Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How many last things can a person post?I think that's a level-dependent class feature. You'll have to check the rules. 8-)
Or maybe ranks in the bluff skill...
I think that's a reasonable position to take, but it's not one that I take--or at least I don't take that position for every company's products. In general, I start with a rebuttable presumption that any given rule is reasonable before I read it, then I start to form an opinion. The more closely the rule follows rules that I've played with before, the more I trust my intuition about whether the rule is balanced. The more radical the changes, the more evidence I require to consider it to be either broken or reasonable*.
I 99% agree. I generally only buy WotC products (well, and Paizo products) and those of a few other reputable companies, and I agree that the presumption is based on the source of the material. I also agree that speculation isn't entirely worthless. It's the conclusionary statements based on the barest speculation that are worthless.
In fact, I'm just going to point people to your post next time this comes up.
I stick up for Saern and Sexi Golem in any disagreement because they're always nice to me on the boards (and are quite helpful to boot), and that buys them some loyalty. That said, I don't feel (notice, I didn't say "know" or "test" or "have received divine revelation from Monte Cook") that the Warmage is at all unbalanced... with the right kind of DM. This was brought up in particular by ZeroCharisma, but seems to have been lost. If you run a blast'n'hack video-game fest, then yeah, it obviously rocks big time. If you stage a few espionage/investigation adventures, the warmage sits in the corner and occasionally blasts a dog out of spite, because he can't do anything else (precious few non-attack spells, no skills, etc.). Balance depends on the campaign, in other words. In the campaigns my players and I have had the most fun with, the sorcerer couldn't hold a candle to the wizard. The warmage would be even more outclassed.
Warmage is a balanced class if the DM is smart. They are extremely good at blowing things up, but very much useless in any situation needing stealth, diplomacy, or tactical spells that don't deal damage. If you have a campaign that is nothing but combat, the class will seem overpowered-- just like a fighter will seem overpowered in a low magic, high melee campaign, or a cleric will shine against an undead legion.
|
It should not be IMPOSSIBLE to successfully affect a creature of the same CR as you. A player shouldn't have to start with an 18 INT, buff that one score at every opportunity, take skillfocus truenamer, and still STRUGGLE to use their most basic ability. DC 15 + 2 x 20 = 55 - that's what a 20th level truenamer has to hit at 20th level to affect something that's CR 20.
ASSUMING a role of 20:
20 + 23 (max ranks in class skill) + 3 (skill focus) + 6 (assuming a 23 intelligence from ability score increases every four levels)= 52
Magic items shouldn't be required for you to succeed with your most basic ability.
- Ashavan
PS - Note that a fighter with the same 20 automatically hits. And even if he didn't, he'd actually have rolled a
20 + 20 (base attack bonus) + 6 (equiv str bonus) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (greater weapon focus) = 48
Balor = AC 35
Pit Fiend = AC 40
Gargantuan Red Wyrm = AC 42 (and CR 24) [because of the size increase, a Red Wyrm's AC is actually better than a Collosal Great Wyrm)Each of these the fighter has a chance to hit at LEAST 1/4 of the time, and for the Balor demon over half the time when making a single melee attack.
Players shouldn't succeed all the time, but they should have a reasonable chance.
On the other hand, if you don't count on magic items, and some player uses one, then they succeed all the time.
For the record, I agree with you. I think skill-based casting was an ill-conceived notion. I was just explaining how it CAN work.
Persoanly i didn't see any reason to allow classes outside of the ones i have made up over the years and the ones in the Core books, But in all honesty i have very little trust for things i did not create simpley because of how i have altered the system at large.
My house rules have changed so much of the game i am normaly the only one who relises it is a 3.X game lol... But i feel that when it all comes down to it players and DMs should go through Character creation together and balance it so everyone has fun... my games personaly tend to be really weird. i removed the "ECL / Level Adjustment" system completely and just give basic races extra stuff instead... i personaly think the ECL system was a cheap attempt at keeping with game balance by nerfing races naturaly more talented then humans, but yeah anywho just my thoughts i looked at warmage again and Warlock, i think Warmage is a bit over powerd for what it has and i slightly altered it and like what i did. as to other stuff, well sometimes things get twinked really easy and i mistake it for being broken, and i just should have read into the class more before combineing stuff. anyway in closeing drink Mt Dew play rifts ( duh because it is the best ) and lets have some fun :)
Granted that warmages are pretty lacking in versatility, I still think that their hyped up combat power really makes them overshadow the standard sorcerer, and makes them frustrating to play alongside sometimes. I think that the various energy orb spells are a significant part of the problem. They use ranged touch attack instead of reflex save, they ignore spell resistance because they are a conjuration, and a warmage knows all of them by heart, so he can use whichever energy the enemy is vulnerable to without preparation, and they do rather good damage considering how consistently they affect the target. Playing as a transmuter alongside one in my last campaign gave me mixed feelings about the class. I was pretty well overshadowed on the battlefield--I could throw a couple of buff spells on my tanks before I ran out of them, then had to whip out my pea-shooter wand of magic missile, 1st level if I wanted to make a contribution. On the other hand, sometimes it was nice to have the guy around to blast enemies, and a couple of times he came up with creative uses for a couple of his spells--stone fist especially.
