Damage spells should do more damage.


Combat & Magic

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I think there's a much deeper issue here. The issue isn't whether a 8d6 fireball will kill a troll--it's whether any living thing ever should be able to be lit up by a humongous thirty foot blast of fire that does them 24 points of damage and not be freakin' dead!

Loads of things need reworked in D&D, but most wonky of all is the lack of any kind of hard and fast rule as to what "damage" means and how much of it it takes to kill any particular thing. The biggest wonk in 3.5 is the vast discrepencies between monster hp in the Monster Manuals--often things about the same size and mass but with often vast differences in hp. It makes everything else not make sense.

You want to get magic damage making sense? You want any damage to make sense? Easy. Come up with a set reasonable standard of what you want damage to be, what it's based on, how much of it is dealt by various sources. All of a sudden things start making a lot more sense.

Granted there's a lot of folks who like the crazy bloated hit point system. I guess they like long boring battles where folks chop on each other for round after round. I guess that's cool for some folks. Seems pretty slow and lame to me.

Just sayin'.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
It is far easier to bolster the power of damage spells than it is to, say, nerf haste or finger of death into the ground and thus anger a number of players.

Boy, I'm glad I'm not the designer here.

But seriouslt, every single complaint about Arcane spellcaster I heard has been about overpowerdness of his spells. Cast SoD, creature down. Cast Fly, creature can't hurt you. Cast Invisibility, creature can't hurt you. I think if you want to seriously knock power level of a Wizard down a bit, you need to address individual spells.

And yeah, I know how many spells there are. And I know there are deadlines as to when it must be finished. But frankly, if Wizard suddenly found that his best combat option is to prepare damage spells as they are now, his performance would be pretty much equal to the rest of the party.


Grimcleaver wrote:

I think there's a much deeper issue here. The issue isn't whether a 8d6 fireball will kill a troll--it's whether any living thing ever should be able to be lit up by a humongous thirty foot blast of fire that does them 24 points of damage and not be freakin' dead!

Loads of things need reworked in D&D, but most wonky of all is the lack of any kind of hard and fast rule as to what "damage" means and how much of it it takes to kill any particular thing. The biggest wonk in 3.5 is the vast discrepancies between monster hp in the Monster Manuals--often things about the same size and mass but with often vast differences in hp. It makes everything else not make sense.

You want to get magic damage making sense? You want any damage to make sense? Easy. Come up with a set reasonable standard of what you want damage to be, what it's based on, how much of it is dealt by various sources. All of a sudden things start making a lot more sense.

Granted there's a lot of folks who like the crazy bloated hit point system. I guess they like long boring battles where folks chop on each other for round after round. I guess that's cool for some folks. Seems pretty slow and lame to me.

Just sayin'.

Well we all have our love of a specific fantasy level, and most of us can enjoy all to one extent or another.

Most people put these in a category of High-medium-low, but I have come up with my own ranking system...here it is from lowest to highest.

Steel Magnolias fantasy

Yes, believe it or not, some people love this sort of fantasy. It tries to resemble dull(and typically only the dull) aspects of normal life as if it were fantasy. This is the kind when you cut your hand at work, you get a staph infection even though you washed it and emptied a tube of neosporin on it...where you get a ticket for driving 10 miles over in a school zone, and where severe injury typically means things like years of recovery time, lifelong injuries, blindness, paralysis, and death. Some people love this type of fantasy...and make no mistake, this is fantasy, just in it's most pathetic form.

Nobody appreciates facial scars in this type of fantasy.

Godfather fantasy

Yes this is my next level. Strange people in an ordinary world taking part in things that most of us don't see but we assume exist at some level. This is about as gritty as fantasy gets without falling into pathetic...and most of us can relate to this level of fantasy with no imaginary leap necessary.

Cthulhu fantasy

This is the next level. Some people might argue that it's higher up (especially if they played the game) but I beg to differ. This is touchings (or immersion) of upper level fantasy mixed with gritty death and the fact that you are not part of it being a real person. This hits home because the world may be surreal but you are not, and such a thought plays on peoples base emotions. Most people can either make this stretch, are disturbed by it, or their mind doesn't make the leap and they say,"bah...that's crap!" This is the first level of fantasy where you will see fantasy denial where people either can't or won't make the leap of imagination.

James Bond Fantasy

Now I know what some of you are saying. "James Bond above Cthulhu?...you're MAD!" Well, I'm right and you are wrong. This is where both the character and world are a bit too fantastic to be really believable, and while people get into this, they end up with a happy, yet non-sticking feeling most of the time. People like the idea of being somebody like bond, but accept the fact they are not, because in real life he would die given the events unfolding around him. This is slightly less believable than the afore mentioned section because while most of us believe that bizarre and terrible things can happen, we don't know that we will overcome them in the end to ultimate victory and coolness...with only your lady-friend biting the bullet.

D&D Fantasy

Now this is a real genre...and those who love it LOVE it. I call it D&D but it relates to many kinds of fantasy (especially gritty comic books,the movies Heavy Metal - Dune - Conan- Equilibrium -LOTR, much of Mythology. This is what people refer to as "high" fantasy and while we may argue the various levels within, they are still close enough together to make an outsider go, "Meh...all the same!"

This basically combines the first with the second... chance of death, horrible & amazing stuff, yet the ability to overcome and do something fantastic.

Comic Book fantasy

Now some may belong in the lower fantasy, but for most not. This could be rolled into the same group, but for the sake of the audience reading this I feel a line needs to be drawn. Comic Bookish takes the mix that is D&D fantasy, then dumps and extra heap of "James Bond" on to satisfy the crowds that like it. This is a step up, and D&D pretty much enters into this realm by epic levels. People have amazing powers and sometimes blatant weaknesses, but the tales are always epically heroic and larger than life itself. Most Anime will fall under these realms as well but not all.

Cartoons!

This is where reality has gone bye-bye nearly completely and you are left with a reality that you really don't expect to make any cohesive sense. Strangely enough when you get to this point, most people can willingly accept it because it's either humorous or allows them to totally escape reality for a few moments. Dragon Ball Z is into this level...somebody once explained to me that Goku could potentially destroy the entire universe with one of his fireballs...basically pushing my opinion from comic-to-cartoon in less than a second.

