unless the caster gets into the targets space. But even with my reading, the target's SR does not apply because the target isn't resisting a spell but an axe coming at him with high speed (due to the attack).


For my 2 penny worth

You can maximize the spell as its not your strength that does the damage it’s the cold ice particles against the targets skin than does the damage. The spell states that its weightless and no STR damage modifier. Weapons do damage by allowing you transfer energy (E=1/2mV^2 ) into a small area (the blade). This is why a heavier Axe will do more damage that a light axe and a light axe will do more damage than an axe made of feathers.

Normal weapon limitations are then your ability to wield a heavy axe (and is why a 2H sword / Axe does more damage than a 1H sword / axe)Using physics to explain magic rarely works and has nothing to do thw the rules, which can't be explained by physics in many cases anyway.


So…. image that someone is sleeping & you sneak up and gently caress them with the an axe and with the Ice Axe (so we are assuming auto hit)
Axe will do zero damage
Ice Axe will do 2D12+1 / CL (or maximized if that was cast)Either the "caress" is an attack in both cases or it is in neither. If you successfully attack someone you do damage, no matter if it is a spell or a weapon. The description of ice axe does not say, you deal damage even if you do not attack. the spell requires a genuine attack. The only difference is that armour and thick skin does not protect against the attack. Also unless you take the full round action to perform a coup de grâce, such an attack does not auto-hit. And if you think that the spell and not the attack is the cause of the damage, there is a question whether you can even perform a coup de grâce with an ice axe. The description certainly does not give us permission to do so.

[Aimeryan]

Also if you follow the reasoning that the damage was part of the effect, the spell would require the caster to move into an enemy's space to do any damage at all:

So either the damage can only occur in your space, or the damage is not an effect of the spell.

This is a very good point and I agree completely.


You can maximize the spell as its not your strength that does the damage it’s the cold ice particles against the targets skin than does the damage.

In real life, liquid hydrogen hurts a lot when you merely touch it, but I can promise you there is no spell involved.

In game, ignoring the whole slew of splash weapons that are not magical, there are also Weapon Finesse-able weapons (light weapons, usually) which cause no Strength modifier to be applied when used - these weapons are not dealing damage through a spell, either.

For your statement to work it would require that a Strength modifier is needed for damage to not be the result of a spell.

[Andezzar]

There are also Weapon Finesse-able weapons (light weapons, usually) which cause no Strength modifier to be applied - but these weapons are dealing damage through a spell, either.You may be confusing editions. In 3.5 all melee weapons get bonus damage for the wielder having a high STR score. Light weapons are only exlcuded from extra damage from power attack and from extra damage for using two hands.

[Aimeryan]

You may be confusing editions. In 3.5 all melee weapons get bonus damage for the wielder having a high STR score. Light weapons are only exlcuded from extra damage from power attack and from extra damage for using two hands.

Ah, I just checked, I was misremembering Weapon Finesse; it replaces your modifier to the Attack Roll, not the Damage. Eh.

[Manyasone]

... an axe made of feathers...

That is bloody hilarious, mate, good one

[DarkSoul]

The separation for me is whether or not mechanically the spell itself is dealing the damage/effectLet's talk about spell mechanics in their simplest forms, then. What is the difference between these two spells?

1: This spell allows the caster to make a number of melee touch attacks that deal XdY+Z negative energy damage, with the damage increasing based on caster level.

2: This spell allows the caster to make a number of melee touch attacks that deal XdY+Z cold damage, with the damage increasing based on caster level.

The only difference is the type of damage, correct? That's Chill Touch and Ice Axe, respectively. Now, give me a good reason, that's not "because I don't think it should work like that", that one of those spells shouldn't be allowed to be maximized. Mechanically, there is no difference between how Chill Touch works and how Ice Axe does. Everything that's got you and Andezzar convinced the rules should work differently for each spell is completely based on the fluff of the respective spells.

Like I said before: Are there dice rolls listed in the spell description? Maximize can affect them. Occam's Razor, as you put it.