Admittedly as I gained levels and started getting cool spells like polymorph things got better for me, and the fighters in the party did like me because I could do good things for them, while the warmage was kind of competition.
On the whole, though, I don't like the class much and don't allow it in the campaigns I run.
My biggest gripe with the Warmage is something entirely different -- basing spells on Int. IMO Int-based spells require advanced study -- that's the point of linking them to such a stat. Warmages are not modified Wizards, they are modified Sorcerors (and thus should be using Cha).
This kind of fundamental inconsistency highlights to me what the class is really for -- filling pages in new books to make money. If they are sensible within the context of D&D, great; if they aren't, that's OK too.
What are they for, anyway? I can put together a Sorceror so packed with combat spells (and nothing else) that it can take on the Warmage any day. I can also put a core spellcaster into armor and watch it die no less quickly in melee combat.
Of course the question's rhetorical -- I already gave my opinion about what they're for.
I can go on, but that's the gist. Just me ranting, so don't take it too seriously :)
Jack
I really don't understand the debate here, a warmage is way more powerful than a sorceror who is solely bent on battle. A warmage is way more powerfull than a wizard bent on battle (obviously). So in the end the warmage is more powerful for an aspect that is quite popular in D&D.
In general these new classes will always be a little bit more powerful because Wizards wants to sell books (suprise!) Look at the warlock from the complete arcane, again an ultra focused class that just rocks if thats all the character wants to do. They break the game a little, and it kind of bugs me. I just had to kill a warlock in my campaign due to the annoyance he was giving me and the whole party (great in battle, totally useless everywhere else, what a great class (sarcasm)).
Anyways look at "Skills and Powers" in 2nd edition? THey did the same thing, want to boost sales, make books with more powerful options. Then when it gets to silly make a new edition. Im hoping 4th edition will be good!
Well i started to topic to see if i was out of line calling the class overpowered, then went on to see if i should continue the topic into "How would you alter Warmage?" so i could see what everyone here thinks. i never NEVER make a 100% judgement unless i get another one or two people to check on the ( in this case ) class before makeing a ruleing. i like the idea of haveing input from more then one source. :)
So if anyway has a way they would alter Warmage, let me know.. it might be more useable then the one i am toying with... i wish i didn't just move. all my books and notes are in storage and i cant post things with 100% accuarcy ><
I really don't understand the debate here, a warmage is way more powerful than a sorceror who is solely bent on battle. A warmage is way more powerfull than a wizard bent on battle (obviously).
Actually, I'm not certain that that's true. Remember, no flight, no invisibility, no detect invisibility. No buffs, summons, or dispel magic. Given the right spell selection, a Sorcerer could wipe the floor with a Warmage.
As for the Sorcerer/Warmage vs Wizard debate, I will say that in a one-shot game, I would take the former every time. But in a campaign, I'll take the Wizard. I just feel it would be a more fun class to play, and, frankly, more powerful in the long run.
So if anyway has a way they would alter Warmage, let me know.. it might be more useable then the one i am toying with... i wish i didn't just move. all my books and notes are in storage and i cant post things with 100% accuarcy ><
I wouldn't change the Warmage at all. I _would_ change the 'Orb' spells. I'm not quite sure how best to do that, but I think perhaps allowing a Fort save for the Lesser Orbs, and having the successful save reducing the damage by half might be one way to go. Alternatively, replace the ranged touch attack by a Reflex save for half damage... but that removes the utility of those spells as an Evasion-beater. Or, perhaps, it would just be enough to allow Spell Resistance to apply.
Well i started to topic to see if i was out of line calling the class overpowered, then went on to see if i should continue the topic into "How would you alter Warmage?" so i could see what everyone here thinks...
I don't think it's broken, and players are free to waste time with it if they want IMC. If you must make a change, eliminate it -- a Sorceror can equal it in most meaningful ways (IMO).
Personally I think D&D wouldn't miss a thing if non-core classes were eliminated entirely (though we should keep prestige classes).
Regards,
Jack
I don't think it's broken, and players are free to waste time with it if they want IMC.
I agree 100%. I wouldn't disallow it, but frankly I'm at the point where every WotC invention with the prefix 'War' in front of it, I dismiss as little kid stuff. "I want to be a robot!" (warforged), or "I want to play with dolls and action figures!" (warbands), and now "I want to blow up everything in the whole world!" (warmage). Argh!
Personally I think D&D wouldn't miss a thing if non-core classes were eliminated entirely (though we should keep prestige classes).
Regards,
Jack
I'm running a game with a friend who has never seen any of the suppliment books. Nothing but a core books campaign and I am loving every bit of it. I think the lackof clutter has really improved my game experiance.
|
|
I agree with the earlier statement that the biggest problem is the orb spells themselves. I don't use them as a player, and if I was DMing, I'd ban them.
As for warmages casting off of Int, it is precisely because their casting is based off of intense study. They don't develop into warmages spontaneously like sorcerers, they go to a dedicated academy to learn their art (at least, that's the flavor text as I recollect it).
