[D&D 3.5] What exactly is the proper calculation for an Empowered Spell with static m

[AsteriX97]

--odifiers? (couldn't post the whole title :D )

Hi, everyone!

Apologies for asking such a decade-old question, when there are numerous threads on the net about this, but it is exactly because of those threads that I am making this one as well.

Many users whose replies I've read on many various forums just can't come to an agreement on how Empower Spell should be interpreted when it comes to static modifiers.

Either they conclude that Empower Spell's calculation includes static modifiers in the calculation process, or that only the variables are multiplied, and static modifiers are added on top of the result.

As someone who is trying to create custom spells for the game Neverwinter Nights, I have to bring some closure to this to know which ruling should I use, and how should I interpret this feat's calculation.

This is because the metamagic damage (from Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, etc.) is done via scripting, meaning you calculate the damage manually into the spell you're trying to create, depending on the metamagic the spell uses.

For a refresher, here is the feat's description directly taken from the PHB:


EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC]

All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, and so forth, as > appropriate.

For example, an empowered magic missile deals 1.5 times its normal damage (roll 1d4+1 and multiply the result by 1.5 for each missile)

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.

An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

~ PHB p.93

So far the ruling seems pretty straightforward, if you have an XdY variable spell (e.g. Fireball), all you need to do is roll the die X amounts of times, and multiply the result by 1.5 (e.g. 10d6 on a Fireball, let's say I rolled a 36, then all I need to do is multiply it by 1.5 and the final result from the empowered fireball (36 x 1.5) = 54 damage), simple right?

But the problem comes when we add static modifiers to the mix here. For example, let's use Cure Light Wounds whose numeric variable cures 1d8 hit points +1 static point per caster level (max. +5), and in this case, let's assume we're CL 5

Now, the main question comes. Is the proper Empower Spell calculation something like this:


(1d8 x 1.5) + 5

or like this:


(1d8 + 5) x 1.5

and the results from these two examples are pretty different.

Let's say I rolled an 8. In the first example, the final result ((8 x 1.5) + 5) would be = 17, whereas, in the second example with the same roll, the final result would be (13 x 1.5) = 19 (19.5 to be exact).

The higher the static modifier is, the bigger the difference between these two methods are.

If we use another example, this time: Cure Critical Wounds which heals for 4d8 +1/CL (max. +20), and let's assume we're at CL 20, and have rolled an average of 4d8, which is 18.

The first example calculation would yield a result of 47 (18 x 1.5 + 20 = 47), whereas the second calculation's example would be 57 ((18 + 20) x 1.5 = 57), an entire 10 points difference.

According to the PHB's definition, I'm more inclined to believe that the second method of calculation is the correct way of calculating the Empowered spell, but some people are adamant that the first method IS the ONLY way to calculate it, and that the feat's description can be misinterpreted to believe that the second example is the right one.

So, in your opinion, which is the correct way, and why?

Thanks in forward, and I apologize for such a long post, I just wanted to get closure on this, so I wanted to present as much info as possible.

[Quertus]

I mean, if I told someone “roll 1d4+1, and multiply the result by 1.5”, and they only multiplied the roll rather than the resulting sum of the roll plus static modifier? I would be very concerned, and ask them to explain how they managed to parse English that way.

Similarly, if someone wanted me to only multiply the die roll, and worded it that way rather than, “roll a d4, multiply the result by 1.5, then add one”, I would probably skip being concerned, and move straight to banning them from writing rules. Or code.

So I fall pretty firmly on the “multiply the variable component” over “multiply the variable portion of the variable component” side of things.

[KillianHawkeye]

Quertus is correct.

To be extra clear, 10d6 and 1d8+5 are both variable effects. It doesn't matter that 1d8+5 includes a part that isn't a die, it's a variable range from 6 to 13.

I mean, they even give an example with magic missile. Just do what the feat tells you to do.

[lylsyly]

Quertus is correct.

To be extra clear, 10d6 and 1d8+5 are both variable effects. It doesn't matter that 1d8+5 includes a part that isn't a die, it's a variable range from 6 to 13.

I mean, they even give an example with magic missile. Just do what the feat tells you to do.

We've ruled it this way at our table since 3E first came out.

[AnonymousPepper]

Going to second the current consensus in here, and, frankly, add on for anyone else reading this in the future (hello, future Googlers) that if a GM insists otherwise, run, that's not the sort of table you want to be at.

[Remuko]

I'm going to give different advice tho I agree with everyone else.

You're making new spells for the original NWN pc game yes? Can you not just crack open the games code and see how empower works on other spells and do it the way the game does, regardless of what we all consider correct? That would at least make it consistent. Or does empower not exist in the game? (been a while since I played and I don't play casters often so I'm not sure)

[Feantar]

As someone who is trying to create custom spells for the game Neverwinter Nights, I have to bring some closure to this to know which ruling should I use, and how should I interpret this feat's calculation.


Neverwinter Nights is 3.0, not 3.5. So the empower feat is this:



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

The way it's stated, as long as you have a variable part somewhere in the effect, you just multiply all of it by 1.5. If you have no variable effects, it doesn't do anything.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's worded a little differently, but that's basically the same as what it does in the 3.5 version.

[Zanos]

Empower in 3.0 empowers flat bonuses.
Empower in 3.5 empowers flat bonuses.
Empower in the NWN game engines empowers flat bonuses.

These are all spelled out in their respective rulesets (and easily observed, in the case of NWN.)

[Particle_Man]

I am encouraged to find a thread where it seems that everyone is in agreement. I feel that there is hope for gamerkind.

[Ramza00]

Fabulous spell Elemental Darts combine with Empower.

