Damage spells should do more damage.


Combat & Magic

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

Feats are a type of resource. Dumping feat after feat into your abilities just so that you can stay on par with the other wizards is ridiculous.

In short: less QQ, moar pew-pew.

1d8+1 points of damage per level.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:

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.

Just as much as it takes to get a great DC for the other schools.


Fake Healer wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:

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.

Just as much as it takes to get a great DC for the other schools.

Except your example also required the expenditure of vast resources in order to pump up the damage and resistance busting to the point where it even mattered if enemies failed their saves. That's the difference, and it is damning.

-Frank

The Exchange

Frank Trollman wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:

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.

Just as much as it takes to get a great DC for the other schools.

Except your example also required the expenditure of vast resources in order to pump up the damage and resistance busting to the point where it even mattered if enemies failed their saves. That's the difference, and it is damning.

-Frank

I would hardly call a 4500gp spellshard a vast expenditure, all the other stuff is merely icing. What you are saying is that building someone to be good at Tripping (or really any particular type of specialized combat skill) is worthless because in order to trip really well you would need to boost your Strength, get the proper magic boots to resist being tripped, take the 3 or 4 feats that are helpful and any other related expenses.

You get a Wizo dropping 'save or' spells that isn't built to make them spells more powerful and you have a 9th level caster dropping a DC15-18ish spell that is, more than half the time gonna have the DC made. If you toss about the proper feats and items you can have a 9th level caster tossing around DC 22-26 stuff that works more than half the time. Or you can just drop damage all the time. Or you can summon 5 alien creatures that all surround and 'true strike' the BBEG for 20+hp average each and have each of them imbued with fire shield to burn the dude if he trys to harm them.
My arguement is that one or the other is not a better or more powerful way of casting.
If you get off an Irresistable Dance on the BBEG then you win.
If you wipe out 10 mid-range mooks and lay a hurtin' on the BBEG with a fireball then you also win.
Each style has it's place and I honestly don't see how one is more powerful than the other. In certain controlled situations each will out shine the others.

The Exchange

On another thought, why does it seem to be assumed that an Evoker can't cast all these other spells anyway? They aren't ONLY limited to Evocations. He can conjure, enchant, necromance and transmute like any regular wizo as long as he hasn't made that a forbidden school.


Fake Healer wrote:
On another thought, why does it seem to be assumed that an Evoker can't cast all these other spells anyway? They aren't ONLY limited to Evocations. He can conjure, enchant, necromance and transmute like any regular wizo as long as he hasn't made that a forbidden school.

It isn't assumed. But any argument that involves the evoker being good because he can cast things that aren't evocations inherently means that evocations suck.

If your best option is doing something else, you really should question why you do what you do.

Really, with the way the game is set up, a wizard is at his best if he has a variety of conjurations, enchantments, transmutations, illusions and necromancy spells that have different tags and target different saves (or bypass them completely). Now maybe you have a single fireball stuffed in your back pocket just in case you come across a room full of slimes/molds/whatever that you just need to clear out, or a trivial fight where you just want to blow something up. But its a just-in-case precaution, like feather fall or see invisibility.

The Exchange

Looking over the Troll example again.

Using Int of 15 for base.

3rd level Enchanter using Tasha's Hideous Laughter vs. Troll.
DC 14
Troll's Will Save +7 (+4 for being Giant)
Failed save means 3 rounds of Prone.

9th Level Evoker gets 2 stat increases so add 2 to Int for 17

9th level Evoker using Fireball vs. Troll.
DC 16
Troll's Reflex Save +4
Failed save means 9d6 of fire damage.

How is the enchanter better when you look at this way without feats? He has less of a chance for success than the Evoker. Plus I don't know why we are using a 9th level Evoker's Fireball when his 4th level spells are much more powerful. Ice Storm may not do lethal damage to the troll but their is no Save for the spell. It also slows the creature to half speed so a well placed storm would keep the troll from reaching the party for one round. Wall of Ice has a Reflex save DC 17 for the Troll and can take him out of the fight for 1 min/level. Evokers are not cheesed when they choose damage. They are getting exactly a good amount of power.


fliprushman wrote:

Looking over the Troll example again.

