Blaster caster vs. Theorycraft caster - a proof?


Advice

1 to 50 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

After a PFS game last night my friend and I had a hour long car drive home and we were just talking about the game.

At one point he raised the issue of "why do people think blasters suck?"

I started to say, "On every forum I've ever read over the last decade they've always said they suck."

He interjects, "Yeah, I've read that guy treantmonk's guide to wizards, but I just didn't buy it. I sat down and did the math and it seemed like fireballs were great."

I then gave him some broad explanations of what theorycraft has said... that it has to do with action economy, that damage progression is outstripped by the system, that min-maxed DCs outstrip saves, etc.

None of it was moving him. I told him to go ask this on the forums and he said, "Oh no! I don't post on forums. If you're on there six hours a day just find me one of these threads that demonstrates all of the math that shows that blaster wizards just can't keep up with the game."

So I've been searching the forums, but honestly, I can't find any grand treatise that breaks this down into elaborate proof-like examples with DPRish analysis, comparisons to melee bruisers, level by level damage progression, etc.

Is there anything like this out there?

Silver Crusade

I would suggest getting your hands on the 3.5 power gamers guide to Wizards, and the 3.5 power gamer's guide to Warriors by Goodman games. While both of these books focus on their specific classes Ie martial and arcane, they do the math. They show you all of the damage and probability spreads. Perhaps by looking at both of these books you can then see a clearer comparison for yourself. I know it is 3.5 VS Pathfinder but hopefully there is enough similarity to make a good comparison.

I hope this helps


We did something like this in how to make Evocation better thread but I can't remember the name to search for it.

Essentially it boils down to this, if you look at the expected HPs of monsters at each CR point and you compare the best blast spell available to a PC at that level then it's pretty apparent that the rate of increase in HPs is much faster than the rate of increase for blast damage. And that's before you even begin to factor in stuff like reduced damage from reflex saves and evasion.

In comparison to the DPR that an equivalent level martial build (either ranged or melee) can do to a single target the Damage potential of a evocation spell seems really meager. In comparison to the ability of a SoL caster to effectively decide an encounter with one spell the evoker really lags behind.

So for CR = APL targets, blast is typically considered to be inferior to archery, melee, or God Wizard antics.

Blast is mainly effective in taking out large number of low CR foes. The actual cut-off point shifts over time but I feel like CR = APL -2 or -3 foes mark the boundary of where direct damage evocation lose steam.

If you can kill 10 orcs with a fireball then it's great if you can only singe 5 Minotaurs then it's not so efficient even though the total damage inflicted is moderately high.

Metamagic can extend the viability of blast but I think most people view it as a band-aid at best unless you start including a ton of ways to get free or low cost metamagic adjustments (which typically benefit the SoL caster even more).

I personally think the optimal solution is to provide static bonuses to damage that scale with level (much faster than the evoker bonus). You'll still have bad spells like polar ray and meteor swarm that simply are overleveled for their effect but I think it's the only real way to deal with the dramatic inflation in monster HPs.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't think it is so much that blaster types suck. Then it is that other types are more flexible and their power never really goes down. Like mentioned by Vuron, HP goes up faster than damage does. So while a good blaster build can be effective at higher levels, other builds can be just as effective and more flexible. I mean a damage spell only does one thing, while something like summon monster can be used for damage, or used to spring a trap, used as a short term guard, and absorb dmg from the enemy.


Blasters don't suck. Save or Suck spells are overpowered.

Let's assume a 7d6 fireball (25 damage) against a clump of 10 HD creatures.

10 HD creatures get - on average - about 65 hit points. (4.5 per level plus 2 CON/level)

Your fighter is going to be doing about 30-35 points per round at this level, so it takes him two rounds to kill one opponent.

One fireball at 30 squares (150 feet) drops each of those creatures to 1/3 hit points. On round 2, the creatures can close to about 60 feet net. Second fireball, we assume they make their Reflex save, and they take about 13 points. They're now down to the one round kill threshold for your fighters.

If you are expecting evocation to be a "I cast, I WIN" button, no it isn't.

But then, if the game weren't built to maintain 30+ years of erratic D&D spell names out of tradition, Save or Suck spells wouldn't be winning encounters with a single spell either.

I currently play a blaster-sorcerer and a Fey sorcerer. The Fey sorcerer is vastly more effective (DC 21 Will Save Hideous Laughter turns the enemy BBEG into a prone hamburger patty). The blaster, I have to actually make interesting decisions on.


The problem is that most of the good blasting spells affect Multiple targets, while almost everything combat related is measured against individual targets.

If you have a "bombing area" full of targets (such as a nice long hallway full of medium creatures, and you throw out a lightning bolt, you can be VERY effective, against a single guy, yeah, not so special.

Blasting does seem to fall off at the higher spell levels, although it could be argued that the spells that deal 10/level damage are the new blasting.