Bugs Bunny rules this seventh realm of fantasy, and has apparently leased out this board to the Smurfs so they can keep an eye on us "lower forms".

That is my geek-synopsis for the day...I hope you enjoy.


evilvolus wrote:


The laughing troll isn't helpless, so you can't CDG even if you've got a fire source. So, it smells like the Enchanter's going to have to blow some...

Honestly, I don't care what you do at this point. Walk away, soak it in oil and toss one of those stupid fire stick things, drown it, whatever. The point is, the 3rd level non-evoker can completely remove it from the fight (for however long), while the best the 9th level evoker can do is singe it while it remains fully functional. Unless, of course, he wants to do the smart thing and not use evocations.

Thats a huge disconnect, especially when there are 6 levels between the two characters. And it seems really, really strange that a troll is a tougher encounter for the guy who has the actual job of 'doing fire damage'.

And here's the thing: the guy who blows things up is a valid concept. It can even be a fun concept. But the game, as designed, kicks you in the nuts for wanting to do that, and this warmage-lite evoker doesn't fix that. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even attempt to fix that. It just throws some arbitrary numbers at you and gives you some spell-likes of spells you'd be casting anyway.

The main problem, of course, are the edition changes. Spells were scaled with hit points in first edition, favoring spells a bit in practice, since a wizard could seriously destroy an ancient black dragon with 64 hit points without even trying. So 2nd tossed caps on spell damage, which was not totally unreasonable. Unfortunately, 3rd kept the caps, but the designers decided to let hit dice explode to the point that spell damage is barely relevant. The fighter got stuck with essentially the same problem. Time was, if he could survive the spells, a fighter could go one on one with the Demon Goddess of Spiders and expect the fight to be settled in 2 rounds- usually by the fighter smacking her around like a pinata. Now he just struggles to do damage that enemies will actually notice.

The Exchange

The evoker is a great concept and it translates well in the game. I don't care what people say, damage dealing spells work fine the way they are. A 9th level Evoker is way more powerful than that 3rd level enchanter. Just because the Troll is out of combat for 3 rounds doesn't mean that your party can effectively take it down. That Troll after those 3 rounds will come after the party. This arguement is moot. Damage and Save/die effects are both viable options. This game is not about making someone more viable than someone else, it's about teamwork and Save/die effects take away from the rest of the party and makes the game only enjoyable for one person.


Re: Deep slumber and bypassing the encounter.

Unfortunately, yes, although I believe that nonlethal solutions are the domain of the enchanter.

fliprushman wrote:
The evoker is a great concept and it translates well in the game. I don't care what people say, damage dealing spells work fine the way they are. A 9th level Evoker is way more powerful than that 3rd level enchanter. Just because the Troll is out of combat for 3 rounds doesn't mean that your party can effectively take it down. That Troll after those 3 rounds will come after the party. This arguement is moot. Damage and Save/die effects are both viable options. This game is not about making someone more viable than someone else, it's about teamwork and Save/die effects take away from the rest of the party and makes the game only enjoyable for one person.

There are so many things wrong with this post. The fact that you had to explain to us that a level 9 character is stronger than a level 3 character is one of them.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

Re: Deep slumber and bypassing the encounter.

Unfortunately, yes, although I believe that nonlethal solutions are the domain of the enchanter.

fliprushman wrote:
The evoker is a great concept and it translates well in the game. I don't care what people say, damage dealing spells work fine the way they are. A 9th level Evoker is way more powerful than that 3rd level enchanter. Just because the Troll is out of combat for 3 rounds doesn't mean that your party can effectively take it down. That Troll after those 3 rounds will come after the party. This arguement is moot. Damage and Save/die effects are both viable options. This game is not about making someone more viable than someone else, it's about teamwork and Save/die effects take away from the rest of the party and makes the game only enjoyable for one person.
There are so many things wrong with this post. The fact that you had to explain to us that a level 9 character is stronger than a level 3 character is one of them.

Enchanter Holds Evoker, Walks up to Evoker, Coup DegRaces Him, end.


fliprushman wrote:
The evoker is a great concept and it translates well in the game. I don't care what people say, damage dealing spells work fine the way they are. A 9th level Evoker is way more powerful than that 3rd level enchanter. Just because the Troll is out of combat for 3 rounds doesn't mean that your party can effectively take it down. That Troll after those 3 rounds will come after the party. This arguement is moot. Damage and Save/die effects are both viable options. This game is not about making someone more viable than someone else, it's about teamwork and Save/die effects take away from the rest of the party and makes the game only enjoyable for one person.

Heres the thing: many characters *are* more viable than other characters. For myself, it isn't about making them so, its that a revision is a chance to fix that.

The level 3 guy is an absurd illustration of how weak evocation is when stacked up against other schools. Does hideous laughter insta-gib the troll? No. But with one spell, you've completely shut down a monster 2 CRs higher than the average party level, for 3 full rounds. At ninth level, the evoker is struggling to match that feat with evocation spells, or else he uses a lot more resources. Thats, surprise, surprise, is bad design.

At 9th level, you could try to beat someone down with damage, but you have a choice of just slapping them down entirely with hold monster, dominate person, baleful polymorph, feeblemind or simply sealing them up inside wall of stone. Casting cone of cold doesn't compare with *any* of those options. Wall of force comes close, but interposing hand and sending are barely competing with first and second level spells, or in the case of sending, cantrips. Thats really, really pathetic. And the cone of cold cast at the entirely level appropriate greater earth elemental? Takes away not quite 16% of its hit points. Go you. Meanwhile the enchanter has hold monster with a DC of 10 + 5(spell level)+4 (int)+2(fox's cunning) + 2 (spell focus & greater spell focus)=23, so a 70% chance of ending the encounter with one spell.

So, yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb (a strong, sturdy limb, thats roughly 3 feet off the ground, given the math) and declare the evoker on the bottom of the pile. And before you say 'but dealing with groups...' I will refer you to cloudkill and shadow evocation. Yes, illusionists do everything you do, but better, since that horde of minions probably has poor will saves, and you can deal with whatever energy resistances come up on the fly.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Viktor_Von_Doom wrote:
Enchanter Holds Evoker, Walks up to Evoker, Coup DegRaces Him, end.