Using Int of 15 for base.

3rd level Enchanter using Tasha's Hideous Laughter vs. Troll.
DC 14
Troll's Will Save +7 (+4 for being Giant)
Failed save means 3 rounds of Prone.

9th Level Evoker gets 2 stat increases so add 2 to Int for 17

9th level Evoker using Fireball vs. Troll.
DC 16
Troll's Reflex Save +4
Failed save means 9d6 of fire damage.

How is the enchanter better when you look at this way without feats? He has less of a chance for success than the Evoker. Plus I don't know why we are using a 9th level Evoker's Fireball when his 4th level spells are much more powerful. Ice Storm may not do lethal damage to the troll but their is no Save for the spell. It also slows the creature to half speed so a well placed storm would keep the troll from reaching the party for one round. Wall of Ice has a Reflex save DC 17 for the Troll and can take him out of the fight for 1 min/level. Evokers are not cheesed when they choose damage. They are getting exactly a good amount of power.

Ice storm? Ice storm? An average of 13.5 points of nonlethal damage (for the troll) that is gone in 3 rounds. Yay. And a round of half-movement. And its a 4th level spell rather than 2nd...

You'd get a better result with grease or web, at a minimum they're stuck with half movement speed for the same amount of time, and it will likely have to give up multiple actions to get out of the area.

Wall of Ice is actually a decent evocation. But you'll note that it isn't primarily damage-focused. Its battlefield control, and that actually works.

But finally, you're seriously comparing a 3rd level character with a 9th level character. Who could just as easily be a conjurer, and using grease and web, by the way. Rather than the spell I chose purposefully because it was one of the worst 2nd level save or lose spells to throw at troll. And by saying 'no feats' you're hurting our apprentice enchanter way more than you're hurting the evoker. Which is kind of sad, given the level difference, and that you aren't exactly making a convincing case that a 31.5 points of fire damage is actually better than taking it out of the fight for 3 rounds.

But lets be serious about this for a moment.
Take a random monster for each of the following CRs: 1, 5 10, 15, 20
Justify why a wizard appropriate for that specific encounter would choose to cast a evocation over, well, anything else he could cast out of the Player's Handbook. The object is to defeat the monster, not just bypass it, in order to be kind to the evoker.


Voss wrote:

But lets be serious about this for a moment.

Take a random monster for each of the following CRs: 1, 5 10, 15, 20
Justify why a wizard appropriate for that specific encounter would choose to cast a evocation over, well, anything else he could cast out of the Player's Handbook. The object is to defeat the monster, not just bypass it, in order to be kind to the evoker.

Rather than setting up a random evoker against a random monster, why not do something more organic? Look through some old (or new) issues of Pathfinder or Dungeon Magazine and look at the encounters there. In my experience, 75%-90% of the encounters are against creatures whose individual HP totals are not more than an evoker would do in 2-3 spells. More often than not, there is the opportunity for the evoker to use area spells to damage multiple enemies at once.

Really, the objective alone justifies it. If you want to actually defeat a monster, as opposed to just delaying it or hindering it with status effects, the main way to do so is with HP damage.

The Exchange

Voss wrote:

Ice storm? Ice storm? An average of 13.5 points of nonlethal damage (for the troll) that is gone in 3 rounds. Yay. And a round of half-movement. And its a 4th level spell rather than 2nd...
You'd get a better result with grease or web, at a minimum they're stuck with half movement speed for the same amount of time, and it will likely have to give up multiple actions to get out of the area.

Wall of Ice is actually a decent evocation. But you'll note that it isn't primarily damage-focused. Its battlefield control, and that actually works.

But finally, you're seriously comparing a 3rd level character with a 9th level character. Who could just as easily be a conjurer, and using grease and web, by the way. Rather than the spell I chose purposefully because it was one of the worst 2nd level save or lose spells to throw at troll. And by saying 'no feats' you're hurting our apprentice enchanter way more than you're hurting...