Note: I also find that many, many people max out HP for players and monsters. If you inflate HP, healing and blasting become proportionally less effective.


There is the right spell for the right situation. Would you target a Vampire with Finger of Death?

Blasting is the same. When there are several targets, blasting rocks (Why people use single enemy encounters only, I don't know).

It just must be coordinated with the overal DPR of the party, and utility and controls must not be forgotten anyway.

People tend to understimate the range of blasting spells too :D

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

I think that, personally, the reason blasters fail is because of dice and the law of averages.

To hit a monster, a fighter makes an attack roll vs. an AC. Bear in mind all the things a fighter can do to boost his attack. Magic weapons, feats like weapon focus, weapon training, spell effects, charging, flanking, etc. etc. etc.

To hit with a blast spell, a caster must check against SR first. This is pure caster level, so it scales just like the fighter's BAB. However, how can you boost your caster check vs. SR? There are two feats: Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. That gives you +4... and that's it. You also get a lot fewer feats than the fighter does. There's almost nothing else you can do to increase your chance to beat SR, so really, for two of your precious feat slots, you can have exactly what the fighter gets from an 18 STR: +4 to "hit."

Now, let's assume that you both hit. The fighter makes the AC, the wizard nails SR. Okay! Now all the fighter does is roll damage. The wizard, though, has to wait for his enemy to save. Saving throws are a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil. Most blaster spells target Reflex and the target will still take half damage on a successful save. Let's assume that only 25% of your opponents save. You deal half damage to 1 in 4 targets. The fighter deals full damage to every thing he hits. Did I forget to mention that the fighter gets iterative attacks? Yeah, he does. You get 1 spell. Make it count.

Then there's energy resistance. Now, granted, not everything has energy resistance and very few things have MULTIPLE energy resistances, but sometimes you're going to encounter something with resistance to your damage. ER is applied AFTER the saving throw, so if you just dealt half damage to something AND it has energy resist? You might not be hurting it at all. Fighters have to contend with DR as well, but magical weapons bypass various types of DR as you scale up with level (a +5 weapon pretty much shreds anything). You know what you can do about energy resistance (aside from hoping that you have the right energy types prepared to ignore it)? Nothing. Nothing at all. There's some things that are just flat-out IMMUNE to certain damage types. To my knowledge, nothing is IMMUNE to a +5 greatsword.

So, in brief:
Fighter - attack AC, roll damage
Wizard - caster check vs. SR, wait for save, roll damage, pray for no resist/immunity

Oh, did I forget to mention that several blasting spells (scorching ray, polar ray, shocking grasp, etc.) require you to check against SR *AND* make an attack roll? Yeah! So there's TWO chances for you to deal absolutely no damage at all. Fortunately, most spells that require an attack roll do not allow a save but they also don't generally hit multiple targets which substantially reduces your DPR output. And energy resistance/immunity is still an issue.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:
Note: I also find that many, many people max out HP for players and monsters. If you inflate HP, healing and blasting become proportionally less effective.

This.

From about 3rd to 10th level, blasters are definitely competitive. Elf Evoker dealing 8d6+10 (ave 38) with scorching ray, or 10d6+10 (ave 45) with fireball; Half-Orc Sorcerer dealing 8d6+15 (ave 43) with scorching ray, 10d6+15 (ave 50) with fireball, and he does it as a standard action at range.

A Greatsword-Fighter is hitting twice for 2d6+1 (weapon) + 1d6 (fire) +10 (str) +2 (weapon training) +2 (specialization) +9 (power attack), an average of 34.5 per swing. But he has to be in melee, he has to hit twice, and he needs to full-round attack to do it.

The problem is after 10th level. As parties leave the middle levels and start moving higher and higher, monsters come with Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, and Spell Resistance, plus hit point bloat and high saves.

It's not that the spells do less so much as the monsters defend more. A fireball that knocks out either 2/3s or 1/3 of the health of three different monsters is worth casting, but if they've got energy resistance, the amount of damage drops dramatically. If they've got spell resistance, the odds of doing anything at all drop dramatically. If they've got both (and most high-level monsters do), it's a non-starter.

So the question is - what level range do you actually play at? If you're typically starting at 9th or 12th level and hitting the level cap, blasting is not going to work. If you are typically starting at 1st or 3rd and tend to peter out by 10th, blasting will be loads of fun.


AdAstraGames wrote:


Let's assume a 7d6 fireball (25 damage) against a clump of 10 HD creatures.

10 HD creatures get - on average - about 65 hit points. (4.5 per level plus 2 CON/level)

I think you are underestimating average HPs for a 10 HD monster. Most creatures with 10 HD are going to be CR 7 or 8 which typically means closer to 85-100 HPs. A dire bear is a fairly standard 10 HD CR 7 monster and has 95 HPs for example.

25/95 is just over 25% of the HP total.