If you want to rule that weapons created by spells have their damage susceptible to Maximise/Empower then I would love to use Fabricate in your gaming sessions. I would also be very vocal about being able to Maximise/Empower special abilities added to weapons/armour, since the ability is based on a spell - one which could of been Maximised/Empowered. Would love me a Maximised/Empowered +1 Corrosive, Desiccating, Flaming, Frost, Shock, Thundering, Fabricated Greatsword!Where are the stats listed for weapons created with Fabricate? Not in the spell description, that's for sure. Therefore, maximize doesn't affect them, just like it doesn't affect the damage rolls or hit points of the monsters you summon or the forms you take with polymorph. Regarding weapon abilities: They're not spells. They're magical enchantments with the magical energy of a given spell as a component. You're not actually casting a lightning bolt at a dagger for 6 days to make a shock weapon, and even if you were it's the lightning bolt you maximize, not the shock ability. Again, Maximize doesn't apply.

Also, your comments about direct implementation of a spell are incorrect. If there's a psionic analogue to lightning bolt, you can use it to create a shock weapon because it doesn't directly implement the spell. You cannot use it to create a wand of lightning bolt, because the wand does directly implement the spell.

Like Andezzar, you're free to believe that things should work differently for Ice Axe than they do for Chill Touch, but the rules of the game disagree with you, so your house rule remains such.

[Andezzar]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the difference is ice axe has "Effect: Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice". Chill touch does not have "Effect: ice on your hand" or something like it. In the former case the singular effect is the axe shaped object. In the latter case the spell either has no effect at all (which is silly) or the effect or effects are in the other part of the entry (i.e. the part where is says you can do damage).

There is also another difference. Ice axe is a Conjuration (Creation) spell, Chill Touch a Necromancy spell. Let's see what the rules say about Conjuration (Creation):

A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above)Damage is neither a creature nor an object. So that does not fit in the categorization. So there is more evidence that the damage is not caused by the spell but by the attacker.

Necromancy on the other hand:
Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.Dealing damage is very much within the purview of spells in that school.

BTW how do you counter that Ice Axe cannot produce any effect outside the range of the spell, or do you play it that the cleric has to enter an enemy's space to attack it with the axe spell?

[DarkSoul]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the difference is ice axe has "Effect: Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice". Chill touch does not have "Effect: ice on your hand" or something like it. In the former case the singular effect is the axe shaped object. In the latter case the spell either has no effect at all (which is silly) or the effect or effects are in the other part of the entry (i.e. the part where is says you can do damage).And again, the damage of the ice axe spell is defined as a variable numeric effect within the text of the spell, so Maximize applies. An "Effect" entry, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.


There is also another difference. Ice axe is a Conjuration (Creation) spell, Chill Touch a Necromancy spell. Let's see what the rules say about Conjuration (Creation):
Damage is neither a creature nor an object. So that does not fit in the categorization. So there is more evidence that the damage is not caused by the spell but by the attacker.And the PHB glossary defines a touch attack as "An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent, but does not need to penetrate armor". Ice axe deals its damage whether the target is unarmored or wearing +5 adamantine mountain plate, so it's very much the spell causing the damage. Just like chill touch or an orb spell, or even disintegrate. Funny how that works, huh?

You're correct that damage is neither a creature nor an object. It is, however, a dice roll. Maximize applies.


BTW how do you counter that Ice Axe cannot produce any effect outside the range of the spell, or do you play it that the cleric has to enter an enemy's space to attack it with the axe spell?Neither can any other touch spell. What's your point?

[Andezzar]

And again, the damage of the ice axe spell is defined as a variable numeric effect within the text of the spell, so Maximize applies. An "Effect" entry, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.The effect line is entirely relevant. The damage is variable and numeric but it is not an effect unless the description tells us it is. The spell entry tells us what the one and only effect of the spell is and that is the axe shaped object. No rule tells us that the damage is an effect of the spell.


And the PHB glossary defines a touch attack as "An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent, but does not need to penetrate armor". Ice axe deals its damage whether the target is unarmored or wearing +5 adamantine mountain plate, so it's very much the spell causing the damage. Just like chill touch or an orb spell, or even disintegrate. Funny how that works, huh?The effect of chill touch is variable damage delivered by a touch attack, the effect of ice axe is a "Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice" nothing more nothing less.