Hm... I'm slightly confused. The warmage casts based of off Charisma. They get to add their intelligence to spell damage (which I would assume be the result of tactics training), but their spells per day are still capped on Cha.
I _would_ change the 'Orb' spells. I'm not quite sure how best to do that, but I think perhaps allowing a Fort save for the Lesser Orbs, and having the successful save reducing the damage by half might be one way to go. Alternatively, replace the ranged touch attack by a Reflex save for half damage... but that removes the utility of those spells as an Evasion-beater. Or, perhaps, it would just be enough to allow Spell Resistance to apply.
I would definitely apply Spell Resistance. For the lesser orbs, I would make it a ranged attack (as opposed to a ranged touch attack). Also, you'd be within rights to increase the spell level on all acid and sonic based balls by 1, as not many creatures have resistance to those attacks.
In general these new classes will always be a little bit more powerful because Wizards wants to sell books (suprise!)
Well, yeah. I mean, they are a business. Like any and all businesses, they continue to exist as long as they are profitable. *shrug*
Look at the warlock from the complete arcane, again an ultra focused class that just rocks if thats all the character wants to do. They break the game a little, and it kind of bugs me. I just had to kill a warlock in my campaign due to the annoyance he was giving me and the whole party (great in battle, totally useless everywhere else, what a great class (sarcasm)).
Hm. That's the opposite experience I've had with them. The only real power of the warlock that I've seen is that they're really good at staying alive, but otherwise they're pretty mediocre. I have played one through a bit of the Tomb of Horrors, and am currently DMing one in the Age of Worms.
|
I _would_ change the 'Orb' spells. I'm not quite sure how best to do that, but I think perhaps allowing a Fort save for the Lesser Orbs, and having the successful save reducing the damage by half might be one way to go. Alternatively, replace the ranged touch attack by a Reflex save for half damage... but that removes the utility of those spells as an Evasion-beater. Or, perhaps, it would just be enough to allow Spell Resistance to apply.I would definitely apply Spell Resistance. For the lesser orbs, I would make it a ranged attack (as opposed to a ranged touch attack). Also, you'd be within rights to increase the spell level on all acid and sonic based balls by 1, as not many creatures have resistance to those attacks.
I fail to see why the Orb spells are considered such a disaster. Consider the Lesser Orbs v Magic Missile. Magic Missile does, on average the same amount of damage as an Orb. But you need a "to hit" roll with an Orb, and not with Magic Missile. The Orb ignores SR and Magic Missile doesn't, but they are both 1st level spells so who cares? Versus that rakshasa these are the spells of desperation, not the opening salvo. Both offer no save. This seems perfectly balanced.
The (greater) Orb spells are not available until 4th level - a level below the evokers' favorite of Fireball. Fireball affects multiple targets, the Orb only one, but they both do the same damage (though I forget how far the Orb spells scale up by level, which may be a factor). Again, Fireball does not need a "to hit" roll, whereas you do with an Orb. The added advantages with the Orb are (1) a very brief additional effect, against which it is possible to save (2) no save against the damage (evened out, in my opinion, by the requirement to make a "to hit" roll and hardly unprecedented anyway - think Melf's Acid Arrow) and (3) ignores SR (also not unprecedented, as again with Melf's Acid Arrow). The big trade-off seems to me to be (a) spell level is one greater than comparable evocation blasters (b) a "to hit" roll (and it is perfectly possible to miss a ranged touch attack) and (c) they only affect a single target.
So from a game mechanics sense, I have no problems with these spells. And I also think they reward a well-prepared, thoughtful player. If you are facing a creature with high SR, you can take a risk and run with the evocations or you can prepare some Orbs. Both have strengths and weaknesses, as pointed out above, and so I don't think that the decisions are clear-cut. If it was, then the spells probably would be broken.
Hm... I'm slightly confused. The warmage casts based of off Charisma...
Might be my mistake -- don't have materials close by, and I may have misquoted. Sorry :/
|
|
The issue with the orb spells is their application by warmages. Since they can cast any of them spontaneously, they can tailor the energy type to the vulnerabilities of the creature they are facing. Therefore, they effectively get past energy resistance/immunity (unless you are immune/resistant to ALL energies), spell resistance, and call for no saving throw. Only drawback is the ranged touch attack which the warmage should have no difficulty with.
I played a gish, swashbuckler/warmage character when the book came out and despite having munchkin like abilites (17 int, 17 dex) I couldn't out damage the fighters per round and I had a heck of a time seeing much of a reason to keep taking warmage levels after 4th.
I think the class is okay for a gish character but it really isn't overpowered. It's a one trick pony. If your DM uses point-buy its even less likely that the Int bonus becomes a factor.
I subscribe to the sorcerer is under-powered line of thought so take that for what it's worth.
I fail to see why the Orb spells are considered such a disaster. Consider the Lesser Orbs v Magic Missile. Magic Missile does, on average the same amount of damage as an Orb. But you need a "to hit" roll with an Orb, and not with Magic Missile. The Orb ignores SR and Magic Missile doesn't, but they are both 1st level spells so who cares? Versus that rakshasa these are the spells of desperation, not the opening salvo. Both offer no save. This seems perfectly balanced.