If the GM avoids the 4 PCs vs 1-2 monster trap and goes with more high minion count encounters then the utility goes way up.

A gnoll ranger leading a troop of gnoll raiders and dire hyenas can present a similar CR profile and is much more ammenable to blast spells. A 25 HP fireball kills regular gnolls, comes close to eliminating the dire hyenas and can significantly damage the leader.

Basically if you have players that want to play blast mages then you need to facilitate their decision by making encounters where their strengths can shine. Not every encounter but enough of the time where they don't feel useless.

Silver Crusade

Like most things in D&D type games it come down to the type of game your group plays. Under certain play styles and campaigns blasters can rock the house. Under others...not so much.

The pure numbers of it do seem to lead to the conclusion that it is not as powerful. But that is a "your mileage may vary" situation as I stated above. Comparing a 5th level spell against a CR 10 mob is misleading as many adventures and DMs usually set up a group of lower CR monster to create a higher CR encounter. In those cases the blasters can come into their own.

In many Adventure Paths close in fighting within close quarters is somewhat common. This allows blasters to find many concentrated foes for AoE spells.

When you roll high on that fireball you are the friggin hero but when you just blew a high level spell slot to roll low or low average and a bunch of the mobs save then you feel like a schmuck.

If you like to play blasters then do it. They may not be the most optimized by the numbers but my experience has been that they certainly have their amazingly fun highs and lows.


My buddy plays a blaster and does just fine at 9th level. He loves firing in support of the assault. To such an extent he often finds himself ahead of his blockers and tends to get crumped for his hard work ;)

GNOME


vuron wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:


Let's assume a 7d6 fireball (25 damage) against a clump of 10 HD creatures.

10 HD creatures get - on average - about 65 hit points. (4.5 per level plus 2 CON/level)

I think you are underestimating average HPs for a 10 HD monster. Most creatures with 10 HD are going to be CR 7 or 8 which typically means closer to 85-100 HPs. A dire bear is a fairly standard 10 HD CR 7 monster and has 95 HPs for example.

25/95 is just over 25% of the HP total.

If the GM avoids the 4 PCs vs 1-2 monster trap and goes with more high minion count encounters then the utility goes way up.

A gnoll ranger leading a troop of gnoll raiders and dire hyenas can present a similar CR profile and is much more ammenable to blast spells. A 25 HP fireball kills regular gnolls, comes close to eliminating the dire hyenas and can significantly damage the leader.

Basically if you have players that want to play blast mages then you need to facilitate their decision by making encounters where their strengths can shine. Not every encounter but enough of the time where they don't feel useless.

Calculations understimate the flow of the battle. Do deal their tremendous damage, most meleers need preparation, need to move and need to be not beaten down in the meantime.

Blastin has an advantage: is safer.

Of course, if one sets the encounters in plain, cleam rooms when meleers can charge by round 1...

Sovereign Court

vuron wrote:


I think you are underestimating average HPs for a 10 HD monster. Most creatures with 10 HD are going to be CR 7 or 8 which typically means closer to 85-100 HPs. A dire bear is a fairly standard 10 HD CR 7 monster and has 95 HPs for example.

Just for the sake of discussion, here are the current averages of hit points of creatures, broken down by CR as culled from the online database:

Spoiler:

CR = HP
0.12 = 2
0.16 = 3
0.25 = 3.83
0.33 = 5
0.5 = 8.03
1 = 12.51
2 = 19.17
3 = 29.59
4 = 40.46
5 = 56.49
6 = 68.28
7 = 83.09
8 = 96.84
9 = 115.83
10 = 127.79
11 = 144.89
12 = 161.37
13 = 173.41
14 = 187.29
15 = 226.29
16 = 245.06
17 = 282.46
18 = 308.9
19 = 316.44
20 = 360

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a very effective blaster class in Pathfinder. It's called the "alchemist"...


Mok wrote:
vuron wrote:


I think you are underestimating average HPs for a 10 HD monster. Most creatures with 10 HD are going to be CR 7 or 8 which typically means closer to 85-100 HPs. A dire bear is a fairly standard 10 HD CR 7 monster and has 95 HPs for example.

Just for the sake of discussion, here are the current averages of hit points of creatures, broken down by CR as culled from the online database:

** spoiler omitted **

I think the chart helps answer your question: the level of play will definitively make an impact on the blaster.

At 7th level Orc bloodline Sorcerer doing 32 average damage per fireball vs 83 HP CR encounter is pretty good (38%)

the 10th level version of that caster does 45 average damage vs 128 HP CR encounter (35%)

at 15th level the using delayed blast fireball does 68 vs 226 HP CR encounter (30%)

at 20 using the same delayed blast fire ball does 83 vs 360 HP CR encounter (23%)

if you make a blaster with something that isnt adding +1 damage per die rolled (orc Bloodline does seem to be the way to go) you will be subtracting 7,10,15,20 off those average damage numbers. Obviously a dragon blood line playing to type or an evoker wizard will make up some of this.