Roll init. 50/50 the Evoker goes first. With 3.5 hitpoints, a little under 50/50 that a fireball or scorching ray drops the enchanter outright. HP bloat in 3P *does* reduce the effectiveness of an Evoker against creatures with class levels.

Enchanter casts Hold Person, then moves up to CDG. Let's say the Enchanter's really focused on his DCs, so call it DC 20, and generously say that the Evoker has Wis 10 and no Cloak of Resistance or anything. 30% chance he resists outright, 51% chance he's unheld by the end of his turn. If the starting encounter distance was >30 ft. then he gets a 3rd save before a CDG attempt. 66% he's unheld in that case. A second Hold Person does make things much more inconvenient for the Evoker, but if he resists either one outright, the Enchanter is toast.

Enchanter clearly has an advantage in this encounter, but one that decreases significantly as the starting encounter distance increases. It's also a very clear indication that Enchanter excels against single targets, while the strength of the Evoker plays to combats with multiple opponents to AOE. The Enchanter is useless against undead and constructs, the Evoker is not. The solo Enchanter's no good against anything with DR, the Evoker is not. All mage types are weak against creatures with SR, except the conjurer, and only then if you allow the Orbs. Elemental resistances hurt the Evoker more, but he can still dish big enough numbers to make things hurt. I would like to see the Evoker have more flexibility in damage type for his spells, particularly on the fly.


Voss wrote:
Unfortunately, 3rd kept the caps, but the designers decided to let hit dice explode to the point that spell damage is barely relevant. The fighter got stuck with essentially the same problem... Now he just struggles to do damage that enemies will actually notice.

So your argument here seems to be less "evokers don't do enough damage" and more "nothing does enough damage". I can't completely disagree, but it doesn't have anything specific to do with evokers.

Anyways, I still contend that evokers do enough damage. In most cases, the evoker can do damage equal to 1/4 - 1/3 of a level-appropriate monster's HP in one spell. They can also usually do that damage in an area. That looks good to me. What more do you want?


evilvolus wrote:
Enchanter excels against single targets, while the strength of the Evoker plays to combats with multiple opponents to AOE. The Enchanter is useless against undead and constructs, the Evoker is not. The solo Enchanter's no good against anything with DR, the Evoker is not. All mage types are weak against creatures with SR, except the conjurer, and only then if you allow the Orbs. Elemental resistances hurt the Evoker more, but he can still dish big enough numbers to make things hurt. I would like to see the Evoker have more flexibility in damage type for his spells, particularly on the fly.

OK, in order:

undead & constructs
The enchanter goes and recruits a meatshield, (Hey there Mr. Tough-Strapping-Man, please (charm/suggestion) won't you help me against the nasty-bad undead things? No? *Dominate Person*.) and buffs the it and the party (rage & heroism). Hardly useless.

DR
doesn't matter to any wizard that puts some thought into his spells

SR
as long as its level appropriate, is almost always a joke. You may have to put some resources into, (feats, items or spells) but it isn't a barrier to anyone that puts in the effort

elemental resistance only hurts the evoker.
Everybody else really has better things to do.

--

@Benimoto- evokers are the only ones who have to care about doing damage. All other flavors of wizard shut people down without it.

What I'd like to see is everybody playing the same game. At the moment, most wizards, clerics & druids have access to olympic swimming pool.
Sorcerers and rogues are allowed into a roped off area of the pool
A couple other classes (including evokers, unless they decide to ignore their specialty) get to play in the kiddie pool
And fighters, monks and paladins have to content themselves with a small puddle.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Voss wrote:
And the cone of cold cast at the entirely level appropriate greater earth elemental? Takes away not quite 16% of its hit points. Go you.

Cone of cold that hits 3/4 of the level-appropriate encounter Large Earth Elementals knocks each of them to roughly half-hp. That feels pretty good to me. 100+ points of damage on a single spell doesn't feel like something to sniff at.

However, in looking at all of this, I do see a pretty good gap for the Evoker. After Scorching Ray, there's not much in the way of solid single-target spells. Balancing the AOE on the assumption of hitting more than 2 targets feels pretty right to me. So, let's give the Evoker a few more single-target spells that do roughly twice the damage of same-level AOE spells, preferably with some more flexibility in element type.

I wouldn't think of that as "giving the evoker more damage" as I would "giving the evoker more flexibility in how that damage is doled out"


evilvolus wrote:
Voss wrote:
And the cone of cold cast at the entirely level appropriate greater earth elemental? Takes away not quite 16% of its hit points. Go you.

Cone of cold that hits 3/4 of the level-appropriate encounter Large Earth Elementals knocks each of them to roughly half-hp. That feels pretty good to me. 100+ points of damage on a single spell doesn't feel like something to sniff at.

However, in looking at all of this, I do see a pretty good gap for the Evoker. After Scorching Ray, there's not much in the way of solid single-target spells. Balancing the AOE on the assumption of hitting more than 2 targets feels pretty right to me. So, let's give the Evoker a few more single-target spells that do roughly twice the damage of same-level AOE spells, preferably with some more flexibility in element type.

I wouldn't think of that as "giving the evoker more damage" as I would "giving the evoker more flexibility in how that damage is doled out"

If they are standing conveniently in the open (not using earth glide) in an AoE that doesn't include any of your party members, if they all fail their saves, I suppose you can feel...pleased about slightly injuring creatures 4 levels below you that can now still take their actions and attack your party.

But, in D&D, doing damage to a lot of targets, but not dropping them is bad tactics. They can still act, they can still damage you, so they eat away at even more of your resources (healing in this case). As a 9th level wizard, you have so many options at your disposal that would prevent the enemies from attacking your party at all, that even doing 99% of their hit points in damage is a bad idea.


I guess I'm not following the argument anymore.

Is it that an optimized enchanter is more powerful than an optimized Evoker?...or that the average Evoker cannot get it done in game terms?

This sounds like a C-OP battle. :P


Voss wrote:
evilvolus wrote:
Voss wrote:
And the cone of cold cast at the entirely level appropriate greater earth elemental? Takes away not quite 16% of its hit points. Go you.

Cone of cold that hits 3/4 of the level-appropriate encounter Large Earth Elementals knocks each of them to roughly half-hp. That feels pretty good to me. 100+ points of damage on a single spell doesn't feel like something to sniff at.

