Very simple question, the evocation power (version 1.1)
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.
1) Is this 1d4+2 at 2nd level, 1d4+3 at 4th up to 1d4+11 at 20th.
OR
2) Is it 2d4+2 at 2nd level, 3d4+3 at 4th up to a very respectable 11d4+11 at 20th (ouch).
I am 99.9% sure it is the first option, but I wanted to clarify that every one else has the same interpretation as me, my limited grasp of written English makes me think there is some punctuation missing, or it requires an example for those on the lower end of the IQ scale such as my self.
|
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.
Since 1st edition, D&D writers have been awful about the 'every two caster levels' thing. Sometimes it means even-numbered levels, sometimes it means 'every two caster levels after the one where you get the spell' and ends up being odd-numbered levels.
So. Freaking. Annoying.
I wish they'd just write 'every odd-numbered level' or something.
|
|
Very simple question, the evocation power (version 1.1)
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.
1) Is this 1d4+2 at 2nd level, 1d4+3 at 4th up to 1d4+11 at 20th.
OR
2) Is it 2d4+2 at 2nd level, 3d4+3 at 4th up to a very respectable 11d4+11 at 20th (ouch).I am 99.9% sure it is the first option, but I wanted to clarify that every one else has the same interpretation as me, my limited grasp of written English makes me think there is some punctuation missing, or it requires an example for those on the lower end of the IQ scale such as my self.
actually, as written, it is 1d4 at 1st level, 1d4+1 at second level, 1d4+2 at 4th level, up to 1d4+10 at 20th level.
1d4 base, and add an additional point of damage for each 2 caster levels.
That is interesting. For some reason, Evocation sucks at at-will blasting compared to Conjuration? How does that make any sense?
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.
Actually, it is (1d4) + (1 per 2 levels), so it's 1d4 at 1st level, 1d4+1 at 2nd, 1d4+2 at 4th, and so on to 1d4+10 at 20th level.
If it were your option 2, it would be phrased as "1d4+1 points of damage per 2 levels" - which would be interpreted as (1d4+1) per 2 levels.
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.Since 1st edition, D&D writers have been awful about the 'every two caster levels' thing. Sometimes it means even-numbered levels, sometimes it means 'every two caster levels after the one where you get the spell' and ends up being odd-numbered levels.
So. Freaking. Annoying.
I wish they'd just write 'every odd-numbered level' or something.
If it's every two caster levels, no modifier, then it's every even caster level.
If it's every two caster levels after something, then it's two caster levels after it, then four, then six, etc.
Same pattern for any "every N levels/caster levels" ability.
I've never seen something that varied from this standard in 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the definitions WotC and Paizo have in their style guides. Do you have an example of a place where one of these isn't used in this manner?
Very simple question, the evocation power (version 1.1)
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.
1) Is this 1d4+2 at 2nd level, 1d4+3 at 4th up to 1d4+11 at 20th.
OR
2) Is it 2d4+2 at 2nd level, 3d4+3 at 4th up to a very respectable 11d4+11 at 20th (ouch).I am 99.9% sure it is the first option, but I wanted to clarify that every one else has the same interpretation as me, my limited grasp of written English makes me think there is some punctuation missing, or it requires an example for those on the lower end of the IQ scale such as my self.
actually, as written, it is 1d4 at 1st level, 1d4+1 at second level, 1d4+2 at 4th level, up to 1d4+10 at 20th level.
1d4 base, and add an additional point of damage for each 2 caster levels.
That is interesting. For some reason, Evocation sucks at at-will blasting compared to Conjuration? How does that make any sense?
Keep in mind, Conjuration is a damage-dealing school too, but mostly for actual, physical damage, like actually hitting someone with physical acid. Conjuration has only acid at 1d6, while Evocation has any energy at 1d4.
Still a bit tilted, and you're right that Evocation's ability should be more damage focused, perhaps. But it's not like Conjuration isn't a school of dealing damage in addition to summoning in its own right.
|
|
I've never seen something that varied from this standard in 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the definitions WotC and Paizo have in their style guides. Do you have an example of a place where one of these isn't used in this manner?
The SRD doesn't use those standards at all. Spells like Magic Missile and Scorching Ray specifically call out, 'every two levels after X.'
In earlier editions, particularly in Realms products (which often included new spells, and didn't seem to conform to any sort of style guide), it was always a crap-shoot what 'every two levels' meant, and examples were occasionally contradictory.
I prefer that things be worded specifically, and not require that the reader go searching for what was meant in other areas of the book.
Director of Games
|
I will make sure the wording is clarified here. It should be 1d4 base plus 1 for every 2 caster levels you possess.
So, I am guessing here that the consensus is that downgrading from 1d6 to 1d4 is not worth the versatility of damage types, especially at higher levels where a lot of critters have resistances and vulnerabilities.
Discuss?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I will make sure the wording is clarified here. It should be 1d4 base plus 1 for every 2 caster levels you possess.
So, I am guessing here that the consensus is that downgrading from 1d6 to 1d4 is not worth the versatility of damage types, especially at higher levels where a lot of critters have resistances and vulnerabilities.
Discuss?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My only complaint is that the ability is useless after 2nd level or so. 1d4+10 is max damage at 20th level, average 12.5 damage. A magic missile is 5d4+5, average 17.5 damage. By the time you start adding +1 to damage, the usefulness of the ability is gone.
My thought is to1.up the damage die to d6 or d8 even. A bow does d8 so I don't think balance is much of an issue with that. At 10th level that's 1d6or8+5. Hardly overpowered, I think.
or
2.make it 1d4 damage every 2 caster levels. 10d4 at 20th level is not that awesome but still could be useful. At 10th level that's 5d4. Once again hardly overpowered, I think.