You're correct that damage is neither a creature nor an object. It is, however, a dice roll. Maximize applies.Maximize spell only maximizes the numeric variable effects of a spell, not any dice roll you may (have to) make during or after the casting of the spell. You need a rule saying that the roll is an effect. Ice axe unambiguously states that its one and only effect is a "Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice".


Neither can any other touch spell. What's your point?Actually all of them can, contrary to Ice Axe. Their range is touch not 0 ft. Unless the caster has a reach of 0 ft, he can at least reach adjacent squares and thus can produce effects in those squares without entering them. Ice Axe cannot, if you claim that the damage is an effect.

[DarkSoul]

You're obviously not going to be swayed on this, even in the face of the rules themselves telling you you're wrong, so I'm just going to stop here. OP, you're correct in your reading. Any dice rolls described in a spell's text can be maximized, up to and including energy drain and time stop.

[Andezzar]

Please finally show me the rule saying that the damage is an effect of Ice Axe. You continue to claim that it is but have not yet provided any proof. If I missed it, refer me to a post that says anything beyond "it is in the description so it must be an effect". If that were enough duration, components etc. also are effects.

I however have shown that ice axe unambiguously states that the sole effect of the spell is the axe shaped object. Moreover I have quoted why the damage would not work properly if it were an effect. Lastly I have proven that dealing damage is beyond the scope of a creation spell.

So which rule do you base your reasoning on?

[Troacctid]

For those who think the spell can be maximized—when the spell is not maximized, are you rolling for damage when you cast the spell and saying, "Okay, looks like this axe is dealing 15 damage," and then having it do that much damage on every attack it makes?

[Murmaider]

For those who think the spell can be maximized—when the spell is not maximized, are you rolling for damage when you cast the spell and saying, "Okay, looks like this axe is dealing 15 damage," and then having it do that much damage on every attack it makes?

You could ask the same for any spell that deals damage over multiple rounds.

[Telok]

One side effect of deciding that Ice Axe cannot be maximized is that no Conjuration (creation) spell can be maximized or empowered. Because the reasoning that the spell creates a thing and the thing does the damage also means that all spells or abilities that create something, permanent or temporary, cannot benefit from those metamagic feats.

Ironically the logical conclusion of this sort of reasoning is that Ice Storm, Flame Blade, and any other spell or power that does damage through a created effect can't be maximized or empowered.

[Andezzar]

One side effect of deciding that Ice Axe cannot be maximized is that no Conjuration (creation) spell can be maximized or empowered. Because the reasoning that the spell creates a thing and the thing does the damage also means that all spells or abilities that create something, permanent or temporary, cannot benefit from those metamagic feats.With the exception of those spells that create a variable number of creatures or objects (e.g. using a lower level list for summon monster 2+).


Ironically the logical conclusion of this sort of reasoning is that Ice Storm, Flame Blade, and any other spell or power that does damage through a created effect can't be maximized or empowered.Yes, so what?

[DarkSoul]

For those who think the spell can be maximized—when the spell is not maximized, are you rolling for damage when you cast the spell and saying, "Okay, looks like this axe is dealing 15 damage," and then having it do that much damage on every attack it makes?No, why would you? The spell clearly states it deals its damage on a successful hit. Maximize just removes the randomness like it does with any other spell. Acid Arrow, for example.

[Zanos]

I think I understand your logic Andezzar, so I'd like to ask what you think of maximize/empower on the following spells to make sure I got it right. These are mostly effect: something or other spells. Two or three aren't.

Acid Arrow
Awaken
Blade Barrier
Call Lightning/Call Lightning Storm
Cloudkill
Disintegrate
Flame Arrow
Ice Storm
Enervation/Energy Drain
Searing Light
Shambler
Stinking Cloud
Storm of Vengeance

[DarkSoul]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040824a) would probably be an enlightening read for anyone who thinks these spells can't be maximized. In short, the only reason Ice Axe has an "Effect" line is because it doesn't require targets or affect an area, and has no bearing at all on the damage type, method, amount, etc.