1d8+10, with up to five darts (the power is based on caster level) in a 2nd level slot. Fort save for half damage, and elemental resistances really stink with this spell (but you can choose 4 different elements on the fly)

Thus 75+5d8*1.5 total damage. Use a lesser empower rod for the empower effect. (9k, 4.5k crafted, 3 times per day) and you can also use a Circlet of Rapid Casting 3 times a day (15k, 7.5k crafted.)

Thus for some wealth (reasonable amount) you can be throwing out spells for 100 damage as a swift action 3 times a day for 3 mere 2nd level slots and that wealth. Wonderful spell to be versatile with for it does not constrain your higher level slots while doing this.

[AsteriX97]

Apologies for the late reply, and thank you all again for your opinions and suggestions on this.

Also, yeah, I'm leaning towards the second method as well, and I believe I'll stick to that one. I highlighted that part of the feat's description because it sounded exactly like the second method of calculating the damage.

Interestingly enough, Pathfinder specifically states that bonuses are added before the multiplication kicks in:


Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

~d20PFSRD

And the FAQ about this:


Empower Spell: If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

Unfortunately, I can't post links to these sources as my account is still new, so sorry about that :(


I'm going to give different advice tho I agree with everyone else.

You're making new spells for the original NWN pc game yes? Can you not just crack open the games code and see how empower works on other spells and do it the way the game does, regardless of what we all consider correct? That would at least make it consistent. Or does empower not exist in the game? (been a while since I played and I don't play casters often so I'm not sure)

I did, but the problem is that it uses both methods, lol. The second method is used for the OC spells, and the first method for the expansion spells. It's even stated here on the Empower Spell page on the wiki (once again can't post links, sorry):


* Empowerment takes place after rolls are modified by non-variable effects. For example, an empowered ray of frost does (1d4 + 1) × 1.5 damage. That is, rolling a 3 gives (3+1)×1.5 = 6 damage, not 3×1.5 = 4.5, truncated to 4, plus 1 for 5 damage.
* Spells added in the expansion packs will typically have empower take place before being modified by the non-variable.

[Remuko]

I did, but the problem is that it uses both methods, lol. The second method is used for the OC spells, and the first method for the expansion spells. It's even stated here on the Empower Spell page on the wiki (once again can't post links, sorry):

well thats confusing for no reason lol

[AsteriX97]

Sorry for bringing this up again guys, but now I have a question regarding spell duration, and how does Empower Spell affect it.

If I, for example, create a 5th level spell that has a duration of "1d4+1" rounds (similar to Time Stop), will the Empower Spell affect the duration as well, since it's a "variable" part of the spell? And if so, should the proper implementation again be (1d4+1) * 1.5?

The feat's description does say
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half., but I wonder if that is applied to the duration as well?

[Darg]

I did, but the problem is that it uses both methods, lol. The second method is used for the OC spells, and the first method for the expansion spells. It's even stated here on the Empower Spell page on the wiki (once again can't post links, sorry):

That's because the effect is written into each individual script for each spell effect. The code was probably written by different people. Basically a standard "if this, then this" with the wrong math. Should be really simple to change the math as all you're doing is changing the order of operations.

[tyckspoon]

Sorry for bringing this up again guys, but now I have a question regarding spell duration, and how does Empower Spell affect it.

If I, for example, create a 5th level spell that has a duration of "1d4+1" rounds (similar to Time Stop), will the Empower Spell affect the duration as well, since it's a "variable" part of the spell? And if so, should the proper implementation again be (1d4+1) * 1.5?

Yes.

Probably won't be relevant to trying to make stuff work within the NWN engine, but there's one notable wrinkle - you shouldn't empower rolls that are internal to the spell's function but aren't actually the effect/result of the spell themselves; for example you would not apply the 1.5x multiplier to the roll against Reincarnate's chart to see what you come back as or Confusion's d% check to determine what the affected target does each round.

[AsteriX97]

Yes.

Probably won't be relevant to trying to make stuff work within the NWN engine, but there's one notable wrinkle - you shouldn't empower rolls that are internal to the spell's function but aren't actually the effect/result of the spell themselves; for example you would not apply the 1.5x multiplier to the roll against Reincarnate's chart to see what you come back as or Confusion's d% check to determine what the affected target does each round.

I figured as much, just needed to confirm it with somebody else.

Thanks for the help tyck! And, also no, I'm not trying to empower rolls internal to the spell's functionality like the ones you listed. The custom spell I'm creating only has variable damage rolls, the duration question was simply out of curiosity, should I find myself in a situation like that.

[sreservoir]

The conflation of "variable" with "random" that Empower Spell does has always been pretty wonky, but this isn't supposed to be ambiguous, the SRD editing is just a hack job:


Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, and so forth, as appropriate. For example, an empowered magic missile deals 1-1/2 times its normal damage (roll 1d4+1 and multiply the result by 1-1/2 for each missile). 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. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

Another one for the "SRD changes that change the interpretation without technically changing the meaning of the words" file...

[KillianHawkeye]

It's true, the online SRD has left out a lot of clarifying example text from things for some crazy reason. I mean, while the key to good communication may be brevity, explanatory text isn't always extraneous.

[sreservoir]

It's true, the online SRD has left out a lot of clarifying example text from things for some crazy reason. I mean, while the key to good communication may be brevity, explanatory text isn't always extraneous.

I can only assume the lawyers were happy to remove anything that could remotely be construed as fluff or examples, coherency of the resulting rules be damned. Releasing a playable system was expressly an anti-goal, after all.

[Quertus]

Releasing a playable system was expressly an anti-goal, after all.

That really should be a plaque on someone’s wall.