However, in looking at all of this, I do see a pretty good gap for the Evoker. After Scorching Ray, there's not much in the way of solid single-target spells. Balancing the AOE on the assumption of hitting more than 2 targets feels pretty right to me. So, let's give the Evoker a few more single-target spells that do roughly twice the damage of same-level AOE spells, preferably with some more flexibility in element type.

I wouldn't think of that as "giving the evoker more damage" as I would "giving the evoker more flexibility in how that damage is doled out"

But, in D&D, doing damage to a lot of targets, but not dropping them is bad tactics. They can still act, they can still damage you, so they eat away at even more of your resources (healing in this case). As a 9th level wizard, you have so many options at your disposal that would prevent the enemies from attacking your party at all, that even doing 99% of their hit points in damage is a bad idea.

This is also situational, is it not?

It's not a bad tactic if the fighter, ranger and rogue will end up dropping 2-3 out of five the same round or the begining of the next round is it? Also this is certainly effective when you have range and your enemies are running towards you. If the enemies stand and throw arrows they risk being in the blast of a fireball! Smart enemies may scatter and dumb enemies may die once the fighter or Paladin finishes his charge action via lance the next round.


David Jackson 60 wrote:

I guess I'm not following the argument anymore.

Is it that an optimized enchanter is more powerful than an optimized Evoker?...or that the average Evoker cannot get it done in game terms?

Its that most wizards can just outright win battles, and evokers can't. Whatever balance point you want, there is a big difference between 'enemies are slightly singed' and 'the wizard won the encounter'. I don't particularly think the second is good for the game, but thats what exists right now and unless Paizo changes their mind and decides backwards compatibility is a bad idea (because 3e has a lot of problems just like this) it will continue to be a problem in Pathfinder.


Voss wrote:
David Jackson 60 wrote:

I guess I'm not following the argument anymore.

Is it that an optimized enchanter is more powerful than an optimized Evoker?...or that the average Evoker cannot get it done in game terms?

Its that most wizards can just outright win battles, and evokers can't. Whatever balance point you want, there is a big difference between 'enemies are slightly singed' and 'the wizard won the encounter'. I don't particularly think the second is good for the game, but thats what exists right now and unless Paizo changes their mind and decides backwards compatibility is a bad idea (because 3e has a lot of problems just like this) it will continue to be a problem in Pathfinder.

Dunno... I guess I wouldn't mind seeing some more feats that the evoker can take (maybe something like magical weapon specialization-ray) or even a bit more boost to the + they are getting, but I think the Evoker functions pretty good in fact.

There are already some non-OGL options that can make the evoker do a ton more damage if ya check out the C-Op boards. I do understand the point of SoD's and immobilizing effects potentially being greater but the Evoker has access to many of those as well.


David Jackson 60 wrote:


This sounds like a C-OP battle. :P

The CharOp wars were fought over this literally seven years ago, and while isolated pockets of resistance held out for a few more years, clinging to fallacious arguments such as appeals to ignorance ("But you don't know what you might encounter!") and appeals to tradition ("Fireball was an iconic and functionally overpowered spell in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!"), eventually they were forced to submit.

Today the only evocations which are taken seriously by CharOp types are low level dart effects using a half dozen feats and weird options from a like number of books to stack multipliers and remultipliers on them until they do enough damage (with like 8th level spell slots) for high level characters to actually care some limited number of times per day (usually 3 because that's how often you can use metamagic rods).

Yes, at this point I am willing to take the appeal to Authority on this one. The Evocation wars have been fought. They have been won. Damaging Evocations suck.

Moving on.

-Frank


David Jackson 60 wrote:


Dunno... I guess I wouldn't mind seeing some more feats that the evoker can take (maybe something like magical weapon specialization-ray) or even a bit more boost to the + they are getting, but I think the Evoker functions pretty good in fact.

There are already some non-OGL options that can make the evoker do a ton more damage if ya check out the C-Op boards. I do understand the point of SoD's and immobilizing effects potentially being greater but the Evoker has access to many of those as well.

Weapon specialization (whether for spells or not) is another one of those 'its a trap!' feats. For what you are spending, or rather the opportunity cost of what you could be getting, you aren't getting anything good.

Really, all that gets you is that anything that isn't a kobold (or equivalent) is burnt (frozen, shocked, etc) just slightly more, measured in single digits, percentage-wise. That is never worth an actual feat.

On, SoD's and immobilizing effects, yes, he does have access. But thats also the point- aside from a small number of edge cases, he is better off using those instead of his evocations. Thats a sad and terrible thing. The mighty villain roars,
'You fools, I am a Master of Fire!'
'...butFireball is weak , so... *Hold Person*!'


David Jackson 60 wrote:


Well we all have our love of a specific fantasy level, and most of us can enjoy all to one extent or another.

Most people put these in a category of High-medium-low, but I have come up with my own ranking system...here it is from lowest to highest.

The biggest problem with your breakdown is they seem to be solid cells. You're either all in one category or the other. You can't even have magic missle until, what? D&D level? Love the Godfather, but I can't imagine a dragon in the Godfather. Weird that for a list of "fantasy" genres, like 2/3 of them take place in OUR world. Then there's the fact that you seem to kinda' lump everything you like into "D&D" because you like it, not because it especially fits. Dune, I would argue, is Godfather level (people in the extraordinary positions in their world--nobility in this case--and facing horrible grit while staying grounded, real characters) I'd argue Conan is more James Bond, with stylized characters and a story told specifically for loads of action. Heavy Metal has dove head first into silly cartoon land.

So yeah. Assuming we can agree that you can bounce between categories a bit I would say my taste would be the following:

I love me my Steel Magnolias settings--real like a heart attack. There's staph infections, guards stop people at the gate because there's been bugs in the crops lately and they want to try and keep as much infected fruit out of the city as possible. Nonmagical healing means recovery and lifelong effects. Pathetic, I'd prefer not to think so, but with a good solid baseline of hard reality. Life here ain't got no trampoline to break your fall. Facial scars aren't automatic "you're soooo cool"--they're as cool as you can sell them as, and it depends on who you're talking to.

As far as the characters, I'd say solid Godfather. Not many turnip farmer PCs in my games, nor kettle makers. Most folks are, but the PC's tend to be adventurers, the shady and somewhat intimidating community that live on the fringes of the small towns and settlements in the world.