Just some numbers to consider.

Now if you guys are having a great time thats all that matters. Granted I want to play a low cast stat (13-14) Force missle mage at some point I realize that I may be loosing out on some of my OOOMPH as a caster class


The game shifts at high level. High level is not mere bigger numbers.

Immunities, more powerful divinations and mobility affects heavily the gameplay. The shif in evocation is just fine, if you consider that melee type would struggle to REACH a well played, level appropriate enemy.

Seriously people, play the game at high level and you will see.

DPR is a great tool to compare apples to apples, but in this case consider DPR only would be misleading.


Another way of looking at it.

A blaster caster is a one trick pony - all he does is attack the monsters hit points. That is the same thing as melee and archery characters do.

A batman caster picks the spell that attack the monster biggest weakness. He might not be as good at using a blast spell against monsters with low hit points, but those are the mobs that are easy for the melee and archery characters to deal with.

A god caster uses buffs or debuffs to help the mortals deal with the mosters with low/medium hits points, and save his more powerful spells for ones they can not deal with.

In 3.5 there was a test that showed that they most power character class up to about 5th level was the Warmage - which was basically a blaster caster.


Kaiyan

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think people are trying to point out that level dynamics do effect the whole process.


Dragonsong wrote:

At 7th level Orc bloodline Sorcerer doing 32 average damage per fireball vs 83 HP CR encounter is pretty good (38%)

the 10th level version of that caster does 45 average damage vs 128 HP CR encounter (35%)

at 15th level the using delayed blast fireball does 68 vs 226 HP CR encounter (30%)

at 20 using the same delayed blast fire ball does 83 vs 360 HP CR encounter (23%)

Good analysis basis. Adding meta magic feats...

Against Multiple Targets:

At 20th, a maximized Cone of Cold is doing 90+. A Quickened Fireball does 35+ more.

125+ (excluding +25 damage from +1 damage per dice of damage abilities) vs 360 HP is 35%.

Against Single Targets:

At 20th level, a maximized Disintegrate (240ish damage) plus a quickened Scorching Ray (42ish damage) is 282 damage vs. a 360 HP monster (which is 80%).

(just quick numbers)


pjackson wrote:


A blaster caster is a one trick pony - all he does is attack the monsters hit points. That is the same thing as melee and archery characters do.

A batman caster picks the spell that attack the monster biggest weakness. He might not be as good at using a blast spell against monsters with low hit points, but those are the mobs that are easy for the melee and archery characters to deal with.

A god caster uses buffs or debuffs to help the mortals deal with the mosters with low/medium hits points, and save his more powerful spells for ones they can not deal with.

This. The biggest issue is that while blasting CAN be effective if you really focus on it, god casting doesn't really need any focus other than a high stat.

So god casting is more versatile and easier to pull off.


Also keep in mind we are comparing raw damage averages against average monster HPs.

I find that when you factor in reflex saves (which are often poor), elemental resistance and immunity, evasion, and spell resistance even blast focused evokers and sorcerers tend lose out significantly.

In comparison the SoL caster typically has to face Saves, Immunities and SR. They don't have to worry about the HP track at all and resistances and immunities to SoL are much less common than elemental resistance and immunity.

The situation becomes particularly precarious past level 12 or so when the bulk of the high CR monsters are composed of high HD outsiders, Undead and Dragons. All of these generally have pretty decent defenses in multiple categories.

The effective drop in average damage against high CR outsiders and dragons is particularly noticeable.

So basically the DM needs to minimize the number of fights vs high CR BBEGs with multiple defenses and go with lower CR fights with lots of minion padding. Personally I like this style of encounter a lot but it can be challenging for some DMs to run and isn't universally liked. Plus you still want to fight the Ancient Red Dragon or Balor occasionally.


Dragonsong wrote:

Kaiyan

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think people are trying to point out that level dynamics do effect the whole process.

People say that at high level blasting is less efficent.

True, but the missing bart is that IMHO, high level opponents are generally more difficult to pin down and hence damage in general.

They have more resistance to blasting, but they fly and teleport too so they are less likely to be charged and slaughtered in few rounds, unless badly played.

So de DPR drops for everybody, not for blasters only. One could arue that at high level monsters have more immunities to energy, but spells known and spellslot are more.


I think some of you underestimate the sheer visceral satisfaction of rolling a crapton of dice, even if it is less effective sometimes. You are never going to convince him that blasters suck because it's fun for him. "Oh no he didn't just go there! Run him out of the forums!" Someone said it earlier. Blasters don't need to be fixed. Safe or suck spells are just overpowered. Just like Batman uses the right spell for the job, the blaster does too. It's just that the blaster gets to roll some dice instead of casting the I win spell over and over. That gets boring. Rolling dice never gets boring.


pjackson wrote:

Another way of looking at it.