First of all, I chose to leave out feats because they complicate the arguement that Damage Spells need to do more damage. By going off of just the basic, "I'm a wizard casting this level spell with this much intelligence" has a little more staying power than "Here is all my feats and such to be an ubercharacter."

Secondly, I chose the 3rd because people were saying that it's much more effective than the 9th. That's the only reason I used it in my example. I would have done an equal test but decided against it for right now. I may post up one later but who knows.

I just don't see the need for Evokers or Evocations getting to deal more damage. Mathematically and the Dynamics of the Party will shape what form of spells you are going to take and what they are capable of doing. The wizard is not the only character in the game.


I'm not sure it even matters.

We are debating a topic that basically says that the troll should be dropped with 20% of resources or less. Taking into account that the mage has no items that either boost his spell power or offer extra casting, this is possible given the spell list. Not with some uber-build but a fairly mundane one.

Also, when not facing an enemy on it's own, the Evoker has the ability to take it out of combat with multiple foes for the entire duration of the fight, and then let his party gang up on the single troll and stomp it into mush...not to mention this spell effects the trolls worst save...the spell being otilukes resilient sphere.

(BTW, this type of ability is typically where the single creature vs single player CR dispute pretty much stems from, not that I find the argument wrong in the sense it's a good method to check the system)

So no, I don't see the new version of the Evoker being underpowered in a game sense by any means in this example.


David Jackson 60 wrote:

I'm not sure it even matters.

We are debating a topic that basically says that the troll should be dropped with 20% of resources or less. Taking into account that the mage has no items that either boost his spell power or offer extra casting, this is possible given the spell list. Not with some uber-build but a fairly mundane one.

Also, when not facing an enemy on it's own, the Evoker has the ability to take it out of combat with multiple foes for the entire duration of the fight, and then let his party gang up on the single troll and stomp it into mush...not to mention this spell effects the trolls worst save...the spell being otilukes resilient sphere.

Right. Which is again avoiding damaging spells AND any wizard can do the same thing with other spells of a much lower level AND probably catch other creatures in the effect.

I will admit that the evoker does have one good trait on his side: he can't focus on his specialty and overpower the rest of the PCs at the same time, while most wizards can make most of the party redundant.


Fake Healer wrote:
On another thought, why does it seem to be assumed that an Evoker can't cast all these other spells anyway? They aren't ONLY limited to Evocations. He can conjure, enchant, necromance and transmute like any regular wizo as long as he hasn't made that a forbidden school.

We're assuming that the evoker is doing evoking and that the enchanter is doing enchanting.


Well first off... so can the evoker.

Last time I checked, the Evoker wasn't forced to only do damage dealing spells. The damage dealt for those spells can rival the fighters and rogues output if built strongly and can match close to optimized builds if that's really the goal, but will run out of spells way before the fighter and rogue run out of attacks of course (because they never do).

To say there are more effective ways to defeat opponents means fairly little since the damage done is adequate...and damage typically offers something to the group rather than an all or nothing save effect. While I don't really enjoy damaging spells that much, rarely do I have a wizard with zero memorized at the same time... there is just too much use for them in actual gameplay seeing is every other character will typically win via damage.

Since they function admirably, I really don't see the fact that a save spell has a solid possibility of winning a fight in a single round as a good reason to boost damage further than they have...especially since the evoker can mem more than a few of those spells in addition to the damage dealers.

We are still talking about the Evoker right?


Yes, damage spells should do more damage. There's simply too many resistances and immunities out there to make them worthwhile.

When I've played (And I've played with people who really optimize and with people who are new), evokers have by far been the weakest main casters in the game. Yes, sometimes the raw damage seems impressive, but spell resistance and energy resistance usually negate it.

I don't want evokers to be balanced with the other casters (making lightning can't compete with stopping time), nor do I want them to completely negate the damaging abilities of melees, but a boost would fix up what seems like a glaring problem. A per-die bonus to damage or a higher cap on each damage spell would definately help (especially at higher levels, when this becomes a problem.