[Andezzar]

I'm too lazy to go through all of them, but adding maximize to any spell that has an effect property, does not change anything unless the effect property (i.e. the line Effect: something) has some variable number in it or that property can be made variable and numeric (e.g. summon monster using a lower level list) or some other section of the entry explicitly calls anything else an effect of the spell.

Yes, I know the problem with the rules is that effect was never defined, but if a spell has an effect and does not call anything else that it might do an effect, only that one effect can be the spells effect. One does not have to like that, or play that way but as far as the RAW are concerned no one has provided any rule saying that anything else can be the effect of the spell.

BTW the rules of the game articles are not RAW and often directly contradict the actual rules. In this case however the the article backs what I am saying. The effect is what the spell brings forth, not what the caster or anyone else does with whatever the spell has brought forth.

[Zanos]

Would it interest you to learn that there's examples all of those spells being maximized or empowered in the books?

[Andezzar]

Would it interest you to learn that there's examples all of those spells being maximized or empowered in the books?Would it interest you to learn that Jozan, an apparently good (since he took the Good Domain) cleric of Pelor casts Symbol of Pain (an [Evil] spell)?

The books are notorious for giving examples that do not conform to the rules.

[Zanos]

Sure, but if you can choose a subjective rules interpretation that does conform to a very large number of rules examples versus another subjective rules interpretation that doesn't and is incredibly dysfunctional, why would you go with the later?

[Andezzar]

How is not allowing the damage to be maximized more dysfunctional than needing to enter an opponent's square to deal damage with an object that looks like a battle axe?

[Zanos]

I'm not aware of any rule that says a weapon or spell effect leaves it's wielders square during an attack.

[Andezzar]

I'm not aware of any rule that says a weapon or spell effect leaves it's wielders square during an attack.A normal weapon does not (or at least the rules do not say it does), but the target has to be within the wielder's reach. If on the other hand the damage of the weapon is an effect of the spell it cannot occur outside of the range of the spell. The range of Ice Axe is 0 ft. Ergo the damage cannot occur anywhere other than in the caster's space. Either the damage is an effect of the spell and must follow the rules for effects of spells or it is not and the axe shaped object can behave like an axe. You cannot have it both ways. Being able to use the axe shaped object like an axe seems a lot less dysfunctional to me than not being able to remove the randomness from the damage.

[Vaern]

I'm still going to say that, RAW, the spell could be maximized. I will concede, though, that I certainly wouldn't disagree with a DM who argued that he wouldn't want to allow maximizing a spell that allows multiple touch attacks per round like this because it could easily be abused if a character was built around it.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

Please finally show me the rule saying that the damage is an effect of Ice Axe. You continue to claim that it is but have not yet provided any proof. If I missed it, refer me to a post that says anything beyond "it is in the description so it must be an effect". If that were enough duration, components etc. also are effects.

I however have shown that ice axe unambiguously states that the sole effect of the spell is the axe shaped object. Moreover I have quoted why the damage would not work properly if it were an effect. Lastly I have proven that dealing damage is beyond the scope of a creation spell.

So which rule do you base your reasoning on?

here is you're definition of effect

Effect: Some spells, such as summon monster spells, create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it (for example, “The insect plague will appear 20 feet into the area of darkness that the nagas are hiding in”). Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile (a summoned monster, for instance), it can move regardless of the spell’s range.

And here is what you should be looking at

DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included “see text,” this is where the explanation is found. If the spell you’re reading about is based on another spell (see Spell Chains, page 181), you might have to refer to a different spell for the “see text” information.
bold added

and here is the maximize spell feat

MAXIMIZE SPELL [METAMAGIC]
You can cast spells to maximum effect.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. A maximized spell deals maximum damage, cures the maximum number of hit points, affects the maximum number of targets, etc., as appropriate. For example, a maximized fireball deals 6 points of damage per caster level (up to a maximum of 60 points of damage at 10th caster level). Saving throws and opposed rolls (such as the one you make when you cast dispel magic) are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level. 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 10d6bold added