A blaster caster is a one trick pony - all he does is attack the monsters hit points. That is the same thing as melee and archery characters do.

No prime spell caster is a one trick pony (unless very poorly built).

It's pretty easy to build a Blaster Caster and a Party Buffer in the same toon. You can even add in a summoning spell for all the so-called trap busting, and still have room to cast an Invis spell to sneak a bit.

Just because I'm really good at damage spells doesn't mean I can't cast a Ray of Exhaustion, a Glitterdust, or a Slow on occasion.


High end Dragons and Outsiders are typically Caster platforms with high defenses and some melee options so they have incentives to stay out of full attack range from melee types.

The problem is that the blaster mage needs to be compared with a dedicated ranged PC like an Archer. Unlike archer damage, blast damage simply doesn't scale fast enough to remain a serious threat without significant metamagic assistance.

Even the maximized Disintegrate (9th level slot), Quickened Scorching Ray (6th level slot) is generally going to be inferior to a quickened baleful polymorph (9th level slot) and a persistent baleful (6th level slot). 3 chances of scoring a knockout blow is generally superior to a chance of doing 80% of a CR appropriate foe.

Single monster encounters simply make the risk to reward ratio of single target SoL casting too great to pass up. Lots of mooks can make AoE blast better but single target blast such as polar ray is of limited utility IMHO. Disintegrate has a lot of utility functions that improve it's value but I'm still dubious about ever memorizing a maximized disintegrate in the first place.


vuron wrote:

Even the maximized Disintegrate (9th level slot), Quickened Scorching Ray (6th level slot) is generally going to be inferior to a quickened baleful polymorph (9th level slot) and a persistent baleful (6th level slot). 3 chances of scoring a knockout blow is generally superior to a chance of doing 80% of a CR appropriate foe.

Not going to disagree with your conclusion, but you can generally get of a maximized, empowered disintegrate from an 8th level slot due to metamagic rods, as well as a quickened, empowered one. Of course you can use these on SoL's too, but metamagic is generally better for blasting than for SoL's - persistant being the obvious exception (and one that shouldn't have been printed, IMO. At least not in that way).


Before persistent spell this might have been a discussion. After persistent spell, its not.


stringburka wrote:
vuron wrote:

Even the maximized Disintegrate (9th level slot), Quickened Scorching Ray (6th level slot) is generally going to be inferior to a quickened baleful polymorph (9th level slot) and a persistent baleful (6th level slot). 3 chances of scoring a knockout blow is generally superior to a chance of doing 80% of a CR appropriate foe.

Not going to disagree with your conclusion, but you can generally get of a maximized, empowered disintegrate from an 8th level slot due to metamagic rods, as well as a quickened, empowered one. Of course you can use these on SoL's too, but metamagic is generally better for blasting than for SoL's - persistant being the obvious exception (and one that shouldn't have been printed, IMO. At least not in that way).

Metamagic does tend to be more relevant to evokers than SoL casters in many ways. Quicken (universally useful), bouncing and persistent are the major ones that a SoL caster will rely on.

Extend is a special case because it's universally relevant for wizards but doesn't really factor into offensive production.

I do agree that persistent is a bad, bad feat that should either be removed or significantly modified (metamagic cost should be higher at a minimum).

I left rods out of the mix because I loathe them from a design perspective (I don't mind extend and silent rods though) but I acknowledge the point being made.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Blasting is the same. When there are several targets, blasting rocks

But multiple-target Save or Lose spells do, too, since the kinds of non-solo enemies you tend to encounter are going to have an awfully hard time making those save DCs -- and there's almost no chance of ALL of them making the save.

The kind of stuff that Fireball looks good against tends to get cleaned up even worse by Slow or Stinking Cloud or Confusion.


vuron wrote:

Unlike archer damage, blast damage simply doesn't scale fast enough to remain a serious threat without significant metamagic assistance.

What damage in the game scales fast enough if you preclude feat assistance?

vuron wrote:

Even the maximized Disintegrate (9th level slot), Quickened Scorching Ray (6th level slot) is generally going to be inferior to a quickened baleful polymorph (9th level slot) and a persistent baleful (6th level slot). 3 chances of scoring a knockout blow is generally superior to a chance of doing 80% of a CR appropriate foe.

If you were trying to solo a mob AND if the mob was at 100% HPs when your action starts, then you are definitely right. That is the ideal situation, and reality so often rudely intrudes.

Since multiple people are in a group against that solo mob, then doing even 25% of the HPs needed in one round immensely helped the group take it down. There is no 'I' in 'TEAM' as they say.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Blasting is the same. When there are several targets, blasting rocks

But multiple-target Save or Lose spells do, too, since the kinds of non-solo enemies you tend to encounter are going to have an awfully hard time making those save DCs -- and there's almost no chance of ALL of them making the save.