David Jackson 60 wrote:

Well first off... so can the evoker.

Last time I checked, the Evoker wasn't forced to only do damage dealing spells. The damage dealt for those spells can rival the fighters and rogues output if built strongly and can match close to optimized builds if that's really the goal, but will run out of spells way before the fighter and rogue run out of attacks of course (because they never do).

To say there are more effective ways to defeat opponents means fairly little since the damage done is adequate...and damage typically offers something to the group rather than an all or nothing save effect. While I don't really enjoy damaging spells that much, rarely do I have a wizard with zero memorized at the same time... there is just too much use for them in actual gameplay seeing is every other character will typically win via damage.

Since they function admirably, I really don't see the fact that a save spell has a solid possibility of winning a fight in a single round as a good reason to boost damage further than they have...especially since the evoker can mem more than a few of those spells in addition to the damage dealers.

We are still talking about the Evoker right?

Your argument is that the evoker doesn't need a boost because he can use other, better spells. Well, that's like arguing that the rogue is overpowered because he can use UMD to cast <i>shapechange</i> and <i>gate</i>. The fact is, if the evoker is doing only evoking and if the enchanter is doing only enchanting, the enchanter wins. (Maybe I want to play a wizard who only does blasting, none of that namby-pamby "illusioning" or "divining.")


David Jackson 60 wrote:

Well first off... so can the evoker.

Last time I checked, the Evoker wasn't forced to only do damage dealing spells. The damage dealt for those spells can rival the fighters and rogues output if built strongly and can match close to optimized builds if that's really the goal, but will run out of spells way before the fighter and rogue run out of attacks of course (because they never do).

To say there are more effective ways to defeat opponents means fairly little since the damage done is adequate...and damage typically offers something to the group rather than an all or nothing save effect. While I don't really enjoy damaging spells that much, rarely do I have a wizard with zero memorized at the same time... there is just too much use for them in actual gameplay seeing is every other character will typically win via damage.

Since they function admirably, I really don't see the fact that a save spell has a solid possibility of winning a fight in a single round as a good reason to boost damage further than they have...especially since the evoker can mem more than a few of those spells in addition to the damage dealers.

We are still talking about the Evoker right?

I have to kind of disagree that they can rival melees in terms of damage. They might do as much raw damage, but more than half the monsters in the game are going to have spell resistance and energy resistance.

Anyway, I don't really think they should match the rogue and fighter in terms of damage; spell damage should be blowing most melee out of the water. There's no opportunity cost for melees to do damage, they simply use an infinate resource (as you said). For a wizard to do damage, they have to A: NOT memorize a better spell, and B: Choose to use a spell in the first place, which is a very limited resource.

Unless your party is simply fighting then resting, the wizard may have to go all day not using their spells, or, they may only be able to use little bitty spells because they want to wait for an opportunity to use their big spell. I don't really think it's fair that, if they choose a nuke as their big spell, they're simply going to wait all day to do 'as much per round as everyone else'.

Yes, evokers can use other spells, but can you really tell me, in all fairness, that an evoker, to keep up with the rest of the party, shouldn't be evoking? Their biggest spell of the day should be necromancy or enchantment. That's kind of a big dissapointment for a player who wants to play one.

Is it possible that since you don't like damage spells that you don't use them enough to know how much being an evoker sucks for the player?


Velderan wrote:

I have to kind of disagree that they can rival melees in terms of damage. They might do as much raw damage, but more than half the monsters in the game are going to have spell resistance and energy resistance.

In the games I run, (low to moderate fighting, level range 4-12) it's very rare to see any creatures with SR.

Maybe dark elves (and in my campaign only the nobles), but else...?


I think there have been sufficient examples here to show that a 9th level evoker can in fact defeat a troll. I'm sure that the people from the CO boards really have shown direct damage spells to be completely inferior in whatever petri dish their experiments were carried out in. That's fine, but damage spells seem to work fairly well in my everyday world of D&D games played in basements and on kitchen tables.