Then finally there is the spell

ICE AXE
Evocation [Cold]
Level: Cleric 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Battleaxe-shaped weapon of swirling ice
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A thin layer of frost forms around your hand as shards of ice descend from the sky and coalesce into the form of a battleaxe.
This spell creates a battleaxe-shaped formation of jagged, fast-swirling ice shards in your hand. You are automatically considered proficient with the ice axe. Attacks with the ice axe are melee touch attacks. The axe deals 2d12 points of cold damage +1 point per two caster levels(maximum+10)with a successful hit. You cannot be disarmed of the ice axe nor can it be sundered. Since the axe is virtually weightless, your Strength modifier does not apply on damage rolls. If your base attack bonus is high enough to allow for multiple attacks in a round, you can make them with the ice axe.
If you choose to hold something other than the ice axe in your hand or use the hand in some other way, the ice axe vanishes until the hand is empty again.
Material Component: A shard of ice, glass, or crystal.

bold again added

the spell creates the ice axe which is what the damage is, therefore maximizing the spell maximized ALL damage done by it. If you can maximize a fireball then there is no reason you can maximize this spell as well. the damage is a direct outcome of the spell.

[AnachroNinja]

There is some pure delusion going on in this thread.

First thing to note. Range: 0 ft. Is simply used to designate that the spell is not a personal buff, nor a spell that can be cast at range on something else. It's a persistent magical effect that is within your square but not directly cast upon you. A similar example is Produce Flame, which by the way, would not be eligible for metamagic under your logic either. Much like ice axe, it is range 0ft bit specifically explains how it interacts with attacks that you make. Range 0ft has absolutely nothing to work anything related to empower or maximize.

If the Effect line of the spell description were truly a limiting factor then Ray of Enfeeblement and similar spells are also ineligible as they are designated "Effect: ray". Rays are specifically called out as being maximized in a few different places IIRC.

Ice Axe is clearly not just a physically created weapon. It's a weightless cloud of ice that has no effect beyond cold damage. It makes as much sense as anything else to accept that maximize spell would "maximize" the cold projected from the spell effect. Is it the most intuitive thing on the world? No. Does it make far more sense then the logic being used to say that it doesn't work? Oh God yes.

[Aimeryan]

You're obviously not going to be swayed on this, even in the face of the rules themselves telling you you're wrong, so I'm just going to stop here. OP, you're correct in your reading. Any dice rolls described in a spell's text can be maximized, up to and including energy drain and time stop.

