Abderrahmane Zagora

Mellored's page

372 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still would prefer more non-damage effects, that could shared with the party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gust of Wind and Earthquake are the only other 2 I see.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wumiao Xue wrote:

I really love this idea.

we can make it simple,make it gives clues points.
Like if you success int check against a creature AC or DC, you get 1+int mod amounts of clue points.
you can use this action more than one time to same creature at your turn.
You need to use defferent skills checks if it is targeting the same creature.

When you get enough clues points equal to that creature's will DC.

You can Big Reveal, give you or one of your allies adventage to strik for a turn, or diadventage for the creature's save against you or your allies' class DC.

And we can have so many feats to mod this.

"Clue Points" seems a bit awkward to me, but it would simplify things.

But I do really like the idea of using different skills. Making perception check, recall knowledge check, medicine check, deception check, diplomacy check etc...

I mean, you got all these skills. You should have a reason to use them all.

This might take the form of an increasing attack bonus, or an increasing damage bonus, or an increasing debuff (or increasing number of debuffs). Alternatively, one might allow investigators to get benefits from prolonged study by increasing the number of these effects (each round allows them to either add a damage bonus, or an attack bonus, or a debuff).

Yea. I do think investigator would make more sense as a support class would be better. Possibly, each skill check gains it's own bonus, which you can hand out....

Perception Investigation: 1 action
Critical Success: You gain +2 AC against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: +1 AC, and gain 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Knowledge Investigation: 1 action
Critical Success: You gain +2 to non-attack rolls against the target. Including your other Investigation checks. Gain 2 clues
Success: +1, 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.
(Empiricists get +1 on failure, +2 on success, and 3 on crit).

Medical Investigation: 1 action (feat, medic)
Critical Success: You gain +1d8 damage against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: gain +1d4 damage, and gain 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.
(Medical's improves this to d6 and d10).

Deception Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Critical Success: You gain +2 AC to hit the target, and gain 2 clues
Success: +1 to hit, and gain 1 clue
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Diplomacy Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Critical Success: You gain +2 to saving throws against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: +1 saving throws, and gain 1 clue
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Clue In: 1 action
Spend clues to share your Investigation with your allies. You can spend any number of clues as part of the same actions, but you need to spend 1 clue per ally per Investigation you share. So sharing Perception and Medical investigations with 2 allies, would cost 4 clues.

Big Reveal: Free action.
Trigger: you just rolled against a target of your investigation.
Spend 3 clues, increase success by 1 degree.

That seems pretty good. A reason to use all your skills. Given enough time, you can rack up serious serious bonuses against a target. And several decisions on how to use your clues you built up. Do you spend more actions giving out bonuses as soon as you can? Do you spend extra rounds studying to save actions? Or do you keep all the clues to yourself for your own big burst?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO the investigator is not different enough from a rogue, and needs something new and unique.

And when I imagine one, I think of the Sherlock movie. Where Sherlock would spend time planning his attacks, before making a move. Thus I imagine a mechanic that does similar. Where you spend actions/turns thinking and building up a bonus, before a big hit. Something like...

Investigate Attack: 1 action.
Ranger 60'
You imagine yourself making an attack against a creature, making sure you will succeed before committing to it. Make an attack roll using Int and your weapon proficiency. You do not need to be in weapon range, and do not actually attack, as this is just in your mind. The bonus from Investigate Attack is cumulative with other uses of Investigate Attack, up to a maximum of your Int modifier. Allowing you to keep refining your plan until it is perfect.

Critical Success: When you make your next strike against the target before the end of your turn, do not roll a d20. It is automatically a critical success. If you do not strike this turn, you gain a +3 circumstance bonus to your next strike against the target within the next hour.
Success: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus.
Failure: +1 bonus.

If you use this against a creature who is not actively fighting, and are relying on secondary clues such as their stance and wear patterns on their armor, you outcome is a degree worse.

I also imagine something similar for out of combat. Where you can "gather clues" towards your case, until you have enough for a "big reveal".

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, and no.

Yes, this version should just be a rogue racket. There is not enough to make it different.

No, there should still be an investigator class. It just needs to have more unique features. IMO, it should play more like a bard, or a 4e warlord. With more focus on getting and giving out "clues" (possibly similar to swashbuckler) to others, and less damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

33% more spells seems pretty stand out to me.
As much as +2 to hit makes the fighter stand out anyways.