As for stories, solid Call of Cthuhlu (okay loads more action--but the next stop on this train is James Bond, no thank you). The backdrop is real and believable--but terrible terrible things happen in the corners of this world. Manticores aren't sacks of hitpoints. They aren't cartoony. They don't sit in dungeon rooms waiting to put up a good fight before rolling. They're real living creatures as much as I can make them. They do what they do. Players have to contend more with the reality of the thing than it's statbar, which I could really take or leave. No video game here. It's pure story, with action and horror and drama.

Then magic. That's D&D fantasy, pure and simple. Magic exists, and all the various trappings that go with it. It's amazing and cool in all the ways it should be without going goofy and falling into the Cartoon category.

Of course, the funny thing is, you put all that together and you get what I would call "D&D Fantasy". Before it you'd have historical fiction and after it you'd have video game. Most folks tend to play Video Game fantasy. They don't try too hard to figure out what the red bar above their character represents, or why they can't unleash magic fury anymore when the blue line is down too low. They don't care why monsters loot drop piles of gold or magic weapons, they just click on them to pick them up. They stay in town just long enough to sell their loot, buy the best new helmet they can afford and talk to the next NPC with a gold ! above his head--cause that's the chorey business of getting quests. I find that lame like crazy, but hey to each their own.


A simple band-aid kind of solution - new evocation school powers (only changes noted):

4th level: Mastery of Evocations- You can prepare evocation spells dealing hit-point damage in lower level spell slots.
The spells still count as spells of the original level. You cannot apply metamagic feats to those spells.

6th level: Spontaneous Enlarge Spell-You can spontaneously Enlarge evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Enlarge Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 1. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

12th level: Spontaneous Empower Spell-You can spontaneously Empower evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Empower Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 2. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

14th level; Spontaneous Maximize Spell-You can spontaneously Maximize evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Maximize Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 3. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

16th level: Spontaneous Quicken Spell-You can spontaneously Quicken evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Quicken Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 4. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

18th level: Improved Energy Ray (Su) - Your Energy Ray (1st level power) deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level.
Your specialist bonus applies to this ability.


I tell you what- why don't we change the system entirely?

Give wizards the kind of respect they've been dreaming of for years. Every wizard will be a Gandalf or a Merlin in training... but they'll get, what? 1 spell slot per day (week?). Seriously, iconic wizards are not rocket launchers with people attached, they're manipulators, planners, mystics- people whose knowledge is important. The whole point of having wizard spells be Intelligence-based is that it's meant to be about how fast they can plan, react, counteract, and fool their enemies.

We shouldn't just be amping up power every edition (and adding new flavours of BOOM), we should be boldly rethinking what got us here and how we can channel that better.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Blue_eyed_paladin wrote:
I tell you what- why don't we change the system entirely?

Because that's a direct violation of the stated purpose behind 3P. We can argue back and forth about "how much is too much," but I'm confident that nearly all of us can agree that a completely rewritten magic system would eliminate any possibility of "compatibility" with 3.5 material.


Frank Trollman wrote:
David Jackson 60 wrote:


This sounds like a C-OP battle. :P

The CharOp wars were fought over this literally seven years ago, and while isolated pockets of resistance held out for a few more years, clinging to fallacious arguments such as appeals to ignorance ("But you don't know what you might encounter!") and appeals to tradition ("Fireball was an iconic and functionally overpowered spell in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!"), eventually they were forced to submit.

Today the only evocations which are taken seriously by CharOp types are low level dart effects using a half dozen feats and weird options from a like number of books to stack multipliers and remultipliers on them until they do enough damage (with like 8th level spell slots) for high level characters to actually care some limited number of times per day (usually 3 because that's how often you can use metamagic rods).

Yes, at this point I am willing to take the appeal to Authority on this one. The Evocation wars have been fought. They have been won. Damaging Evocations suck.

Moving on.

-Frank

I trust that's true. I've not looked at the C-Ops to verify or dispute it. But it seems to me that many people still advocate that a Sorcerer focus on evocation spells. I've never really understood why they do that (I'd like to take people who advocate it aside and ask "are you stupid?"), but yet they seem to do it all the same.

Any guesses as to why that little piece of advice remains prevalent while evocation is such a bad choice? Is that one of those weird unanswerable questions - like "what's the deal with furries?"

The Exchange

All I have to say is: Why are Wizards the only ones that need to kill anything? Fighters/Rogues/Clerics do exist in the game. They too can kill. Damage spells and incompatitating a creature is great, but what about the rest of your party? You are in a Party! Damage is as viable as Enchantments, as is Buffs, etc.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:
David Jackson 60 wrote:


This sounds like a C-OP battle. :P

The CharOp wars were fought over this literally seven years ago, and while isolated pockets of resistance held out for a few more years, clinging to fallacious arguments such as appeals to ignorance ("But you don't know what you might encounter!") and appeals to tradition ("Fireball was an iconic and functionally overpowered spell in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!"), eventually they were forced to submit.

Today the only evocations which are taken seriously by CharOp types are low level dart effects using a half dozen feats and weird options from a like number of books to stack multipliers and remultipliers on them until they do enough damage (with like 8th level spell slots) for high level characters to actually care some limited number of times per day (usually 3 because that's how often you can use metamagic rods).

Yes, at this point I am willing to take the appeal to Authority on this one. The Evocation wars have been fought. They have been won. Damaging Evocations suck.

Moving on.

-Frank

I trust that's true. I've not looked at the C-Ops to verify or dispute it. But it seems to me that many people still advocate that a Sorcerer focus on evocation spells. I've never really understood why they do that (I'd like to take people who advocate it aside and ask "are you stupid?"), but yet they seem to do it all the same.

Any guesses as to why that little piece of advice remains prevalent while evocation is such a bad choice? Is that one of those weird unanswerable questions - like "what's the deal with furries?"

The reason why the Sorcerer concentrates on Blasting is beacause other than Enchanting thats about all the Sorcerer can be good at seeing how he is so limited in what he can learn.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
fliprushman wrote:
You are in a Party! Damage is as viable as Enchantments, as is Buffs, etc.

Actually, here's a place where the problem with evoker vs enchanter gets more notice than in the solo examples above. Enchanter holds person, the fighter coup de graces.