Maybe ours are not the most tactically advanced games. but we do routinely face and defeat encounters of the appropriate EL or above. In fact, I play the Fireball tossing Stalwart Sorcerer who Fake Healer was posting about earlier, and he dominates a lot of encounters. I actually ditched the Sudden Maximize feat partially because it was making one encounter per day too easy. I'll probably amp my damage up sharply again in a few levels, but most monsters will have more HP and be able to make the Reflex saves pretty consistently by then.

Anyhow, my sorcerer is probably about as powerful as any PC his level should be. This being the case, I think that powering up the spells he uses would be a bad idea. The excuse for my PC's power level is that he's kind of a one trick pony. He generates enormous amounts of fire damage, but that's about it. Giving the same or better effect with Fireball (and Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, etc) to every wizard who doesn't take evocation as a prohibited school would be a significant power up to what is already a powerful class. Of course there's also no reason why they couldn't go ahead and stack feats and items on top to get even better results.

A 10d8+10 base Fireball would average 55 damage before metamagic. That's slightly higher than my sorcerer's average of 51 points with his Blistering Searing Fiery Fireball. The Empowered d8+1/level version would average 82 damage base, well higher than my Empowered average of 68 due to the way Empower works. If the d8+1 caster took the same feats his Empowered Fireballs would average 98 damage by 8th level. These are very high damage totals, and depending on which books are in use they could probably be achieved as early as 7th level. Does every wizard really need 82 damage Fireballs? Can many campaigns really stand 98 damage Fireballs?

Psychic_Robot wrote:
The fact is, if the evoker is doing only evoking and if the enchanter is doing only enchanting, the enchanter wins.

What does he win, some kind of award for really inflexible spellcasting? Why would you ever limit yourself to just one school of spells? Choosing which schools to give up is one of the most important choices for a specialist wizard. When spells from your chosen school aren't appropriate you fall back on the others. Charm spells won't help against a black pudding, and Fireballs generally aren't much good against devils.

Of course my PC plans to hit devils for half damage using Searing Spell while shouting "Burn up all the wicked!", but that's more of a roleplaying decision than anything else. Not every PC has to be hyper optimized to dominate every situation. Sometimes different options are fun or just feel right for a particular PC. The point here isn't whether direct damage is as uber as some other options but whether it allows you to play a meaningful role in the party, and I feel it does.


Considering that most campaigns can survive save-or-dies/save-or-loses, I'd say that they could handle a little extra damage.

Your argument is that characters don't have to limit themselves to one school of spells. In the same manner, fighters don't have to limit themselves to one class--ergo, they aren't weak. Well, by that logic, anyway.


Neithan wrote:
Velderan wrote:

I have to kind of disagree that they can rival melees in terms of damage. They might do as much raw damage, but more than half the monsters in the game are going to have spell resistance and energy resistance.

In the games I run, (low to moderate fighting, level range 4-12) it's very rare to see any creatures with SR.

Maybe dark elves (and in my campaign only the nobles), but else...?

Well, aside from Drow elves, a plethora of demons, most devils, hags, Rakshasa, duergar, svirfneblin, and dragons, I'm sure I can find some.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Considering that most campaigns can survive save-or-dies/save-or-loses, I'd say that they could handle a little extra damage.

Your argument is that characters don't have to limit themselves to one school of spells. In the same manner, fighters don't have to limit themselves to one class--ergo, they aren't weak. Well, by that logic, anyway.

No, the arguement you keep choosing to ignore is that Evokers can and often do wonderful amounts of damage. Every point made on this whole thread to help prove the point about Evokations has been handwaved away and put down because some other facit of a character has been shown also. It is like having a discussion with a recording......"your argument includes feats"...."your argument includes alternate ideas"....

Save or dies suck unless you work to up the DCs a bit.
Conjuration has some issues that need feats to make work well.
Every school is only fair to average unless you add some focus from the PC, whether it is stat bumping to increase DCs, feat selections, items, or alternate class features.
Just ignoring legitimate arguments doesn't mean you are correct.