Simple, sure, but effective. Which fits the the base game, not the "advanced" players guide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So looking at the monster builder document, monster AC scales faster than saves (2 or 3 point difference).

This mostly works out since weapons get a +item bonus, while spells do not.

But there are a few spells that target AC. Like ray of frost and polar ray. Meaning that fall -2/3 behind their save counterpart.

So should there be a +item bonus to spell attacks?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1-(35% * 35%) = 0.8775


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think i will just go with "mutageneist don't take drawbacks from mutagenes", and medium armor.

It's not like they will outclass any other melee combatant.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any way to get an enemy to drink a mutagen?

If you could feed them a cognitive mutagen...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mellored wrote:

My biggest issue with it is that you are vulnerable one level, then completely immune the next.

I think a more stepped down approach would be better. Like higher level creatures get 1 degree of success better.

... Isn't that exactly how it works?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest issue with it is that you are vulnerable one level, then completely immune the next.

I think a more stepped down approach would be better. Like higher level creatures get 1 degree of success better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Giant lizard barbarian....

If only I could get lighting breath in there somehow...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting +5 reach is plenty for a feat. Better than most.

And yea, clumsy does not stack. It just means you are still clumsy if you had a regular sized weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A group of hobgoblin paladins, with formation training and polearms...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's check...

Fighter v barb, hard target vs easy target:

High level target.
40% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit
(.4 + .05*2) = 0.5
2d12+4 = 17 * 0.5

30% hit, 5% crit
(.3 + .05*2)=0.4
2d12+4+4 = 21 * .4
= 8.4

So fighter is slightly better against high level targets, but not all that much.

Low level target...
50% chance to hit, 45% chance to crit
(.5 + .45*2) = 1.4
2d12+4 = 17 * 1.4

50% hit, 35% crit
(.5 + .35*2)=1.2
2d12+4+4 = 21 * 1.2
= 25.2

So as I though. Fighter does better against high level targets, barb does better against low level ones.
But the difference is less than 5% either way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.

Seems pretty clear to me.

"The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons."
"A shield bash is not actually a weapon"
"You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon...These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes."

Shield = not a weapon, but can be used for bashing anyways.
Shiled+Boss = weapon.

Though I agree that the hardness seems off.
And alchemist needs some help, especially the mutegenist.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:

Bah, kids these days.

In my day, caplock was cruise control for cool.

Your still a youngster. Back in my day, capslock was getting out the other drawer of letters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your aiming for crits, make sure they take a Great Pick.
Synesthesia - clumsy 3, even on a save.

Captivating Adoration - might help provoke an OA.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iceman wrote:

When you say, "Let us suppose we do have 2 reactions." I'm not sure if you are saying, "imagine a character that has two abilities that are both reactions" or, "presume this is a game that allows a character to break the rules and perform two reactions in the same round."

If the former, obviously the answer is no. :)
If the latter, then sure, why not.

Divine Reflex at 14, gives you a second reaction.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would much have preferred Create Bonfire.

2 actions
Range 30'
Duration: Sustain
You raise a small, 5' cube of fire that burns creatures passing through it. Any creature that crosses the wall or is occupying the wall's area at the start of its turn takes fire damage equal to your spell casting modifier. If you spend 3 actions casting this spell, you can precisely lower the temperature, allowing you to use it for cooking, lighting a candle, or warming a mug of ail.
Heightened (1+) increase damage by 1d4.

Though fire whip also sounds cool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will say I always expect wizards to start out weak and become super powerful at high levels. because that is how I have always seen it work.

I did some math, and yes.

Casters are still weak at low levels, and still strong at high levels.
Mainly, burning hands -> fireball -> cone of cold -> meteor swam all deal the same damage a fighter would against a single target, but the number of targets they can hit grows much faster.

Also, fighter and barb seem to deal the same amount of damage. One -hits more, the other hurts more, but the average damage nearly identical. Havn't looked at rogue/monk/ranger yet.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, and yes.