Now Jason, you are the designer and I have nothing but huge respect for what you've done. I am speaking as someone with no real game design talent except maybe being a DM, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
I hope my thoughts are helpful, if only to lead you down a different avenue of thought.
I have full confidence in your abilities.
|
|
I will make sure the wording is clarified here. It should be 1d4 base plus 1 for every 2 caster levels you possess.
So, I am guessing here that the consensus is that downgrading from 1d6 to 1d4 is not worth the versatility of damage types, especially at higher levels where a lot of critters have resistances and vulnerabilities.
well, at higher levels, spending your standard action to do 1d4+x or 1d6+x is a waste of your action, even if you can get by resistances.
I see these 1st level specialist powers as ways for wizards to contribute at low levels. As such, I think it is probably good the way it is now.
The evoker can pretty much always reliably do his damage, while the conjurer has to hope for things without resistance. (though at low levels, is there much with resistance)
Adding the evoker's specialist bonus would be bad, because then all of a sudden, one specialist has a much more powerful at-will ability than the others.
|
|
There's not a huge difference between 1d4 and 1d6 to begin with--one average damage and two max damage. I'd say "keep the versatility" but give them 1d6 and let their evoker's specialty bonus add to the damage.Also, as I mentioned in another thread--how does the extra damage class feature work out with things like magic missile and Split Ray?
Giving them 1d6 would be unbalanced unless you raise the conjurer's acid attack to 1d8. Otherwise the evoker's ability would be totally superior to the conjurer's.
|
|
My only complaint is that the ability is useless after 2nd level or so. 1d4+10 is max damage at 20th level, average 12.5 damage. A magic missile is 5d4+5, average 17.5 damage. By the time you start adding +1 to damage, the usefulness of the ability is gone.
My thought is to
1.up the damage die to d6 or d8 even. A bow does d8 so I don't think balance is much of an issue with that. At 10th level that's 1d6or8+5. Hardly overpowered, I think.
or
2.make it 1d4 damage every 2 caster levels. 10d4 at 20th level is not that awesome but still could be useful. At 10th level that's 5d4. Once again hardly overpowered, I think.
I think the intent is that these at-will powers have less effect than a spell. Otherwise, why would you not just use them all the time instead of casting? I think the idea is to have something to do every round, then when you need the Big Guns, throw out that magic missile, or whatever.
Upping the damge to d6 or d8 is a problem, because then, all of a sudden, you have a caster who is a much more effective archer than your archer. (1d8+x every round, touch attack) vs. (1d8+y, regular attack). x is likely to be >= y. This is similar to the warlock problem.
|
|
Yes, that would be the point--evokers ought to blast better.
But all the 1st level powers need to be balanced. Evokers DO blast better, but by using their spells. (or by using their 1st level power to get around resistances) I thought the same thing at first before thinking about it for a little bit.
My only complaint is that the ability is useless after 2nd level or so. 1d4+10 is max damage at 20th level, average 12.5 damage. A magic missile is 5d4+5, average 17.5 damage. By the time you start adding +1 to damage, the usefulness of the ability is gone.
Given that a 20th level Envocation specialist also has 10 magic missile per day, I don't see why they would want to use the energy ray.
Personally, I would change the at will power to do 1d4 points of Force damage + 1 point of damage per 2 levels. The versitility of the force damage, the lack of energy resistance, and the ability to bypass spell resistance would make it a useful power even if damage is low.
I would then replace the 2nd level power with floating disk usable every 2 levels. It is a useful utility spell. IMHO I do not think wizards need to be given more multiple use per day attack spells.
While I was at it, I would change the 2nd level transmutaion ability to feather fall. I would love to change the 2nd level necromancy ability as well, but there is no good utiliy spell in the SRD (I personally think they should get detect undead or somethinf similar).
I will make sure the wording is clarified here. It should be 1d4 base plus 1 for every 2 caster levels you possess.
So, I am guessing here that the consensus is that downgrading from 1d6 to 1d4 is not worth the versatility of damage types, especially at higher levels where a lot of critters have resistances and vulnerabilities.
Discuss?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I understood the reason for trading damage for versatility, makes perfect sense to me, especially as this is the school most likely to have more offensive damaging spells, so the ability to inflict more damage is already there in their spell selections.
The ability to hit a fire based creature with a cold attack at will, should not be sniffed at.
On a general note, I like all of the changes implemented in v1.1.
I will make sure the wording is clarified here. It should be 1d4 base plus 1 for every 2 caster levels you possess.
So, I am guessing here that the consensus is that downgrading from 1d6 to 1d4 is not worth the versatility of damage types, especially at higher levels where a lot of critters have resistances and vulnerabilities.
Discuss?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well I think they should be better blaster so keep the versatility and make it 1d6 yet again.or make the conjurer 1d4 .
as it stands now only the conjurer has a ranged damage dealing power that does 1d6 so at lest make them D4 if the invoker is to stay at d4.
Well I think they should be better blaster so keep the versatility and make it 1d6 yet again.or make the conjurer 1d4 .
as it stands now only the conjurer has a ranged damage dealing power that does 1d6 so at lest make them D4 if the invoker is to stay at d4.
If the evoker's power is doing the same amount of damage as the conjurer's, and has the flexibility, then the evoker has a general advantage over the conjurer. I think the balance as it is is okay, but I think I'd rather see the evoker have the extra damage, have the versatility, and then replace the conjurer's power with something more conjurey (yes, I'm making up words) and less evoky-feeling.