You have done this twice now and it is incredibly disrespectful to both Andezzar and myself; you are basically saying "I am right, you are wrong".

~~~

Just to conclude my interpretation: if the effect of the spell is to create something (as noted in the "Effect:" section) then any modifiers to the spell applies to the creation process, only. The reason I would rule this way is because mechanically they feel like they are different, which is sort of meant to be the point from what I can see. Mechanically, one type has the damage as an effect of the spell, where as the other type the damage is the effect of the created object, which itself is not the spell. There are things you can do with weapons that you can't do with spells, and vice versa. Why lose something interesting just so you can make it overpowered? - that is rhetorical; I know why people will do this.

Listing the stats of the creation or just referencing it somewhere else makes no difference to me - I do not see any difference in the first place. It is just space, effort, and time saving.

As for any further contribution to this thread, I am going to leave it here; I've stated my interpretation and the reasons why and outside of an official ruling that is as good as anyone can do.

[OracleofWuffing]

the spell creates the ice axe which is what the damage is, therefore maximizing the spell maximized ALL damage done by it. If you can maximize a fireball then there is no reason you can maximize this spell as well. the damage is a direct outcome of the spell.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean by "The spell creates the ice axe which is what the damage is?" That's a jump that I feel does not follow the excerpts you posted- specifically, the descriptive text for Ice Axe, which doesn't say that the creation of an Ice Axe deals damage.

Completely irrelevant side-observation from these rules: Use Still Spell to cast Ice Axe whilst having no hands. Observe the world BSOD.

Edit: Better yet. Cut off hand and store on other side of planet. Cast Ice Axe. Turn planet into Axe Sandwich with a regular axe in connected hand.

[Andezzar]

@D&DPrinceTandem: You quoted 1) what an effect is, 2) what the description is, 3) that Maximize Spell maximizes numerical variable effects. From those does not follow, that whatever variable numerical values that are in the description, get maximized, but clearly whatever variable numerical values are in the effect.
Maximize spell does not say "maximize any variable numerical value you can find in the description" it says maximize any variable numerical effect. Drawing your conclusion is like: this is a grocery list, that is a bank state statement. Double the numbers on the grocery list and you proceed to double the numbers on the bank statement. This makes no sense at all.



First thing to note. Range: 0 ft. Is simply used to designate that the spell is not a personal buff, nor a spell that can be cast at range on something else. It's a persistent magical effect that is within your square but not directly cast upon you. A similar example is Produce Flame, which by the way, would not be eligible for metamagic under your logic either. Much like ice axe, it is range 0ft bit specifically explains how it interacts with attacks that you make. Range 0ft has absolutely nothing to work anything related to empower or maximize.The rules disagree with you. In case the SRD is not enough (as I quoted earlier), I'll give you the rule directly from the PHB:

A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted.Just becasue you want the spell to work, does not change the rules to allow it.
Yes, Produce Flame is dysfunctional, that's why spells that should have an effect outside their range are already in the dysfunctional Handbook.


If the Effect line of the spell description were truly a limiting factor then Ray of Enfeeblement and similar spells are also ineligible as they are designated "Effect: ray". Rays are specifically called out as being maximized in a few different places IIRC.If they are, the examples are wrong, just like so many others. The examples might be an indication, what the writers intended, but if they contradict the rules say, they are no indication what the writers actually wrote.


Ice Axe is clearly not just a physically created weapon. It's a weightless cloud of ice that has no effect beyond cold damage. It makes as much sense as anything else to accept that maximize spell would "maximize" the cold projected from the spell effect. Is it the most intuitive thing on the world? No. Does it make far more sense then the logic being used to say that it doesn't work? Oh God yes.If that were the case, I refer you back to the range of the spell. No effect can occur outside the range of the spell. Either the damage is (part of) the effect of the spell or it is not. Either way you have to follow all the rules, you cannot cherry pick those rules just to make the spell conform to your expectations. As far as I am concerned we are discussing what the rules say, not how we want to play the game.

[Manyasone]

After reading most of this thread (admittedly diagonally) I'm becoming more and more confused as to certain interpretations...Basically, what rolled around my head was 'why must everything be made so bloody difficult on this forum'. Don't get me wrong, I love you all, and I learned a lot from any and all sides during my lurking and posting.
As to the confusing part, Andezzar, if you would please state with an example (maybe even from a school or 3) what would be eligible for maximization at your table when you DM? Because spells like for instance, acid arrow, I see no particular qualm with it?
Humor me, please, I'm merely trying to understand your point of view

[Andezzar]

Examples: magic missile, fireball

[Gullintanni]

Examples: magic missile, fireball

Scorching Ray, I presume, would not be?

