D&DNext: Playtest Review

[virgil]

Fixed ranged in the system means the range doesn't have a variable. So spells with a range of touch (in a non-discharged fashion), self, or 100' (not per level or anything) are all viable.

[erik]

Fixed ranged in the system means the range doesn't have a variable. So spells with a range of touch (in a non-discharged fashion), self, or 100' (not per level or anything) are all viable.

Does it say that anywhere? I never found "fixed range" to be a game term that was explained.

[Previn]

Fixed ranged in the system means the range doesn't have a variable. So spells with a range of touch (in a non-discharged fashion), self, or 100' (not per level or anything) are all viable.

Does it say that anywhere? I never found "fixed range" to be a game term that was explained.

Persistant Power:
Q: I've been wondering since the book came out just what is meant by 'fixed range'.

A: A non-variable range means that if the power has an entry of Range: Close, Medium, Long, each with their associated variation in range based on the level of the manifester (or any other non-coforming range entry with variation built in), its not a candidate for the Persistent Power feat. A fixed range means that if the power has an entry of Range: 60 ft., or any other non-variable range, you can use Persistant Power. For instance, Detect Psioncis has a fixed range of 60 ft. Powers with a Range of Touch are not fixed (according to this definition) or personal, and so also are not candidates for Persistent Power.

[virgil]

That part doesn't make any sense. How is a range of Self or Touch more variable than 60'? The "according to this definition" is only fitting when the definition explicitly excludes it as "a fixed value that does not include Personal or Touch."

[Seerow]

Is it just me or is that FAQ trying to make Persist Spell go automatically from one of the best metamagics to one of the worst?

[Username17]

The original author of Persistent Spell said that "fixed" in this case meant a fixed number - like bless. And not a variable number or non-number like "touch" or "short range". It's a completely arbitrary restriction, since many of the spells that are most broken by having a 24 hour news cycle are Personal range and very few of the spells that would be broken by that sort of thing have a range of "Medium" or "Long".

Has anyone seen the MM3 math in action and does it fix the padded sumo? All the 4rries are claiming it does.

It's better. But level 25 Elites still have 574 hit points and a level 25 Solo has 928. The monsters are better at fighting back, but we're still talking about them having AoEs that do seventeen points of damage and shit.

-Username17

[ScottS]

Has anyone seen the MM3 math in action and does it fix the padded sumo? All the 4rries are claiming it does.

It's better. But level 25 Elites still have 574 hit points and a level 25 Solo has 928. The monsters are better at fighting back, but we're still talking about them having AoEs that do seventeen points of damage and shit.

MM3 went from +0.5/lvl monster damage to +1/lvl. Everything else being equal (i.e. assuming that all the patches like armor material, expertise feats etc. equalized the rate at which monsters and PCs increased defs and attack bonus), monsters were doing 1 point more dmg per hit while PCs were gaining 4-6 hp. So it was an "improvement" over original 4e but it needed to be doubled again (+2 dmg per level would have kept the ratio at about 2.5 hits to drop a PC that you have at lvl 1). Then again, that's not considering the bullshit damage mitigation/teleport-before-you-hit-me stuff you start getting even before paragon.

I didn't actually use that fix when I ran 4e (because I was still trying to stick with their "expected damage per encounter" assumptions, which turned out to be lame), but I saw similar fixes later and they seemed to work OK (e.g. playing lv 8 PCs where monsters swung for 25-30 damage a hit and it was actually somewhat tense without everybody wiping all the time). I never got to compare the MV "even more betterer" monsters with the MM3 chart, so no idea if other repair attempts were made.

[erik]

Bah, well there goes my favorite non-standard use of persistent spell. I liked the idea of a persistent acid arrow being a high level touch or die (but preventable/rescueable via a variety of means).

[Duke Flauros]

So a cleric with a pocket of nightsticks can persist divine favor, divine power, righteous might, and entropic shield and this is all totally legit. The moment he tries to persist magic vestment, he can't, because its range is listed as "touch" not "personal" even though he's casting it on himself.

Re-read metamagic effect. It doesn't say that whatever effect you are applying must meet the criteria. Same with instant metamagic. (This falls under the category of "the rules don't say I cant move while I'm dead", but hey, if your gm's being a rules lawyer...)

Everything works exactly the way you'd think it does (repeat spell doubling and twin spell redoubling) except Maximize and Empower which have a special "go fuck yourself" clause where they don't stack properly. If you cast an Empowered, Enlarged Fireball, you don't do regular damage at extended range and half damage at normal range. It really is just Empower and Maximize that have special text in them that they don't play nice.