But that is 4 feats, and very conditional. So have at it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarondor wrote:

So if I use "Administer First Aid" I can gain a chance to roll against the DC that caused the bleed. But if I do the exact same thing and call it "Assisted Recovery" I can roll against DC 10?

assisted recovery is the same as administer first aid. It will let you get an extra roll, before more damage is delt.

GM can make the extra roll DC 10 if you have extra special. Like water on fire. Or just flat end it, if you submerge fire in water, or healed someone to max HP.

I would personally add expert medicine gets DC 10, master gets DC 5, and legendary can just end it.

Also, nothing stops the whole party from trying every turn. So even a DC 15 won't last long after battle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
Sure. I believe that is the intent. Unfortunately the rules aren't that clear about that. You use the standard craft activity to place a snare. The standard craft activity allows for consumables to be batch crafted with no added time. The only rider is they all have to be finished at the same time.

The standard craft activity takes 4 days. In which you can craft a batch of snares.

The craft snare rules says "1 minute to Craft a snare at its listed Price."

So it provides 3 exceptions...
*1 minute (instead of 4 days)
*a snare (instead of a batch)
*listed price (instead of half price)

The other snare feats only apply to the 1 minute (single, full price) snare.

But hey, I'm not your DM, so play how you like.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
What time to prepare is required? All of this is doable in mid combat. Also, sure it is craaaazy to allow Jim the Ranger to do these things.

I don't see a snare that is worth 3 actions mid combat. You can do about the same damage just shooting the enemy and not wasting a limited resource.

With Lightning snare, sure. Even if the enemy sees you put it down, if you have a fighter with knockback, shove, Hydraulic Push, or whatever. It's an easy enough to move+shoot+drop snare, and whomever can trigger.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Martials are better against higher level creatures.
Casters are better against lower level creatures.

Not a bad way to split things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
In the base rules, why wouldn't you be allowed to craft them in batches?

"You can spend 1 minute to Craft a snare at its listed Price."

I guess that doesn't prevent you from spending 4 days to craft a batch of 4. But those can't be moved, and I don't think an enemy will wait that long while you set some up outside it's door.
And it would not be "a snare that would normally take 1 minute".

It also says "If you want to Craft a snare at a discount, you must spend downtime as described in the Craft activity". So I guess if you had a lot of time, and no money, you might do it in that way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:

Lightning Snares uses the same language as the rest of the Snare feats. The problem stems with the way the Craft activity is worded. The Craft activity only ever talks about crafting items in the singular. For example: "You can make an item from raw materials. You need the Alchemical Crafting skill feat to create alchemical items, the Magical Crafting skill feat to create magic items, and the Snare Crafting feat to create snares."

Then at the very end of the section tacks on that items with the Consumable Trait can be made in batches of up to 4. The wording of Lightning Snares is the Exact same as the wording in Snare Specialist.
Snare Specialist: "...you can prepare four snares from your formula book for quick deployment; if they normally take 1 minute to Craft, you can Craft them with 3 Interact actions."
Lighning Snares: "When you create a snare that normally takes 1 minute to Craft, you can Craft it using a single Interact action instead."
The problem is the way this interacts with the aforementioned Craft activity. Again, sure the DM has the right to veto any of this, but my point is that a DM shouldn't have to in a case this egregious. The wording is too vague and should be addressed.

The way I read it.

I don't think batches or pre-building snares are allowed in the base rules. Just 1 at a time, craft them where you use them. "A snare is built within a single 5-foot square.. it can’t be moved ... You can spend 1 minute to Craft A snare at its listed Price".

Snare Specialist gives you a free snares per day. They take 3 actions to "craft", all others take 1 minute.

Quick Snare let's you craft any snare in 3 actions. Doesn't really do anything for Snare Specialist which was already 3.

Lighting snare is craft a snare in 1 action. Either a new snare, or your free ones.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically, you don't get item bonuses.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just point out that you can go dual flick-mace, with Double Slice and the like.
Flick-mace also has prone on a crit, and fighters will crit a decent amount. Polearms are just move 5' on a crit.

Also, if you pick up "knockdown" and "improved knockdown" that basically gives you the trip trait and then some. So you can skip the Guisarme at level 4.
Probably take lunge, lunge stance, and combat reflexes as well. Giving you a nice zone of control.
Whirlwind at higher level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Mellored wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Mellored wrote:

How easy is it for caster to target a low save?