I personally think that AOE damage does its job, clearly others disagree. I do agree that Evokers lack in good direct damage, which they should absolutely have. I'm also frustrated that the Orb spells make a Conjurer better at the Evoker's job than the Evoker, but that point is outside the scope of this conversation.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out that the bulk of my 3.5 experience has been in the 1-12 level bracket, and it may well be that the problem with Evokers is one that only becomes a significant issue in the 15-20 region. Fixing end game play is a job I wouldn't wish on my enemy, however.


evilvolus wrote:


I personally think that AOE damage does its job, clearly others disagree. I do agree that Evokers lack in good direct damage, which they should absolutely have. I'm also frustrated that the Orb spells make a Conjurer better at the Evoker's job than the Evoker, but that point is outside the scope of this conversation.

It isn't, actually. The conversation is revolving around the fact that evokers are pants at what they do. Thats another perfectly good example of why that is the case.

evilvolus wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out that the bulk of my 3.5 experience has been in the 1-12 level bracket, and it may well be that the problem with Evokers is one that only becomes a significant issue in the 15-20 region. Fixing end game play is a job I wouldn't wish on my enemy, however.

I'd say the problem with the evoker starts at level 1 and goes all the way up.

Magic missile vs sleep, color spray, grease
Scorching ray vs invisibility, web, glitterdust
Fireball vs. deep slumber, stinking cloud, haste, slow
and so on and so forth.
One person is approaching the encounter as a pillow fight, and the other person is plunging a knife straight through the eyesocket and into the brain. Strangely, however, the guy doing damage is the one pillowfighting.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Voss wrote:
It isn't, actually. The conversation is revolving around the fact that evokers are pants at what they do. Thats another perfectly good example of why that is the case.

Absolutely. However, this is not just a rant back and forth forum, this is a forum for developing a new revision of the 3E rules. I personally don't think that 3P dialing up the power of one class in order to bring it even with the broken features of a non-OGL splat source is an appropriate way to "fix" the game. If 3P supercharges the Evoker, and I don't allow the Spell Compendium at my table, is the Conjurer left in the dust?

And to be fair, I don't really see the Orb spells as completely broken, I just feel that they have no business at all being Conjuration spells. I understand WHY they're Conjuration, I just think it's as stupid as Cure Light Wounds being conjuration.


evilvolus wrote:
Voss wrote:
It isn't, actually. The conversation is revolving around the fact that evokers are pants at what they do. Thats another perfectly good example of why that is the case.

Absolutely. However, this is not just a rant back and forth forum, this is a forum for developing a new revision of the 3E rules. I personally don't think that 3P dialing up the power of one class in order to bring it even with the broken features of a non-OGL splat source is an appropriate way to "fix" the game. If 3P supercharges the Evoker, and I don't allow the Spell Compendium at my table, is the Conjurer left in the dust?

And to be fair, I don't really see the Orb spells as completely broken, I just feel that they have no business at all being Conjuration spells. I understand WHY they're Conjuration, I just think it's as stupid as Cure Light Wounds being conjuration.

I feel the same way about spells like Feild of Ice Razors and Wall of Blades being Evocation (FoIR I can see but Wall of blades?)


LilithsThrall wrote:


I trust that's true. I've not looked at the C-Ops to verify or dispute it. But it seems to me that many people still advocate that a Sorcerer focus on evocation spells. I've never really understood why they do that (I'd like to take people who advocate it aside and ask "are you stupid?"), but yet they seem to do it all the same.
Any guesses as to why that little piece of advice remains prevalent while evocation is such a bad choice? Is that one of those weird unanswerable questions - like "what's the deal with furries?"

Its been a long time since I've seen someone advocate that, even for sorcerers. In fact, its even worse for sorcerers, since they can't afford to have even a single wasted spell slot, whereas a wizard can fall back on his personal library of scrolls, and it doesn't matter if he felt like preparing a fireball on any given day. I could see having a direct damage spell about every three levels for some 'just in case' issues. Scorching ray, since its, well, better than most damage spells, and disintegrate since it has some utility uses. And then greater shadow evocation since its almost exactly like having every evocation spell of 7th level or lower.

That said, part of this lingering stupidity comes from the way 3.0 was playtested. The designers assumed that wizards, and sorcerers especially, would focus on tossing energy around, since thats what 1st and 2nd edition largely trained them to do. (As an aside, D&D computer games helped that too, frankly- illusions and divinations were hard, so were rarely implemented). And the playtesters mostly did that.

It was only about 6 months later when the optimization really got into full swing that the collective word got out on the internet, and really drove home the idea that, hey, focusing on the really effective spells, save or die, save or lose and save or suck as well as buffs, were much more effective than tossing a little blast of fire at things that could take a lot more damage than the used to be able to.


evilvolus wrote:


Absolutely. However, this is not just a rant back and forth forum, this is a forum for developing a new revision of the 3E rules. I personally don't think that 3P dialing up the power of one class in order to bring it even with the broken features of a non-OGL splat source is an appropriate way to "fix" the game. If 3P supercharges the Evoker, and I don't allow the Spell Compendium at my table, is the Conjurer left in the dust?

Eh. The orbs are paltry compared to what a conjurer can do with the PH alone. And when you get right down to it, the brokenness of a druid with natural spell is equal to and exceeding the brokenness of every splatbook ever printed.

But it isn't about supercharging the evoker (or any other class). Its about bringing all the classes to a level (up or down, I really don't care all that much, but I'd personally prefer down) where they are all playing the same game, not one where the cleric, druid and wizard are playing one game, and everybody else is playing something else. The one, where, as written, the fighter's best option is literally to take the Leadership feat, gain a cohort of one of the above classes, and play the cohort in lieu of his actual character.

Of course, to digress a little, I don't really think that pathfinder can really stay compatible and be any good in any case. Not that its particularly compatible now, since to use it, you pretty much have to redo the stat block of any NPC ever published. Skills, feats, class ablities, hit points, stats, at least something in every category has changed, sometimes a lot.

evilvolus wrote:
And to be fair, I don't really see the Orb spells as completely broken, I just feel that they have no business at all being Conjuration spells. I understand WHY they're Conjuration, I just think it's as stupid as Cure Light Wounds being conjuration.