The kind of stuff that Fireball looks good against tends to get cleaned up even worse by Slow or Stinking Cloud or Confusion.

Slow is a great spell but it is fairly short range and while it reduces opposition effectiveness it doesn't kill them outright like a blast spell in theory can.

Confusion is a smaller burst radius which does impact the potential number of victims. Mind-affecting can be problematic.

Stinking Cloud is very nice as well. Nauseated foes are pretty much effectively dead foes. Fort saves are often the highest of all saves.

I'm not saying that Fireball > AoE SoS spells in most circumstances but I can definitely see some utility for blast in situations where you can eliminate a large number of mooks with 1-2 blast spells.

While the likelihood of multiple blasters in a PC party is pretty low I do like occasionally messing with multiple blasters as opponents. 2-3 blasters (sorcerers or SLA artillery pieces) can drop 3 AoEs blasts or 3 scorching rays on the PCs for example. Even if the PCs have good saves the cumulative effect of multiple blasts at 50% damage can add up significantly. Multiple lower level SoL casters typically have way too many null effects to present a decent challenge.

Dark Archive

vuron wrote:
I personally think the optimal solution is to provide static bonuses to damage that scale with level (much faster than the evoker bonus). You'll still have bad spells like polar ray and meteor swarm that simply are overleveled for their effect but I think it's the only real way to deal with the dramatic inflation in monster HPs.

As usual, he's right.

As an alternate to extra damage I would also consider adding in a secondary imparing effect to damaging spells. One or the other.

Part of the problem is that blaster spells still mostly follow an old model damage structure of Level X Dice (usually D6) in damage in 3rd + edition, while the system and modifers for generating hp has changed.

(Caster Level) X (d6 Dice) = damage

That right there does not acknowledge the addition of CON modifiers to increased creature hit points. That plus what vuron mentioned as a scaling issue - with higher level creatures you have exploding CON scores so hit points just increase exponentially with increasing HD. In effect 3rd edition introduced CON as another variable to hit point generation for monsters, yet that edition did nothing to scale higher level (and this is the where the problem really becomes visible) blaster type spells to reflect this increase.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Blasting is the same. When there are several targets, blasting rocks

But multiple-target Save or Lose spells do, too, since the kinds of non-solo enemies you tend to encounter are going to have an awfully hard time making those save DCs -- and there's almost no chance of ALL of them making the save.

The kind of stuff that Fireball looks good against tends to get cleaned up even worse by Slow or Stinking Cloud or Confusion.

It depends just on HOW large the difference in numbers/individual power is. I agree that against, say a group of 5 weak enemies, SoL works better than blasting - but when you're up against 10+ enemies that might die on a failed reflex save, blasting is usually the better choice since blasting becomes a save or suck spell. This is especially true at large distances; remember that SoL's are usually short or medium range while lasts tend to be medium to long range.

So it's a lot about campaign style. Our games tend to often include ambushes, not rarely from large distance; our 5th level group (only 3 chars though) recently went up against 8 1st level duergar rangers with heavy crossbows from 350 ft. range that dropped one of the characters (though he survived). In that case a blast might have been very useful, though none of them plays a blaster.


Auxmaulous wrote:

In effect 3rd edition introduced CON as another variable to hit point generation for monsters, yet that edition did nothing to scale higher level (and this is the where the problem really becomes visible) blaster type spells to reflect this increase.

Meta Magic: Empower Spell

This was one thing added in 3.0 to scale spells for higher damage.


I'm not entirely convinced about blasters being crap.

The scaling with HP versus CR stuff mentioned earlier can be rendered irrelevant. If you're flying through the air, improved invisible, over 100 ft. way, who cares if your fireball doesn't kill 5 minotaurs in one shot. Since most monsters can't respond to these spells (except to run, and you have to run pretty quickly to escape a flying caster with spells that reach over 400 ft.), eventually the fireballs will kill the bad guys. The risk level of the blaster is pretty low. And the blaster doesn't need a party to deal damage. Is it more efficient to cast baleful polymorph against a single target? Maybe. But it's not really helpful to say "blasters suck" because of a situation or two.

I think that people who play blasters tend to "under-think" the role, so I think that's part of the problem. It's also unhelpful to assume that a "blaster" will never use a SoL spell. Why not? I think a more meaningful statement is "a spellcasting character who focuses on doing nothing but damage. . . no matter what. . . is a horribly sub-optimal character". I agree totally with that q:


Mok wrote:

After a PFS game last night my friend and I had a hour long car drive home and we were just talking about the game.

At one point he raised the issue of "why do people think blasters suck?"

Because they tend to think in terms of solo caster against solo monster.

There is a lot of analysis, but it tends not to tackle the effect on a group.

If your fireball softens enemy hps to the point where the other damage on the table can eliminate more in a given round then it serves its purpose. It need not wipe them out on their own.