Scorching Ray functions mechanically as a perfect equivalent for Ice Axe. It creates a weapon-like effect (Fiery rays that require a touch attack in order to deal damage, rather than an axe-shaped convalescence of cold energy that requires a touch attack to deal damage) whose damage is listed in the spell's description, rather than on the Effect line.

Maximize and Empower don't care at what range increment a spell deals damage, nor do the feats care if a spell persists for a duration or resolves instantaneously. As for whether or not it is an Attack or a Spell dealing damage, the two spells behave identically:

An attack roll is required in order for the spell to deal damage. And yes - it is a spell, not a weapon, or an attack, that deals damage.

Keep in mind that both spells are SR: Yes. Which means that when a target is struck by either Scorching Ray or Ice Axe, they have been struck by a weapon-like SPELL not an actual weapon, and the caster must make a caster level check to overcome Spell Resistance or no damage is dealt.

On the plus side, the fact that Ice Axe and Scorching Ray do not deal weapon damage, but rather, deal spell based energy damage, means that Damage Reduction doesn't apply here.

[Andezzar]

It has "Effect: one or more rays", so no.

[AnachroNinja]

It's impressive when a person can really be so devoted to their interpretation of the rules that they feel reasonable actually saying "Well it doesn't matter how many other shield work that way, how many things are broken by this, and how many examples of it working your way there are.... THOSE are all obviously mistakes, accidents, and dysfunctions and my way is right even though there is no actual support for my opinion."

I've got to applaud your commitment if nothing else. I'm not going to accept a point of view on a spell that isn't that powerful to begin with that would break every other ray, orb, blade, and similar spell in the game. The spell description fully explains what the effect of the spell is. That's my stance, I'm bowing out of this nonsense argument.

[Gullintanni]

It has "Effect: one or more rays", so no.

I see. So you are taking the point of view that Maximize and Empower only apply to what lies in the "Effect" line of the spell, and that the descriptive text, by extension, doesn't contain any effects of the spell.

Because if a spell's descriptive text can not add effects, then indeed, maximize does not apply.

On the other hand, if Scorching Ray does have damage as an effect of the spell, then it is unequivocally applicable, as Maximize doesn't state that it is concerned with what is in the effect line of the spell, but rather, that it maximizes EVERY random numerical effect of the spell.

Maximize Spell:

"ALL variable, numeric EFFECTS of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. A maximized spell deals maximum damage, cures the maximum number of hit points, affects the maximum number of targets, etc., as appropriate."

Ergo, in order for Maximize not to apply, one MUST conclude that the spells effects are contained wholly and completely in the effect line of the spell, and that the descriptive text can not intoduce new effects. Because based on the wording of Maximize Spell, it automatically looks at all effects of a spell that are both random and numeric, regardless of where in the body of the spell text that effect is listed.

ALL is the very first word in the descriptive text of the feat Maximize Spell.

[Fizban]

Haven't read the thread, but I've noticed this potential nerf of energy blade spells before and decided the Scorching Ray example (which is mentioned on this page) pretty well debunks it. If you want to wall off the variables based on the effect line you have to do it for every "effect" spell, and that's going to hit a lot of spells that have have been maximized an empowered since forever even in printed statblocks. It means you have to rely on the idea that every person writing the spells knew about such a specific distinction between effect and target/touch/area and never tagged effect spells if it wasn't neccesary. And we all know how coordinated the writers really were.

It does make an excellent nerf for conjuration and other SR: no blasting though, having their variables be untouchable. Since one or both of empower/maximize is exactly the minimum amount of optimization, you can say straight up that for any build that is even minimally optimized, with this nerf the Orbs and SR:no blasting become the specialized SR piercing tools they were obviously meant to be, rather than the full power all the time defaults they're used as. No one can complain about the spells being less powerful because they aren't, they still have their full damage and SR penetration, it's actually more accurate to say the metamagic has been nerfed by adding a restriction that wasn't there before.

Edit: evidently some people are focusing on the flip idea where only effect line spells can be altered, which is obviously even more absurd. Neither reading works, I'm just saying that making a nerf based on the idea for SR: no spells is neat.

[Gullintanni]

Haven't read the thread, but I've noticed this potential nerf before and decided the Scorching Ray example (which is mentioned on this page) pretty well debunks it. If you want to wall off the variables based on the effect line you have to do it for every "effect" spell, and that's going to hit a lot of spells that have have been maximized an empowered since forever even in printed statblocks. It means you have to rely on the idea that every person writing the spells knew about such a specific distinction between effect and target/touch/area and never tagged effect spells if it wasn't neccesary. And we all know how coordinated the writers really were.