Magic Missile does 1d4+1 (average 3.5), the Orbs do 1d8 (average 4.5). Both increase at the same rate. Magic Missile is also negated by Shield; no such defence applies to the Orb spells. Furthermore, Magic Missile is one of, if not the, most powerful 1st level spells, retaining its usefulness even after other spells of the same level are obselete; I'm of the opinion that no 1st level spell should be more powerful, and yet the Orbs are. (In fairness, the damage from Magic Missile can be split between multiple targets, where the Orb cannot. However, I've seen that done so rarely as to be barely worth mentioning.)
The (greater) Orb spells are not available until 4th level - a level below the evokers' favorite of Fireball. Fireball affects multiple targets, the Orb only one, but they both do the same damage (though I forget how far the Orb spells scale up by level, which may be a factor).
Alternatively, the Orb spells are a level below Cone of Cold. Both do 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with a cap of 15d6. Cone of Cold does affect multiple targets, if the caster can arrange to target them as such, but the Orb spells offer neither an ability to reduce the damage with a save, nor apply spell resistance. (I'll address touch attacks below.)
As such, I must argue that the Orbs spells are at least as powerful as Cone of Cold, and since the latter is higher level, I consider that a significant problem.
(evened out, in my opinion, by the requirement to make a "to hit" roll and hardly unprecedented anyway - think Melf's Acid Arrow)
It appears that spells are designed with either a ranged touch attack or a save, but not both (in most cases). The assumption would seem to be that these are equivalent balancing factors. Sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case. There are two reasons for this:
1) It's very hard to raise your touch AC to any significant extent. This becomes a bit easier if supplemental materials are in use, but even so it is much easier to raise your normal and flat-footed AC than your touch AC. In particular, the large monsters most groups face as they go up in level have very poor touch ACs - consider the Great Wyrm Red Dragon (touch AC 2). Once you elminate saves for half damage, and Spell Resistance, you're starting to get towards a very very dangerous spell.
2) Most arcanists prioritise Dex quite highly, since they need it for their AC. This also adds to their ranged attack rolls.
I have seen ranged touch attacks miss at low levels. However, I have seen this occur vastly less often as the levels go up, while at the same time the frequency of passed saves (of all sorts) rapdily goes up.
I think that covers it all. (Having thought on this some more, I think perhaps the best fix is to simply increase the levels of all the Orb spells by 1 - 2nd level for the Lesser Orbs and 5th for the others.)
The issue with the orb spells is their application by warmages. Since they can cast any of them spontaneously, they can tailor the energy type to the vulnerabilities of the creature they are facing. Therefore, they effectively get past energy resistance/immunity (unless you are immune/resistant to ALL energies), spell resistance, and call for no saving throw. Only drawback is the ranged touch attack which the warmage should have no difficulty with.
The warmage in my campaign regularly uses these spells (along with several other ranged touch attack spells) and frequently misses, despite her attack bonuses.
- Ashavan
Re: Orb Spells.
1. Why the Flying F#$K are they Conjuration?! Acid is okay, none of the others should be. Everything else that mimics what they do is Evocation. Therefore, my solution is to make them just that and reinstitute Spell Resistance.
2. Melf's Acid Arrow deals significantly less damage than Reflex save spells. How many rounds of 2d4 damage is it when a wizard gets Fireball? 2? 3? Don've have my books. Let's say it's two. Whoop-de. Average of 10 damage over 2 rounds, vs. the Fireball's 16 in one. However, it requires a ranged touch attack, which is easy to make, and negates SR, and is lower level. Therefore, I consider it well balanced. Also look at Scorching Ray. 4d6 damage. Not 1d6/level, or even 1d6/2 levels. More rays are added as you go up in level, but it still remains less damaging for some time compared to a Fireball or other such "blaster, save for half" spells. Again, this uses a touch attack. I view this as precedent that touch attack spells are best balanced by reducing their level by one relative to the next teir of blaster spells, and slightly reducing damage capability. If it also negates SR, damage output is reduced futher.
As stated above, the Orbs violate this unspoken precedent, and thus rub a lot of people the wrong way.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
1. Why the Flying F#$K are they Conjuration?! Acid is okay, none of the others should be. Everything else that mimics what they do is Evocation. Therefore, my solution is to make them just that and reinstitute Spell Resistance.
Because it's a combat spell!
No wait...that argument in my mind would make it evocation.
Hmmm...
Okay, I generally agree. I have an explanation, but it has to do with a different logic behind the school system than you use. My explanation, which is not fully supported behind the rules, is that evocation gets half save spells and conjuration gets touch attack spells. I don't entirely like that distinction, and it's riddled with holes, but it might work.
Also, let me say again that I would really like to see a write up of your view on the schools and which spells you have moved around. And I swear, it's not because I want to get into a big argument about stoneskin.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Careful! It's a trap! Ask him what he wants to get in a big argument about, then!
It's a given that I want to get into a big argument. I'm just tired of arguing about stoneskin. (Plus, there was a spell in the Spell Compendium that supports the view that transmutation is the school that gives DR.)