That said, a wizard (for example) is best played (imho) as a versatile caster. While they will have an option to deal damage, they should also have options to buff, debuff, enable, disable, and control terrain in their bag of tricks. A wizard is a force multiplier that should be applied wherever they are best needed.

Someone that brings only damage to the table is not as good an arcane caster imho. It's akin to the pitcher that has a fastball but no change-ups. A wizard shouldn't be a hammer, but rather should be a lever.

-James

Dark Archive

Spell Resistance + Saving Throw means that at later levels blasters lose effectiveness by quite a bit.


Rory wrote:
pjackson wrote:

Another way of looking at it.

A blaster caster is a one trick pony - all he does is attack the monsters hit points. That is the same thing as melee and archery characters do.

No prime spell caster is a one trick pony (unless very poorly built).

It's pretty easy to build a Blaster Caster and a Party Buffer in the same toon. You can even add in a summoning spell for all the so-called trap busting, and still have room to cast an Invis spell to sneak a bit.

Just because I'm really good at damage spells doesn't mean I can't cast a Ray of Exhaustion, a Glitterdust, or a Slow on occasion.

Than you changing goal posts:

Blasters are 80% blasting only.
Batman are 30% blast, rest save or suck/lose/die (battlefield control as well)
God are 10% blasting.

It is the amount of non-blasting that makes you a blaster wizard.

james maissen wrote:

Because they tend to think in terms of solo caster against solo monster.

There is a lot of analysis, but it tends not to tackle the effect on a group.

If your fireball softens enemy hps to the point where the other damage on the table can eliminate more in a given round then it serves its purpose. It need not wipe them out on their own.

That said, a wizard (for example) is best played (imho) as a versatile caster. While they will have an option to deal damage, they should also have options to buff, debuff, enable, disable, and control terrain in their bag of tricks. A wizard is a force multiplier that should be applied wherever they are best needed.

Someone that brings only damage to the table is not as good an arcane caster imho. It's akin to the pitcher that has a fastball but no change-ups. A wizard shouldn't be a hammer, but rather should be a lever.

-James

Exactly, we would perfer a Batman who leaned Blaster than justy a Blaster because just Blaster defines him as only using a hammer. Wizards should think smater not harder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fatespinner wrote:
To my knowledge, nothing is IMMUNE to a +5 greatsword.

*snark* Lava children are. :p */snark*

Blasters are definitely not as powerful as SoL wizards. However I tend to agree this is because SoL wizards are overpowered, AND because multiple creatures per encounter doesn't happen as often as it should.

My Kingmaker game has a pure blaster wizard and he has a lot of fun; less importantly, he also contributes well to fights. But I tend to throw lots of multi-creature fights at my PCs.


vuron wrote:


Stinking Cloud is very nice as well. Nauseated foes are pretty much effectively dead foes. Fort saves are often the highest of all saves.

Nauseated foe could just mean foe moving into cover.

To be clear: I'm DMing a alrge group now with ablaster + utilities Sorcerer and a Batman Mage.

They are both awesome. I want just to point out that the game can be very diverse and it's a better attitude look for variations and situation that simply say that stategy X sucks.

Dark Archive

Auxmaulous wrote:
vuron wrote:
I personally think the optimal solution is to provide static bonuses to damage that scale with level (much faster than the evoker bonus). You'll still have bad spells like polar ray and meteor swarm that simply are overleveled for their effect but I think it's the only real way to deal with the dramatic inflation in monster HPs.

As usual, he's right.

As an alternate to extra damage I would also consider adding in a secondary imparing effect to damaging spells. One or the other.

Part of the problem is that blaster spells still mostly follow an old model damage structure of Level X Dice (usually D6) in damage in 3rd + edition, while the system and modifers for generating hp has changed.

(Caster Level) X (d6 Dice) = damage

That right there does not acknowledge the addition of CON modifiers to increased creature hit points. That plus what vuron mentioned as a scaling issue - with higher level creatures you have exploding CON scores so hit points just increase exponentially with increasing HD. In effect 3rd edition introduced CON as another variable to hit point generation for monsters, yet that edition did nothing to scale higher level (and this is the where the problem really becomes visible) blaster type spells to reflect this increase.

I agree. If you want more damage, why not make the formula something like this:

(Caster level + spellcasting modifier) x (d6) = damage?

Would that help? Or would that be too much?

They did it with HP, why not with damage?

Sczarni

Blasting Wizards (Usually Evokers) can be rock-solid in gameplay, despite not having the maximum power potential of a more "Traditional" wizard type.

That said, it takes pretty careful design choices to make it really work, and feats/GP/actions that would otherwise be available become "used up."

Now, a Half-Orc Flame Mystery Oracle with Greater Spell Focus Evocation, Greater Elemental Focus: Fire, Empower Spell, and the proper Revelation choices can reasonably pump out LOTS of xd6+1/2HD Fireballs, potentially sitting inside a cloud spell.