Seems like it is tough at low levels, since you just don't have enough spells, but what about higher levels?

In my tables is easy enough. I mean ogre? Target ref. Eagle fort due to brittle bones... There's some hard ones like a few demons but mostly you can guess what is the best even without a knowledge check.
But do you have enough variety of spells to take advantage of it?

Well there's only a wizard in the table, it seems to be more a problem for him that the sorcerer. With heightenen the sorcerer has like 6 options for the 3 level spell compared to the wizard even if heightening tends to be weaker.

The wizard tends to use a staff to complement with an AOE(REF) spell and prepare a will spell. He normally lacks fort spells.

Hmm.... well if you have 2/3, that would probably be enough to consider it +1 on average.

Considering I gave +1 I gave melee for their semi-easy flat-footed, seems like we should add that in for casters as well.

Though, that still won't change the overall fact that balance was 15 rounds at low level and 30 rounds at high level. Might shift it to 20/40, but it would still be a scaling difference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
The other, bringing up other cantrips' damage, would also be an interesting option, but it's much less simple. You'd need to scale dice up and examine all other side effects... When given the choice between fixing one outlier and bringing everything else up to par with it, houserules aren't really the way to go.

Possibly a better option would be to boost the low level spells. So your crappy cantrip is can be interspersed with big moments.

I mean, burning hands is 2d6 = 7 against probably 2 targets.
Electric arc is 1d4+4=7.5 against 2 targets.
Literally using your 1/day spell to do less damage, at less range.

Just need to do it in a way that doesn't scale well.
Maybe make Incapacitation 2+twice the spell level. Still prevents you from using level 1 sleep on a level 20 dragon, but you can use it for your level 1 slot while your level 3-4.
Also, +attribute to burning hands/snowball/spider sting would help them feel like "big guns" that you pull out.

And I'm going to give martial classes +5 speed at some point, to help balance the high end.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Alves wrote:
I just don't want it to be about 3 possible "builds". I want to have some intuitive "builds" that you can make by picking feats related to one "path" thematically, like "picking all demonic servant feats" for example, but still have the freedom to mix things and pick whatever makes more sense to build your own warlock, be that for story reasons or optimization ones, as both are engaging IMO.

Eh... true. My suggestions probably lock in the path a bit too much.

Maybe a skill.
Demonoligist: You can use Occultism in place of religion to Recall Knowlege about (celestials, fiends, and undead). +2 bonus to identifying fiends.
Hexer: You can use Occultism to the Identity Magic on any curse. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus when identifying curses.


About the Animal Companions, I used them as base for the mathematical worth and balance, but they have pretty different status then standard companions.

One of the big differences is that Demonic Servants are intelligent, and are very good at some skills. They can help in a more diverse number of things outside of combat.

If they are more potent than animal companions, then they should have a drawback. Like taking damage for each round they are out. Which would be fitting.

I'd also like to point out the Abyssal Pact and Infernal Pact rituals. Not quite sure what to do with them, but seems like they should be an option somehow.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, all the other cantrips are too weak.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does the sub-class do anything besides give you an extra feat? I like the flavors, but don't see any real difference.

Does the profane tag do anything? Seems like Manifestation has a few uses, but is there a reason your avoiding "invocation"?

Flourish seems like it should be added to a number of these things. Or probably better, have include the 1/round and 1/target in the Manifestation (or invocation) definition.

Any reason a why not to use the base familiar rules? Or Summon Fiend?

I would remove the Curse Affinity stacking. Either put the features in the base class, or as part of the sub-class.

I would generally structure the curses as
Critical Success: No effect.
Success: 1 round
Failed: 1 minute
Critical failed: permanent (until Remove curse / curse breaker).

Terrifying Gaze seems like it should boost to Demoralize.

Curse of Slothfulness might be too much.

Profane armour seems like it should just be 3 actions. Profane Protection reduce it to 2 actions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Mellored wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I imagine we're eventually going to get repeating crossbows as an advanced weapon, and the fighter is absolutely the best chassis to use any advanced weapon with. That's probably close enough. But with how armor works it's going to be a hard sell to combine "high dex, because you use a crossbow" with "wears heavy armor".
Getting both dex and str is not that hard.
But why would someone with high dex want to get heavy armor while using a crossbow? A switch hitter build could be a good reason, but then medium armor would be better and cheaper than heavy armor.