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 10d6.

So you don't take the maximized result and then add 50%. You roll the damage, take 50% of that, then slap that on top of the maximized damage. Then you do the hokey pokey, turn yourself around...

[RobG]

So's I figured that Maximize and Empower only increasing the damage of the original spell would sensibly mean that other Metafeats would only increase the damage of the original spell. Little did I know.

Frank is right.. again... 2008 FAQ, pg 37-38

Standing corrected

[Duke Flauros]

So's I figured that Maximize and Empower only increasing the damage of the original spell would sensibly mean that other Metafeats would only increase the damage of the original spell. Little did I know.

Frank is right.. again... 2008 FAQ, pg 37-38

Standing corrected

You probably has this weird assumption that metamagic feats were supposed to work in a logical way.

[NineInchNall]

Not to be an ass, but the logical way to interpret Empowered, Maximized, Widened, Enlarged acid fog would be Empower(Maximize(Widen(Enlarge(acid fog)))), where each feat is a function that describes what you do.

That you read an exception and interpreted it as the rule is an example of a failure of reading comprehension, not wonky design.

[Duke Flauros]

Not to be an ass,

http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ing-magic/

but the logical way to interpret Empowered, Maximized, Widened, Enlarged acid fog would be Empower(Maximize(Widen(Enlarge(acid fog)))), where each feat is a function that describes what you do.

That's one way you could interpret it. You could also assume they all applied at the same time.

That you read an exception and interpreted it as the rule is an example of a failure of reading comprehension, not wonky design.

A)There are several points in my posts that could be referring to; I can't tell which one that was.
B)You are assuming that I interpreted it in a certain way, and basing your argument off that.
C)I wear glasses, but I don't usually need them, so maybe I saw it wrong.

[Kaelik]

Hey Duke, you are not the center of the universe. He's obviously talking to RobG.

[NineInchNall]

Hey Duke, you are not the center of the universe. He's obviously talking to RobG.

While this is true, I'm now going to be talking to Duke.

That's one way you could interpret it. You could also assume they all applied at the same time.

And that interpretation either a) makes no sense or b) is more complex than the other interpretation.

a) Suppose I have two things that I can do to a given number, F and G. When I do F to x, x is increased by 100. When I do G to x, x is doubled. What happens when I do F and G to x? (Why am I using numbers? Because that's what metamagic feats modify: numbers.) Assuming that F and G are applied sequentially (F then G) the result is 2x+200. Assuming that F and G are applied simultaneously, ... Runtime Error. I don't even ... I liken it to a race condition, really.

b) We could come up with a patch wherein we don't just do what the text of the feat says and then do what the text of the second feat says, but this requires extra work. Instead of doing two operations (F then G), we have to do at least four.

i) Check if F and G affect the same part of the target spell.
ii) Assuming yes, apply F to the unmodified spell, resulting in spell'.
iii) Apply G to the unmodified spell, resulting in spell''.
iv) Find some way to combine spell' and spell'' that makes sense at all.

Occam's razor says fuck that shit.

[Duke Flauros]

Hey Duke, you are not the center of the universe. He's obviously talking to RobG.

If you don't quote someone, or mention who you are addressing, it can be a bit unclear, especially seeing as how he posted immediately after me.

And that interpretation either a) makes no sense or b) is more complex than the other interpretation.

a) Suppose I have two things that I can do to a given number, F and G. When I do F to x, x is increased by 100. When I do G to x, x is doubled. What happens when I do F and G to x? (Why am I using numbers? Because that's what metamagic feats modify: numbers.) Assuming that F and G are applied sequentially (F then G) the result is 2x+200. Assuming that F and G are applied simultaneously, ... Runtime Error. I don't even ... I liken it to a race condition, really.

b) We could come up with a patch wherein we don't just do what the text of the feat says and then do what the text of the second feat says, but this requires extra work. Instead of doing two operations (F then G), we have to do at least four.

i) Check if F and G affect the same part of the target spell.
ii) Assuming yes, apply F to the unmodified spell, resulting in spell'.
iii) Apply G to the unmodified spell, resulting in spell''.
iv) Find some way to combine spell' and spell'' that makes sense at all.

Occam's razor says fuck that shit.

Ah.