It's a given that I want to get into a big argument. I'm just tired of arguing about stoneskin. (Plus, there was a spell in the Spell Compendium that supports the view that transmutation is the school that gives DR.)
Not to start another big argument (yeah right), but I always thought that spells were tied to schools because of what is essentially the flavour text for the spell. Do you think that particular game mechanics (ranged touch attakcs, saves, granting DR) actually go with particular schools? That never occurred to me, ever. I thought the designers came up with the flavour first, then made the crunch. Not that they thought "hmmm, I want a spell that gives DR5/slashing, that would be Transmutation" and then made up some flavour.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not to start another big argument (yeah right), but I always thought that spells were tied to schools because of what is essentially the flavour text for the spell. Do you think that particular game mechanics (ranged touch attakcs, saves, granting DR) actually go with particular schools? That never occurred to me, ever. I thought the designers came up with the flavour first, then made the crunch. Not that they thought "hmmm, I want a spell that gives DR5/slashing, that would be Transmutation" and then made up some flavour.
I think they should, but I don't know how much that thought is based on the reality that exists outside of my imagination. To a certain extent, the mechanics do drive the schools. The majority of direct damage spells are in evocation. The majority defensive spells are in abjuration. In my ideal world, the school system of magic would work more like the colors of Magic the Gathering. You take all the possible mechanical effects, you divide them by spell school, and you base the flavor off of the mechanics. So, you have maybe two schools that deal with DR, a primary school (transmutation) and a secondary school (abjuration). You have two combat spell schools, evocation that works directly on the target and conjuration that works indirectly through touch attacks. Etc.
As I've said ad infinitum, the problem with defining schools by flavor is that you can easily make one school extremely powerful (usually transmutation or conjuration) and have one school be extremely weak (usually divination or necromancy) just by framing the effect in the flavor of that school. E.g. fireball can be done using transmutation, you just change air into fire.
People have been arguing about whether certain spells should be conjuration, evocation, or transmutation. Let us consider for a moment that the creators of the orb spells were conjurers. They, being somewhat jealous of the destructive power of evokers, decided to create a spell whereby a small sphere of energy was stolen from one of the elemental planes and hurled at a target. Since the sphere was composed of raw elemental stuff it would bypass SR. This is not too difficult an assertion to make. If you could summon a creature composed of a certain element what's to stop you from summoning the element itself? Technically, there should be no impediment at all. I use the same rationale for all spells that have not been officially errated and belong to a school they don't seem fit for.
As for warmages, I disallowed them in my campaign world using the history of my campaign as the rationale for doing so. It was not because I thought they were overpowered, it was just because they didn't fit into my Ice Age world where magic was just being rediscovered. Beguilers exist, but only as part of an evil alien conspiracy (so they are all NPC villains).
The warmage can be overpowered in pure combat situations. Their lack of versatility is couterbalanced by their large pool of spells. Hit points and AC are the currency of D&D combat and the warmage is well-equipped to tackle both (hitting AC and reducing hit points). In non-combat situations warmages are no better than fighters at dealing with most situations. They have hardly any spells to bypass obstacles, travel great distances, identify magic items, detect creatures or objects, or boost other party members, but then neither does a sorcerer who picks attacking spells. For a sorcerer to shine in a party with a warmage he or she needs to pick spells that are defensive or miscellaneous in nature. They shouldn't forget to have a few attacking spells here and there, but they should be focused on doing what the warmage can't. Beguilers do this naturally, so the two classes do very well together.
So far the designers of the game have come up with a specialist sorcerer-type evolution for the necromancy, illusion/enchantment, and evocation schools. That means they just have a few more to go :) I should expect to see the summoner class, the guardian mage class, and the seer class shortly.
Probably the thing that would work best for both the warmage and beguiler is to have a limit on the number of spells they know at each level. If they were limited the same way sorcerers are perhaps the class would be more balanced. Then again, if the class were limited in this way who would stop playing warmages and start playing sorcerers again because sorcerers are now better? There is no easy solution.
I think they should, but I don't know how much that thought is based on the reality that exists outside of my imagination. To a certain extent, the mechanics do drive the schools. The majority of direct damage spells are in evocation. The majority defensive spells are in abjuration. In my ideal world, the school system of magic would work more like the colors of Magic the Gathering. You take all the possible mechanical effects, you divide them by spell school, and you base the flavor off of the mechanics. So, you have maybe two schools that deal with DR, a primary school (transmutation) and a secondary school (abjuration). You have two combat spell schools, evocation that works directly on the target and conjuration that works indirectly through touch attacks. Etc.As I've said ad infinitum, the problem with defining schools by flavor is that you can easily make one school extremely powerful (usually transmutation or conjuration) and have one school be extremely weak (usually divination or necromancy) just by framing the effect in the flavor of that school. E.g. fireball can be done using transmutation, you just change air into fire.
Interesting. If the magic system worked that way it would be much more generic, and you could have the onus on the player to describe exactly what happens when they cast a spell. That way two casters could cast the same spell but have it totally different flavour wise. Could be cool, but it would bear almost no resemblance to traditional D&D magic. It would be more like the magic system in White Wolf's Mage.
|
First, a note on why I see no reason to assume WotC didn't miss something.