They're conjuration because even the designers can't remember the pointless and arbitrary way they split the schools up. I can come up with convincing arguments to put roughly half the PHB spells in one of up to four different schools, depending on how its described. And given how much some of those spells have moved around over the years, so can they.


Perhaps a shift in damage should be made in spells in single target vs. multiple targets. Single-target attack spells could deal, say d8 or d10. Multiple target attacks spells deal the old d6.


Frank Trollman wrote:
David Jackson 60 wrote:


This sounds like a C-OP battle. :P

The CharOp wars were fought over this literally seven years ago, and while isolated pockets of resistance held out for a few more years, clinging to fallacious arguments such as appeals to ignorance ("But you don't know what you might encounter!") and appeals to tradition ("Fireball was an iconic and functionally overpowered spell in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!"), eventually they were forced to submit.

Today the only evocations which are taken seriously by CharOp types are low level dart effects using a half dozen feats and weird options from a like number of books to stack multipliers and remultipliers on them until they do enough damage (with like 8th level spell slots) for high level characters to actually care some limited number of times per day (usually 3 because that's how often you can use metamagic rods).

Yes, at this point I am willing to take the appeal to Authority on this one. The Evocation wars have been fought. They have been won. Damaging Evocations suck.

Moving on.

-Frank

+1


So how about a feat?

Evoker's Perogative
Prerequisites: Evocation Specialist or Caster Level 6th
Benefit: Increase the damage die rolled for damage dealing Evocation Spells by one step (max d12)
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times, it's effects stack, though the maximum of d12 remains. <so yes a Magic Missile of 5d12+5 damage could happen :P)

Mind you all this is arbitrarily made, I leave it up to you people to balance it.

Plus it's late so I'm allowed to be incoherent >.>


I'm going to try this in my campaign and see how it works out (this only affects wizard spells, not cleric spells).

Level - Single Target damage - Multiple Target damage
0 - 1d4 - not available
1st - 1d8/2 levels (max 5d8) - 1d6/2 levels (max 5d6)
2nd - 1d8/level (max 5d8) - 1d6/level (max 5d6)
3rd - 1d8/level (max 10d8) - 1d6/level (max 10d6)
4th - 1d8/level (max 15d8) - 1d6/level (max 15d6)
5th - 1d8/level (max 20d8) - 1d6/level (max 20d6)
6th - 3d8/2 levels (max 30d8) - 3d6/2 levels (max 30d6)
7th - 2d8/level (max 40d8) - 2d6/2 levels (max 40d6)
8th - 5d8/2 levels (max 50d8) - 5d6/2 levels (max 50d6)
9th - 3d8/level (max 60d8) - 3d6/level (max 60d6)

Of course, I've already been working to eliminate/reduce SoD-type effects, so this gives more firepower than at first glance. (And been working on fighters too).


Sadness to ponder:

A Rogue 17/Wiz 3 whose taken a couple Practiced Spellcaster feats (enough to raise his caster level to 11th) and invisibility/improved invisibility. 13d6 Scorching Ray thrice a round (39d6/round). The evoker would have to be dropping a Meteor Swarm + some quickened attack spell just to match it, and runs the risk he'll only do half damage if his opponent saves.

Sadly, neither attack would probably kill a 20th level enemy, whereas Polymorph Any Object could turn the opponent into a pebble in but a single round.

Even worse if it's just a rogue 20 with UMD and a wand of Scorching Ray.


LilithsThrall wrote:

I trust that's true. I've not looked at the C-Ops to verify or dispute it. But it seems to me that many people still advocate that a Sorcerer focus on evocation spells. I've never really understood why they do that (I'd like to take people who advocate it aside and ask "are you stupid?"), but yet they seem to do it all the same.

Any guesses as to why that little piece of advice remains prevalent while evocation is such a bad choice? Is that one of those weird unanswerable questions - like "what's the deal with furries?"
Sorcerers get fireball suggested to them for two reasons:
  • Sorcerers have an incredibly limited spell selection, so they need to have a spell selection that will always be of some use in every situation. Damaging spells, however ineffective, are easy to use conceptually. So even if you aren't good at the game enough to juggle people with web and minor image, you can hit someone with 5 dice of damage and see an immediate effect.

  • Sorcerers have a lot of spell slots of the levels that they happen to have. As previously noted it takes a lot of spell slots to actually kill enemies with Evocations, so if you wanted to throw fire at enemies until they died, you'd pretty much have to be a Sorcerer. A Preparation caster simply wouldn't have enough daily fireballs to last through major encounters.

So basically if you aren't good at D&D you can fall back on Evocations and accomplish something, and if you insist on fightig with Evocations you will occasionally need to throw down a lot of them. Since Sorcerers are actually really hard to design and play, but they get to throw out large numbers of single spells from time to time, they are a better fit for fireball than you'd think.

Which is not to say that it's a good fit, only that it is seriously the best thing that a lot of people can do with the class (because it's hard to play) or with evocations (because they are a big and erratic drain on spell slots).

-Frank


LilithsThrall wrote:

I trust that's true. I've not looked at the C-Ops to verify or dispute it. But it seems to me that many people still advocate that a Sorcerer focus on evocation spells. I've never really understood why they do that (I'd like to take people who advocate it aside and ask "are you stupid?"), but yet they seem to do it all the same.

Any guesses as to why that little piece of advice remains prevalent while evocation is such a bad choice? Is that one of those weird unanswerable questions - like "what's the deal with furries?"
Sorcerers get fireball suggested to them for two reasons:
  • Sorcerers have an incredibly limited spell selection, so they need to have a spell selection that will always be of some use in every situation. Damaging spells, however ineffective, are easy to use conceptually. So even if you aren't good at the game enough to juggle people with web and minor image, you can hit someone with 5 dice of damage and see an immediate effect.

  • Sorcerers have a lot of spell slots of the levels that they happen to have. As previously noted it takes a lot of spell slots to actually kill enemies with Evocations, so if you wanted to throw fire at enemies until they died, you'd pretty much have to be a Sorcerer. A Preparation caster simply wouldn't have enough daily fireballs to last through major encounters.

So basically if you aren't good at D&D you can fall back on Evocations and accomplish something, and if you insist on fightig with Evocations you will occasionally need to throw down a lot of them. Since Sorcerers are actually really hard to design and play, but they get to throw out large numbers of single spells from time to time, they are a better fit for fireball than you'd think.