A Half-Orc Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer could have xd6+x+1/2HD Fireballs with all the same feats. (that's DC 17+casting stat, before Heighten comes into play, not to mention the Empower/Intensify/Persistent/Bouncing Spell feats)

So, spell selection becomes important (but when isn't it?) and feat selection becomes very important (again, when isn't it?), but it can be done, and done well.


What about an high level feat to increase evocation spells damage by 1 or more steps? It seems more simple and does not take away the fun of rolling dice :)

Shadow Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
What about an high level feat to increase evocation spells damage by 1 or more steps? It seems more simple and does not take away the fun of rolling dice :)

Intensify?


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
What about an high level feat to increase evocation spells damage by 1 or more steps? It seems more simple and does not take away the fun of rolling dice :)
Intensify?

I was thinking about something different. NOT a metamagic feat. Something like this.

New Feat

Havoc

Your spell create bigger holes.

Prerequisite: Spell Focus: Evocation, Greater Spell Focus: Evocation, Caster level 12th (4th? 8th?).

Benefit: increase the damage of damaging evocation spells dice by one step (d4 -> d6 -> d8 -> d10 [2d6?]).

So a fireball of a wizard with havoc would be 10d8. Not that powerful, but does not add "metamagic fatigue" to the blaster repertoire, is not abused by other schools, and somewhat scales (+1 avg level).

Dark Archive

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
What about an high level feat to increase evocation spells damage by 1 or more steps? It seems more simple and does not take away the fun of rolling dice :)
Intensify?

I believe he means a metamagic feat to increase a fireball's d6's to d8's.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've shown time and time again that well built blasters can deal as much damage as well built fighters, and to more targets. More often than not, when people do dpr comparisons, they are comparing a great fighter build against a crappy blaster build.

BobChuck wrote:

From about 3rd to 10th level, blasters are definitely competitive. Elf Evoker dealing 8d6+10 (ave 38) with scorching ray, or 10d6+10 (ave 45) with fireball; Half-Orc Sorcerer dealing 8d6+15 (ave 43) with scorching ray, 10d6+15 (ave 50) with fireball, and he does it as a standard action at range.

A Greatsword-Fighter is hitting twice for 2d6+1 (weapon) + 1d6 (fire) +10 (str) +2 (weapon training) +2 (specialization) +9 (power attack), an average of 34.5 per swing. But he has to be in melee, he has to hit twice, and he needs to full-round attack to do it.

The problem is after 10th level. As parties leave the middle levels and start moving higher and higher, monsters come with Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, and Spell Resistance, plus hit point bloat and high saves.

If you are using metamagic appropriately, your blasters can still rock past 10th-level. Get to 15th-level, and pick up Spell Perfection, and you could easily be doing more damage than anyone else in the party.

Blasters don't suck. People just don't know how to use them properly.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
What about an high level feat to increase evocation spells damage by 1 or more steps? It seems more simple and does not take away the fun of rolling dice :)
Intensify?

I was thinking about something different. NOT a metamagic feat. Something like this.

I use a simple feat that lets you add +Casting Mod to damage for all evocation spells that deal damage, and a second one that lets you add caster level to that. It helps a lot at low levels, where blasting is really weak (until you get the big area ones). It also puts evocation back in place as the number one school to go to for anything damage-related.

So with those two feats, a 5d6 fireball from an int 20 caster becomes a 5d6+10 damage fireball. This is in a game without much access to metamagic rods, though.


Ravingdork wrote:


If you are using metamagic appropriately, your blasters can still rock past 10th-level. Get to 15th-level, and pick up Spell Perfection, and you could easily be doing more damage than anyone else in the party.

Blasters don't suck. People just don't know how to use them properly.

Agreed, but they have quite a few weak spots. Levels 1-4 they generally suck (1-5 for sorcerers) at blasting, since their damage is at MOST slightly worse than a fighters but with far less staying power. At levels 10-14 they also seem quite weak (i rarely play at those levels, so it should be noted I only have theoretical knowledge, and no experience since the APG) in many circumstances. Levels 15+ they seem to become effective, but they still need to be highly specialized and there's basically just one way to build them; that's kind of boring, IMO.

Blasting requires a lot of optimization specific circumstances. It's harder to pull of than "god wizardry", but it can be effective.

I would have prefered if blasting was generally useful without needing to use odd tricks and without knowledge of a lot of different pieces of equipment, traits and feats - the wizard with his fireball is such a classic stereotype of a fantasy mage that it should be easily accessible to anyone, including those just picking up the game. I'm not one of those people that thinks everything needs to be perfectly balanced, but most stereotypes can beat level-appropriate foes even if they're not really that optimized - blaster wizards can't.

1 to 50 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Blaster caster vs. Theorycraft caster - a proof? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.