Complete Mage, page 50:
Abjurant Armor (Su): Any time you cast an abjuration spell that grants you an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, you can increase the value of the bonus by your abjurant champion class level. Abjurant champions rely on mage armor, shield, and similar spells instead of actual armor.
There's no reason for an error like that to get into print.
Second, the reason the orb spells are conjurations is to justify them bypassing SR. Because their material is actually "created," it isn't magical, and thus can't be stopped by SR. Evocations can be.
|
|
I fail to see why the Orb spells are considered such a disaster.
Consider the Lesser Orbs v Magic Missile... etc.
I'm still not really convinced. I have DM'ed where these spells are used and not really noticed any problems.
There is a big difference between an area effect (like Cone of Cold) and a single attack spell like an Orb. They have different uses, frankly, but using an area effect to tidy up the enemy mugs in front so you can get at the big bad guy is a key effect. An Orb wouldn't do that, or at least only very slowly, while the fighters and so on take attrition. So an Orb is considerably less efficient than an area effect. yes, you may not be able to lump the baddies together, but you can probably hit two or three and unless they have evasion they still take damage.
I have also seen ranged touch attacks miss a lot. It happens - wizards and sorcerers have a lousy BAB. That makes a BIG difference - get a wand of Magic Missile (9th level caster) and a wizard GUARANTEES hitting and doing an average of 17.5 points of damage. It is also easy to increase touch AC - spells like Shield of Faith, Rings of Protection, even Cat's Grace. And the Great Wyrm Red Dragon - poor touch AC, but how many hp does it have? Plus a breath weapon, savage attacks and access to plenty of protective spells.
As with most things in the game, it is swings and roundabouts. I've seen these things working in the game and not really noticed any problems.
1. Why the Flying F#$K are they Conjuration?! Acid is okay, none of the others should be. Everything else that mimics what they do is Evocation. Therefore, my solution is to make them just that and reinstitute Spell Resistance.2. Melf's Acid Arrow deals significantly less damage than Reflex save spells. How many rounds of 2d4 damage is it when a wizard gets Fireball? 2? 3? Don've have my books. Let's say it's two. Whoop-de. Average of 10 damage over 2 rounds, vs. the Fireball's 16 in one. However, it requires a ranged touch attack, which is easy to make, and negates SR, and is lower level. Therefore, I consider it well balanced. Also look at Scorching Ray. 4d6 damage. Not 1d6/level, or even 1d6/2 levels. More rays are added as you go up in level, but it still remains less damaging for some time compared to a Fireball or other such "blaster, save for half" spells. Again, this uses a touch attack. I view this as precedent that touch attack spells are best balanced by reducing their level by one relative to the next teir of blaster spells, and slightly reducing damage capability. If it also negates SR, damage output is reduced futher.
The schools issue has been debated before. Put them in Evocation, and you end up with an unbalanced school for game purposes. This may be a less valid claim now the Spell Compendium is out, but an evoker would be exceptionally tough with the area effects AND the orbs. I don't really care about the "metaphysics" of the schools, since they don't make sense out-of-game anyway. I understand see you intellectual dislike of having blasting spells in Conjuration, but don't really care as I can justify it to myself to an extent which satisfies me.
Melf is certainly a bit underpowered, I would probably say overly so. Before the advent of Scorching Ray it was about the only attack spell worth a candle at 2nd level (at range, anyway) but why bother taking it now? I would say that actually Melf is broken due to it's relative lack of punch compared to it's "peer" Scorching Ray (no one has ever complained about that spell, despite it's considerable increase in the power stakes, especuially if empowered - I used it to vaporise a 10th level PC in combat, not bad for a 2nd level spell).
I'm still not really convinced. I have DM'ed where these spells are used and not really noticed any problems.
I don't think the Lesser Orbs are really broken. But I am inclined to think they are just a bit too powerful for their level. As I said, Magic Missile is about the best 1st level spell there is, and when the Lesser Orbs are better, there's probably a problem.
Though, I'll agree that at that level the auto-hit feature of Magic Missile is a big factor.
There is a big difference between an area effect (like Cone of Cold) and a single attack spell like an Orb.
No doubt.
As with most things in the game, it is swings and roundabouts. I've seen these things working in the game and not really noticed any problems.
If we were talking spells of the same level, I would agree. But I don't see targetting only a single creature and requiring a touch attack as being so much worse than allowing a save and spell resistance to warrant being a level lower.
It is also easy to increase touch AC - spells like Shield of Faith, Rings of Protection, even Cat's Grace.
Shield of Faith lasts, what, a few minutes at most? Rings of Protection give a maximum boost of +5. And Cat's grace gives only +2, and even then only if your armour doesn't prevent you from benefitting.
In my last campaign, the Fighters in the group were at AC 44 against normal attacks, 43 when flat-footed, and about 16 against touch attacks. The highest touch AC in the group was 25. It's really not easy to get that value much higher, certainly on a permanent basis.