+1 AC and athletics.

Given Wis/Dex/Con are as 3 saves, you have 1 boost left. You other option is to pump Int or Cha (and feint is melee only).

Note: I'm not saying one is better than the other, just trade-offs.

Overall, I think the heavy crossbow is just a bad weapon design. 1 action is not worth +1 die size.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
Martials start out with feats that give two actions for the price of one, or negate MAP. Later they outright get extra reactions, extra actions per turn, and all manner of passive bonuses that all stack with one another. Caster feats don't provide anywhere close to the synergy or power of Martial feats.

I have yet to play high levels, and certainly haven't got though all classes, so don't have a full sense of the system, so maybe marital feats > caster feats. But I don't think so. As Michael said, they generally don't stack and most of those extras are pretty conditional.

So, until I find new evidence (like expected rounds per day, resistances, evasion, ect...), I stand by my initial analysis. Casters start of a bit weaker, and grow a bit stronger. If I am wrong, please show me how so I can learn.

But given this was intentionally the case in early D&D, so it's not surprising to see it remain. I tentatively agree with citricking that level 7 (to 14?) seems to be the "sweet spot". Not sure if the devs intentionally included it, or it was just an artifact of sticking to the tradition, but I'm leaning toward the later.

Still, overall, I would say pf2 is the best balanced D&D game. Better than 5e or 4e (though 4e was was not unbalanced martial/caster, warlords and psionics where too strong).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Alves wrote:
So far, my problem with doing this is that we still have no community consensus of what are the best builds, feats or anything. So it is hard to call something optimized when we don't have anything to compare it to. But we need to start somewhere I think.

It's almost as if they actually ran all the numbers before releasing the product.

Though it starting to seem to me like casters are worse than martials at low level, and better at high level. No where near as lopsided as previous edition, but still there.

For instance, if 2d6/spell level is equal to a fighter damage. But casters start with 15' cone, then a 20' burst, then a 60' cone, then 60' burst, then 4x40' burst. Equal damage, but hitting more people.
They also gain extra utility from their low level slots in addition to all the skills.
While the martials start by hitting one guy, then 2, and maybe a 10' burst. And they need to spend feats to do so.

So my current balance suggestion are..
Small boost to cantrip damage/effect to help casters at low level. (Ray of frost slowing 5 on a failure).
Maritals get +5/10(15?) speed at some level to help with the range increase casters get. I don't think anyone would find it off that a high level warrior could run faster than a low level one. Or a wizard.
Adjust skill boosts so marital get more.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also forgot focus spells...
Ok, so level 5
2 targets (swipe+reach for barb)
+1 to the barb to assume flat-footed half the time.
And 4 force bolts (/2 targets = 2).

Dragon Barbarian 5, using swipe with a Guisarme, 2 targets.
Using the chart, 50% chance to hit, 15% chance to crit.
(.5 + .15*2) = 0.8
2d10+4+4(dragon rage) = 19
19 * 0.8 = 15.2

Level 5 arcane caster using a level 3/2/1 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day.
45% chance to hit, 45% chance for half, 5% chance for double, 5% none.
(.45 + .45 * .5 + .05 * 2) = 0.775
Fireball (3th, 6d6) + Burning hands (2nd, 4d6) + Burning Hands (1st, 2d6)
(21 + 14 + 7... not worth using the level 1 spell for damage...
21 * .775 = 16.275
14 * .775 = 10.85 ... level 2 spells behind the barb..
Electric Arc = 3d4+4 = 11.5 * .775 = 8.9125
+7 * 2 = 14 damage focus points.

(16.275 + 10.85)*3 + 14 + 8.9 * R = 15.2 * R
95.375 + 8.9 R = 15.2 * R
95.375/R + 8.9 = 15.2
95.375/R = 6.1
15.63524590163934 = R

So casters deal more damage if there are only 15 rounds of combat in a day (and 4 rests). And will still have level 1 spells.

Compared to 30 for higher levels.. Are low level days shorter than high level days?

Side discovery, spell slots scale faster than weapons, focus spells scale slower than weapons (maybe?)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Alves wrote:
The math i did for AOE was for two targets not four, and Mellored did for 3 targets, by his numbers a barbarian and a Wizard would be tied for 2 targets more or less.