Which is not to say that it's a good fit, only that it is seriously the best thing that a lot of people can do with the class (because it's hard to play) or with evocations (because they are a big and erratic drain on spell slots).

-Frank

Liberty's Edge

Wow.

Those of you who believe a 9th level *any class* SHOULD easily smoke a troll, go to your corner and put on your dunce caps. A troll SHOULD be a standard level encounter for a single 9th level character...or 2 7ths...or 4 5ths. That said, unless the troll gets the jump on him, (an unfair advantage) most 9th level evokers worth the title WILL reduce it to ash.

...more easily than most any other class.


It's funny how many low-CR things have elemental immunities and resistances. Fire resistance 10 completely removes scorching ray from the list of being a useful spell.


EldonG wrote:

Wow.

Those of you who believe a 9th level *any class* SHOULD easily smoke a troll, go to your corner and put on your dunce caps. A troll SHOULD be a standard level encounter for a single 9th level character...or 2 7ths...or 4 5ths. That said, unless the troll gets the jump on him, (an unfair advantage) most 9th level evokers worth the title WILL reduce it to ash.

...more easily than most any other class.

Having recently seen a similar example of an 8th level Sorcerer nailing a troll in four spells, I would have to agree.


Pneumonica wrote:
EldonG wrote:

Wow.

Those of you who believe a 9th level *any class* SHOULD easily smoke a troll, go to your corner and put on your dunce caps. A troll SHOULD be a standard level encounter for a single 9th level character...or 2 7ths...or 4 5ths. That said, unless the troll gets the jump on him, (an unfair advantage) most 9th level evokers worth the title WILL reduce it to ash.

...more easily than most any other class.

Having recently seen a similar example of an 8th level Sorcerer nailing a troll in four spells, I would have to agree.

4? Really? Four spells, 4 rounds and 4 actions?

Was he taunting it? Because even though I think evocations are absurdly weak, they shouldn't be *that* weak.

I'm really, honestly curious. What was going on? What spells were cast, and what else did he have access to?


Voss wrote:
Pneumonica wrote:
EldonG wrote:

Wow.

Those of you who believe a 9th level *any class* SHOULD easily smoke a troll, go to your corner and put on your dunce caps. A troll SHOULD be a standard level encounter for a single 9th level character...or 2 7ths...or 4 5ths. That said, unless the troll gets the jump on him, (an unfair advantage) most 9th level evokers worth the title WILL reduce it to ash.

...more easily than most any other class.

Having recently seen a similar example of an 8th level Sorcerer nailing a troll in four spells, I would have to agree.

4? Really? Four spells, 4 rounds and 4 actions?

Was he taunting it? Because even though I think evocations are absurdly weak, they shouldn't be *that* weak.

I'm really, honestly curious. What was going on? What spells were cast, and what else did he have access to?

I was including two spells that were already active at the time. One of them, for instance, was mage armor. During combat the sorcerer cast two spells.

The Exchange

I really hate the narrow focus going on here. I have a 9th level wizard in my current game(actually he's 10th now) who has a fireball that usually does 50-70 points of damage(I've seen it do almost 100, but he rolled almost max damage and was 10th level at the time). 1 fireball, everyone in a 20' radius. Empowered spellshard, Arcane thesis, a couple metamagic feats, bracers of entangling blast, metamagic rod.
His fireballs overcome fire resistance. He does 1/2 damage with his fireballs to creatures that have fire immunity. He laughs that he could actually burn a Fire Elemental. He can make everyone he damages in his blast entangled with the Bracers.
Just like I can take all the good feats and items to help up my DC for mind affecting spells to make them effective, I can do the same for my evocations and screw up some monsters with major damage. One fireball from him....no more CR5 troll.
How is that not on similar footing with the other schools?


How much work is required to make that fireball pull its weight again?

Again, I am going to side with the number-crunchers on the CO boards.

The Exchange

I would have to say that it takes the same amount of feats to make a fireball as viable as the amount of feats it takes to make enchantments viable.


fliprushman wrote:
I would have to say that it takes the same amount of feats to make a fireball as viable as the amount of feats it takes to make enchantments viable.

Um...enchantments benefit from Quicken Spells, Silent Spell, and Still Spell, but they are not necessary.


fliprushman wrote:
I would have to say that it takes the same amount of feats to make a fireball as viable as the amount of feats it takes to make enchantments viable.

This answers you better than I ever could.

He just used an example of a character who spent all his feats and equipment for a 9th level character on being able to spend all three of his Evocation Specialist's 5th level spell slots (something he wouldn't even have under Pathfinder rules as currently stand) on being able to one-shot a Troll who failed a save (DC 14 + Int Mod).

But if you had a Divination Specialist who went around doing whatever and spent his feats on Skill Focus: Profession, and your equipment on having a really pimp house full of succubi and some Chaps of Life Ward so you could kiss them without risking death, you could spend any one of your fourth level spell slots on charm monster and still one-shot that Troll on a failed save (DC 14 + Int Mod).

A character who invested his entire character into killing fools with fire just did something that any wizard of any specialty could do with no prior investment at all with a lower level spell slot using a spell from another school.

-Frank


Well, first I think we have to remember what the CO boards are all about. They aren't about game balance but about system manipulation.

I think they get a bad rap personally. I don't play that way (most people don't) but there are some good ideas thrown around on the CO boards to either spice up characters or make them generally more effective.

Frank is obviously referring to the magic-missle-machine-gun build. We wrote one of these up before. Now I'm not an expert at powergaming, but it was pretty easy to get the damage output up to about 150-200 damage per round average...not most of the time but always and every time barring some kind of intervention. I'm sure you can push that number considerably higher.

I know you can also push your damage up to about 75 on average with 2nd and 3rd level fire spells at around 9th.

Now if the goal is to build a wizard that can defeat this CR5 troll with less than 20% of it's resources at 9th, it looks like this is more than possible, and in fact probable with a fairly average build on an evoker. If that's the measure of an effective character, then I say the Evoker meets that requirement.

If it can't be optimized to the level of other builds except via the massive output of low level spells then that is another issue and not one about balance or normal gameplay isn't it? That's about creating the most whoopass character you can and not one that functions solidly.

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Combat & Magic / Damage spells should do more damage. All Messageboards