The other odd effect, as I've noted before, is that as the levels go up, creatures get larger, and those touch ACs actually go down.
Now, that's probably a good thing, since it means that Wizards have a decent chance of hitting with those ranged touch spells. Indeed, you probably want them hitting about 75% of the time, or else those spells won't be used. But it does mean that requiring a touch AC should not be considered equivalent to allowing a save as a balancing factor for spells.
And the Great Wyrm Red Dragon - poor touch AC, but how many hp does it have? Plus a breath weapon, savage attacks and access to plenty of protective spells.
It has all those things whether Orb spells are used or not, so that has no bearing on whether the Orb spells are balanced.
Here's another data-point for you. Otiluke's Freezing Sphere is a 6th level spell, and probably the ideal spell to use against a Red Dragon. It does 1d6 points of damage per level (max 15d6), allows a save and spell resistance.
Orb of Cold does 1d6 points of damage per level (max 15d6), allows no save (vs the damage), nor spell resistance. It requires a ranged touch attack... against AC 2. It's 4th level.
Now, again, there is one balancing factor to consider. OFS is a long-range spell, where OoC is short range. Clearly, this is a _huge_ advantage. But, there's no way it's worth two spell levels AND no save AND no spell resistance (cf the feat that increases the range of spells (Enlarge Spell?), which increases the range one category at a cost of 1 level).
|
|
Hmmm, perhaps. Re the "To Hit" v "Save and SR" issue, I agree that a spell where an attack against a single opponent gives that choice, you would probably go with the former, especially at higher levels. But most of these spells are not strictly comparable because most of the former affect single creatures whereas the latter are mostly area effect. I contend that area effect is a very potent aspect to a spell, as it guarantees damage to most creatures (except rogues and a few others).
Re touch AC, most combats last a few seconds real-time, so spell duration is not really much of an issue. I agree that it is hard to increase touch AC, but a few spells will make an impact. At high levels things get silly anyway. I haven't played at levels that high very often and so will bow to your comparison there, if only because I lack the experience to argue. Likewise, Otiluke's is a spell I know little about, so can't argue there either.
Re the great red Wyrm, the issue with that was the low touch AC due to size. My contention (admittedly well concealed) was that anything with a touch AC that low was likely to have some compensating factors.
Re the great red Wyrm, the issue with that was the low touch AC due to size. My contention (admittedly well concealed) was that anything with a touch AC that low was likely to have some compensating factors.
Ah, I see. In that, I agree.
Here's another data-point for you. Otiluke's Freezing Sphere is a 6th level spell, and probably the ideal spell to use against a Red Dragon. It does 1d6 points of damage per level (max 15d6), allows a save and spell resistance.
Orb of Cold does 1d6 points of damage per level (max 15d6), allows no save (vs the damage), nor spell resistance. It requires a ranged touch attack... against AC 2. It's 4th level.
Now, again, there is one balancing factor to consider. OFS is a long-range spell, where OoC is short range. Clearly, this is a _huge_ advantage. But, there's no way it's worth two spell levels AND no save AND no spell resistance (cf the feat that increases the range of spells (Enlarge Spell?), which increases the range one category at a cost of 1 level).
well, i have where those other 2 spell levels come from on otilukes freezing sphere: all the useful effects you get from it. sure, it does a max of 15d6, just like orb of cold, but it also does d8s to elemental (water) creatures, freezes water to a depth of 6 inches over 100 square feet for 1 round per caster level (which can be used to trap swimmers), and you can essentially hold the charge on it (a delay-like effect) for 1 round per level. sounds like those 2 levels are worth it. there is no doubt, however, that in your particular example otilukes freezing sphere appears underpowered compared to the orb of cold.
as for the orbs in general, if you look in the dmg, on page 36, you will see that the orb spells fall clearly correctly in the appropriate level to do 15d damage to a single target. if it is believed that otilukes freezing sphere is too light compared to them, it clearly shows 6th level spells can do up to 20d damage, so you could up it for your campaigns.
tog
as for the orbs in general, if you look in the dmg, on page 36, you will see that the orb spells fall clearly correctly in the appropriate level to do 15d damage to a single target. if it is believed that otilukes freezing sphere is too light compared to them, it clearly shows 6th level spells can do up to 20d damage, so you could up it for your campaigns.
I was aware of the 'correct' damage ratings for the Orbs. I hadn't checked OFS, since I don't have the DMG in front of me at the moment. It does appear that it needs its damage upgraded.
As for the rest, well, I've now explained why I feel the Orbs to be overpowered. I'm still of that opinion, so at this stage we'll have to just agree to disagree.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've got to say on the orb debate, my experience matches Aubrey's. Fireball is better than fire orb 75% of the time because it has a longer range and it hits multiple creatures. Plus, save DCs for a dedicated caster are sufficiently high that most targets will fail that save as often as a wizard will hit with a touch attack (obviously this changes for creatures with exceptionally high Ref saves, which tend to be the exception rather than the rule).
The other element of touch attacks that has not been mentioned is the effect of invisibility, stealth, or displacement. None of these affect your ability to hit someone with a fireball. All of them impair the targeting of an orb.