[rasmuswagner]

Re: illegal persistent acid arrow and fixed range... I believe Short/Medium/Long range is fixed to certain distances. I always read that clause to be ruling out touch spells.

When I look at things with "fixed range" in real life usage they tend to be things that function over only a certain set of ranges rather like acid arrow where it fails beyond its range limit.

Edit fucking autocorrect ipod slipped an apostrophe past me.

The "fixed range" part from persistent spell means "60', because that's what the Detect spells are listed with instead of the proper [personal]". Detect spells are just about the only spells with a "fixed range", and they fit the self buff paradigm of Persistent spell. Trying to weasel around the intent is fun and all, but it's not like it's hard to actually figure it out.

[erik]

Trying to weasel around the intent is fun and all, but it's not like it's hard to actually figure it out.

I actually wasn't trying to weasel. Fixed range is not a codified game term, and in reality it can be used to reasonably refer any number of ranges. The only reason it is even possible to figure out is because of there was a rules clarification in an unofficial FAQ.

The "fixed range" part from persistent spell means "60', because that's what the Detect spells are listed with instead of the proper [personal]".

Well, not just "60". Antimagic Field and Antilife/Antiplant Shell are a couple others with "10" range that are equally viable.

[rasmuswagner]

Trying to weasel around the intent is fun and all, but it's not like it's hard to actually figure it out.

I actually wasn't trying to weasel. Fixed range is not a codified game term, and in reality it can be used to reasonably refer any number of ranges. The only reason it is even possible to figure out is because of there was a rules clarification in an unofficial FAQ.

The "fixed range" part from persistent spell means "60', because that's what the Detect spells are listed with instead of the proper [personal]".

Well, not just "60". Antimagic Field and Antilife/Antiplant Shell are a couple others with "10" range that are equally viable.

I figured it out without reading Cordell's post. Also, Antimagic Field and Antilife Shell were not viable Persist candidates when the feat was written.

[erik]

I figured it out without reading Cordell's post. Also, Antimagic Field and Antilife Shell were not viable Persist candidates when the feat was written.

1) Kudos. You guessed the same answer as an unofficial ruling. Before that ruling there was no way to definitively know what they intended since "fixed range" is not an actual game term, and in proper usage it can exactly describe something like the Close/Short/Med/Long range spells. Hell, some folks considered that "touch" could potentially apply. It was not unambiguous. That you guessed correctly can make you feel warm inside, but it does not change the fact that it was ambiguous.

2) What does it matter if those spells were not viable candidates once upon a time? How is that even something worth mentioning in discussion? They were viable when I mentioned them as being such.

3) Those spells were immediately viable candidates when +6 level version came out in 3.5 and had been viable candidates in 3e with +4 level adjustment for some time as well. Metamagic cheese was already loose in the wild before Complete Arcane was published.

[rasmuswagner]

I figured it out without reading Cordell's post. Also, Antimagic Field and Antilife Shell were not viable Persist candidates when the feat was written.

1) Kudos. You guessed the same answer as an unofficial ruling. Before that ruling there was no way to definitively know what they intended since "fixed range" is not an actual game term, and in proper usage it can exactly describe something like the Close/Short/Med/Long range spells. Hell, some folks considered that "touch" could potentially apply. It was not unambiguous. That you guessed correctly can make you feel warm inside, but it does not change the fact that it was ambiguous.

2) What does it matter if those spells were not viable candidates once upon a time? How is that even something worth mentioning in discussion? They were viable when I mentioned them as being such.

3) Those spells were immediately viable candidates when +6 level version came out in 3.5 and had been viable candidates in 3e with +4 level adjustment for some time as well. Metamagic cheese was already loose in the wild before Complete Arcane was published.

Nevertheless, discussing "WHAT AM FIXED RANGE MEAN?!?" is as retarded as the non-mystery of the Roanoke Colony.

[Lokathor]

Well the current version of the feat in the SRD explicitly says that personal ranged spells are allowed.

PERSISTENT SPELL [METAMAGIC]
Prerequisite: Extend Spell.
Benefit: A persistent spell has a duration of 24 hours. The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You need not concentrate on spells such as detect magic or detect thoughts to be aware of the mere presence of absence of the things detected, but you must still concentrate to gain additional information as normal. Concentration on such a spell is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

[Korwin]

range not ranged

[Lokathor]

"ranged" is a word that would in this context mean "having had a range applied to it" the same way "painted" means "having had paint applied to it".

[CapnTthePirateG]

Can we go back to shitting on 5e now?