It does make an excellent nerf for conjuration and other SR: no blasting though, having their variables be untouchable. Since one or both of empower/maximize is exactly the minimum amount of optimization, you can say straight up that for any build that is even minimally optimized, with this nerf the Orbs and SR:no blasting become the specialized SR piercing tools they were obviously meant to be, rather than the full power all the time defaults they're used as. No one can complain about the spells being less powerful because they aren't, they still have their full damage and SR penetration, it's actually more accurate to say the metamagic has been nerfed by adding a restriction that wasn't there before.

As an interesting aside, neither Magic Missile, nor Fireball, have an "Effect" line in their spell text. The descriptive text delineates entirely the damage the spells deal, so the perspective that only damage listed in the "Effect" line of the spell is eligible for maximization renders the feat almost entirely non-functional.

[AnachroNinja]

*****ninja'd


Ugh, one last thing to add here. If one accepts the position that the "Effects: " line is what is being referenced by maximize, the big change ISN'T that conjurations get nerfed. Why you might ask? Because there are two kinds of spells really. Spells that have AC Effects listing, which is generally a short note with no numeric effects, and spells that don't have an Effects line at all.

Fireball? There's no Effects entry. That means there are no applicable numeric effects. If it has Effects that could be affected by maximize, it would have an Effects line.

Oh, wait... You are saying fireball's effects are listed in the spell description? You don't get it both ways. Either its all about that Effects line, or it's any variable numeric effect of the spell in the description. None of this "the spell creates the object, the object does the damage... Just like summon monster!!" crap.

[Aimeryan]

Fireball? There's no Effects entry. That means there are no applicable numeric effects. If it has Effects that could be affected by maximize, it would have an Effects line.

Oh, wait... You are saying fireball's effects are listed in the spell description? You don't get it both ways. Either its all about that Effects line, or it's any variable numeric effect of the spell in the description. None of this "the spell creates the object, the object does the damage... Just like summon monster!!" crap.

Just wanted to make a correction here, since this has been explained before: if it has an "Effect:" line then I am ruling that is the effect of the spell, where as, if it does not then I am ruling that the text is the effect of the spell. My ruling is simply that the default effect is that of the text, but an "Effect:" line overrides it as a specific. This is not unusual for D&D - did you think it was?

[Gullintanni]

Just wanted to make a correction here, since this has been explained before: if it has an "Effect:" line then I am ruling that is the effect of the spell, where as, if it does not then I am ruling that the text is the effect of the spell. My ruling is simply that the default effect is that of the text, but an "Effect:" line overrides it as a specific. This is not unusual for D&D - did you think it was?

It actually is unusual - D&D generally requires specificity when it comes to prohibitive rulings.

Nothing within the core ruleset specifies that "If a spell has an effect line, its descriptive text can not contain additional spell effects."

So it is equally possible within the rules that spell effects can be found simultaneously within both a spells' effect line and descriptive text. And given that many spells would have no mechanical effect whatsoever without inclusion of effects described in descriptive text (Ice Axe and Scorching Ray included), it makes the most sense that the default perspective of the game designers is that spell effects are contained in both effect and descriptive text.

[Aimeryan]

It actually is unusual - D&D generally requires specificity when it comes to prohibitive rulings.

Nothing within the core ruleset specifies that "If a spell has an effect line, its descriptive text can not contain additional spell effects."

The "Effect:" line is specificity; that is why it is there:

"The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate." - Players Handbook, page 175

[Telok]

So you're saying that Black Tentacles can be maximized but Wall of Fire can't? Because one has an effect line and the other doesn't? There are no spells I know of that define a random number in the effect descriptor line, so by that definition all spells with effect descriptor lines cannot be maximized regardless of whether or not the effect of the spell uses a random number.

[Zanos]

So you're saying that Black Tentacles can be maximized but Wall of Fire can't? Because one has an effect line and the other doesn't? There are no spells I know of that define a random number in the effect descriptor line, so by that definition all spells with effect descriptor lines cannot be maximized regardless of whether or not the effect of the spell uses a random number.
This argument is getting pretty ridiculous anyway, there's dozens of examples of spells with effect lines and/or conjuration(creation) effects being maximized in this book, but the opposition has chosen to ignore them because sometimes examples are wrong.

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, this came from a RAW question thread. Pointing to examples where the game goes "boink" as a result of a conclusion, or where it's obvious we were not intended to draw that conclusion because of other rules, does not change anything from that perspective as long as folks can find rules to support that conclusion.

[Augernon]

There is also another difference. Ice axe is a Conjuration (Creation) spell

It is not. It is Evocation (Cold).

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: It's certainly not Necromancy.