The orbs are good spells for a single opponent; they are not so good that you would choose them over any other spell of that level (well, except for the fact that 4th level doesn't have a good benchmark combat spell under the core rules). In campaigns I've played, most fights were with multiple opponents and fireball and other mass target effects were more powerful than single target effects. In fact, when I played a sorcerer, I would frequently channel fireballs through my 4th level slots rather than use an orb.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Interesting. If the magic system worked that way it would be much more generic, and you could have the onus on the player to describe exactly what happens when they cast a spell. That way two casters could cast the same spell but have it totally different flavour wise. Could be cool, but it would bear almost no resemblance to traditional D&D magic. It would be more like the magic system in White Wolf's Mage.
I wouldn't expect it to be a more generic system - all those effects would be design considerations during the creation process, not player considerations during the casting process. So, if transmutation got the ability to bestow DR, stoneskin would be in that school rather than abjuration. Etc.
Well, my notes are rather scattered all over the place (and buried and lost and such in the horrid mess where I put all my D&D stuff). To tell the truth, I'd actually rather work with you Sebastian, and see what we could come up with along the lines of a magic system where crunch, not fluff, was the primary consideration. Although, I have to say that I would make the determinant of Evocation be energy damage or some such thing, rather than requiring a save for half instead of a touch attack. I still think Scorching Ray falls solidly into that school, but should still use a touch attack.
I don't see that making the system any more or less "bland" than it already is. I would think the biggest difference would be the lack of people confusedly asking, "Why is this spell in (insert school here)?"
Also, I would suggest using the rules in the PHBII for spells of mulitple schools; that helps take some of the stress off the system if you get a spell that really can't easily be pigeon-holed to one school.
In addition, I would also support limited "overlap" in mechanical abilities. Going back to the Damage Reduction question, I would say that either Transmutation or Abjuration should get the best spells of that type, with spells of the other school that duplicate that effect either being weaker (but possibly having a more school-appropriate secondary function) or be a level higher or so, to reflect the difficulty in getting that effect out of that school.
Other schools could also have relatively unlimited overlap, but their ability would be much impaired over the two schools that worked best at something, or their spell levels would be substantially higher for a similar effect. For example, if Stoneskin was ruled Transmutation, then a similar Abjuration effect would be a level higher, and if a Necromancy spell conjured bones or whatever to shield you by granting DR, that would be another level higher. Or something along those lines.
Also, just as a personal comment, while I think Divination does get the short end of the stick, I see Necromancy as being extremely powerful due to a lack of a clear definition of negative energy and its abilities. Anything that even sounds "spooky" or has an undeath-theme in its flavor text falls under Necromancy immediately (I remember an example, perhaps by you, Sebastian, that one could easily fly with a Necromancy spells simply by describing bone wings or something to grow from the back).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A bunch of good stuff
I agree with everything you said. I generally like your flavor approach a lot, and would like to see it more detailed. And I would highly recommend reading Mark Rosewater's articles about Magic design if you are even vaguely familiar with that game. I'm not an active magic player (I generally don't like the people attracted to the game), but I love its theory, flavor, and balance.
Edit: Also, the spell compendium seems to provide a lot of support for your characterizations. I remember after our conversation about abjuration thinking - Saern's right, there should be more counterspells and magical manipulation in abjuration. I sat down to create a list of counterspells and thought to check the Spell Compendium first. Wouldn't you know it, there's already a half dozen such spells there. I'd really like those to be the mainline core of abjuration, rather than the hodge podge it gets now.
i dont remember being a 2nd ed player and all, but cant Ranged Touch spells crit? that may not seem like a big deal but i remember crits being a big deal at one time, and i cant check the books right now... but i was under the impression that a RTA could crit. anyway i may be wrong.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
i dont remember being a 2nd ed player and all, but cant Ranged Touch spells crit? that may not seem like a big deal but i remember crits being a big deal at one time, and i cant check the books right now... but i was under the impression that a RTA could crit. anyway i may be wrong.
Yup. RTA can crit plus you can get sneak attack damage on them. That leads to weird situations like a ray of enfeeblement, where a rog1/wiz1 can deal 1d6 negative energy damage on a successful sneak attack.
If you crit on a scorching ray, you deal double damage. (But note that ray of enfeeblement can't actually get a critical because it gives an ability score penalty and does not actually do ability score damage).
2e didn't have crits. Did you mean 3.0?
my 2nd Ed revised editon had crits and all our GM's used a Crit table oh god the pain.... but as for the ranged touch attack that was mostly a 3.X question.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
my 2nd Ed revised editon had crits and all our GM's used a Crit table oh god the pain.... but as for the ranged touch attack that was mostly a 3.X question.
Hmmm...the only crit tables I can think of were in the Player's Option Combat and Tactics book. However, I didn't own a copy of the revised 2e phb, so it's possible they were there.
it was not in the PHB, it was a suplument i think, but i have no idea where this table came from honestly..... it still scares me though. but yeah i was wondering, has anyone compaired these spells to the "Spell creation" from the epic level handbook? i was told by one of my players that that system could recreate the standard spells and if that where the case i think we would find our answer there, As far as the orbs go.