I assumed 2 targets for the barbarian (sweep + reach weapon), and 2 targets for the wizard. Seems like a good middle ground between blowing up 10 mooks, vs chopping down a boss.

That said, I did not factor in flat-footed, which is much easier to get in melee. So I should probably give the barb +1 more to hit.

And since everyone is saying the issue is at low level, I'll eventually run the numbers again at level 5....

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hyphz wrote:

I'm cool with that. I don't really want to limit the power. The problem is its interaction with the _other_ roleplay aspect of being a Redeemer Champion, which is the Code requirement to allow things a chance to redeem themselves.

Presumably, if someone can experience a "glimpse of redemption" then that implies they are reedemable and may even be easier to redeem as a result. Which seems to mean it could affect the roleplay aspects of the Code, which are presumably meant to be an important aspect of playing a Champion.

If a creature decided to deal no damage, then maybe you should try talking to them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Shield Bash" is "not actually a weapon"

"Shield Boss" & "Spiked Shield" "work like other weapons".

So assuming you paid the extra 5SP, yes. You can double slice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I wonder why everyone is comparing the melee fighter/barbarian, when a ranged fighter/ranger does about the same damage and has equal or better range, although yeah it maybe doesn't have the feats.

Just something I noticed.

A bow ranger does 3d8+2+3 = 18.5 damage.

Vs the barbs 3d10+5+3+8 = 32.5.

A fair bit less damage.

100' range is still very good though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:

I do agree with the point.

But still... Why does the charch leads to 50% to save? The charch is crearly in favor of the melee characters the AC is lower than the save DC by a bit normally.

I was going off the charts posted in the original post. With the barb effectively having an extra 2 points "to-hit".

But the spells half damage on a "miss" more than makes up for it. And that is multiplied by just flat higher damage.

And remember that a barb of the same level has items to balance his to hit compared to the blaster. And also a level 13 barb will have at least one damage rune so at least 1d6 extra per target...

True. But I am already giving the barbarian more than I am giving casters. Like they should have an wand of Chain Lighting.

Just to point out i am disagreeing with the way you calculated it, not with the point overall. I do believe even if the mages do less damage their sheer utility, variety, ability to hit from distance compensates for it.

If mages use all their spells to blast, they don't have much left for utility.

Not saying blasting is the best option, but it's the easiest way to compare.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To find the balance point...

(64+52+42+28)*3*0.775 + R * (22.5 * .775) = 12*(32.5 * .7)+ R*(32.5 * .7)
432.45 + R * 17.4375 = R * 22.75 + 273
159.45 + R * 17.4375 = R * 22.75
159.45/R + 17.4375 = 22.75
159.45/R = 5.3125
30.014/R =1
30 = R

So 30 rounds of combat before barbarian beats the blaster.
Seems like casters are still doing really well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming 4 rounds * 3 encounters per day....

Dragon Barbarian 13, using swipe with a Guisarme to help normalize multi-target damage.
Using the chart, 50% chance to hit, 10% chance to crit.
(.5 + .1*2) = 0.7
3d10+5+3(specialization)+8(dragon rage) =
32.5 * 0.7 = 22.75 (2 targets)

Level 13 arcane caster using a level 7/6/5/4 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day (likely hitting more than 2 targets).
Eclipse Burst (7th, 8d10+8d4) + Chain Lighting (6th, 8d12) + Cone of Cold (5th, 12d6) + Fireball (4th, 8d6)
(64+52+42+28)*.25 = 46.5
45% chance to hit, 45% chance for half, 5% chance for double, 5% none.
(.45 + .45 * .5 + .05 * 2) = 0.775
46.5 * 0.775 = 36.0375 (2+ targets)

So yea. Blaster does 58.4% more damage than a barb. And still has the level 3/2/1 spells for utility. Casters easily win.

Let's try 5 round * 3 encounters (15 rounds of combat) a day.
So if I assume 1 cast of electric arc (7d4+5).
(64+52+42+28+22.5)*.20 = 41.7 * 0.775
= 32.317

So at 15 rounds a day, blasters still win with 42% more damage.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind, the monster can choose to deal no damage instead of taking the penalty.

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>