Devilkiller wrote:

I think there have been sufficient examples here to show that a 9th level evoker can in fact defeat a troll. I'm sure that the people from the CO boards really have shown direct damage spells to be completely inferior in whatever petri dish their experiments were carried out in. That's fine, but damage spells seem to work fairly well in my everyday world of D&D games played in basements and on kitchen tables.

Maybe ours are not the most tactically advanced games. but we do routinely face and defeat encounters of the appropriate EL or above. In fact, I play the Fireball tossing Stalwart Sorcerer who Fake Healer was posting about earlier, and he dominates a lot of encounters. I actually ditched the Sudden Maximize feat partially because it was making one encounter per day too easy. I'll probably amp my damage up sharply again in a few levels, but most monsters will have more HP and be able to make the Reflex saves pretty consistently by then.

Anyhow, my sorcerer is probably about as powerful as any PC his level should be. This being the case, I think that powering up the spells he uses would be a bad idea. The excuse for my PC's power level is that he's kind of a one trick pony. He generates enormous amounts of fire damage, but that's about it. Giving the same or better effect with Fireball (and Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, etc) to every wizard who doesn't take evocation as a prohibited school would be a significant power up to what is already a powerful class. Of course there's also no reason why they couldn't go ahead and stack feats and items on top to get even better results.

A 10d8+10 base Fireball would average 55 damage before metamagic. That's slightly higher than my sorcerer's average of 51 points with his Blistering Searing Fiery Fireball. The Empowered d8+1/level version would average 82 damage base, well higher than my Empowered average of 68 due to the way Empower works. If the d8+1 caster took the same feats his Empowered Fireballs would average 98 damage by 8th level. These are very high...

Personally, I wasn't talking about some kind of CO mathematical exercise. I was talking about similar games to the ones you describe.

And honestly, if a sorcerer is dominating your party, you may not be getting strong enough equipment for the encounters you face, or the other characters may be poorly made. I'm not referring to CO gods of death, but a 12th level character only doing 55 damage (as you'd have to be 12th level to use all that metamagic on a third level spell) is just not really that good. A roper has about 85hp and a purple worm has about 200. You just wasted your big spell for the day (worth quite a lot more than your little spells) to do half (or less) the HP damage of a monster that is only supposed to be absorbing about 20% of your resources, and that's assuming they don't save.

A mediocre rogue of that level can do sneak attack damage for an average of 21 damage per hit (not counting weapon damage, ability mods, etc), and they can continue to do it all day (double for dual wielders).

Also, you aren't adressing the issue of one set of spells vs another. For example, another sorcerer of that same level could be doing circle of death or disintegrate, which would just be killing your foes outright. And, unlike your character, that sorcerer wouldn't have to spend all of his or her feats specializing. I'm not trying to be mean, but he'd kind of be dominating your sorcerer.

As for your empowered fireball example, I am somewhat inclined to agree. that formula might be a bit much. But something like 1d8 or 1d6 +1 wouldn't be too off (or, I'm in favor of increasing the cap on everything by a few dice). Even then, in your example, you'd have to be a 9th level wizard or 10th level sorc to cast an empowered fireball. Yes, 98 points seems like a lot, assuming your foes have no SR or energy resistance, and they don't make their saves (that's assuming a lot). But, all things considered, at that level, you're only going to get do that a few times a day, and you aren't getting to cast much better spells to do so.

Again, I'm not saying damage spells need to be AS good as the other spells in the game, but they need a boost to compete.


Fake Healer wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:

Considering that most campaigns can survive save-or-dies/save-or-loses, I'd say that they could handle a little extra damage.

Your argument is that characters don't have to limit themselves to one school of spells. In the same manner, fighters don't have to limit themselves to one class--ergo, they aren't weak. Well, by that logic, anyway.

No, the arguement you keep choosing to ignore is that Evokers can and often do wonderful amounts of damage. Every point made on this whole thread to help prove the point about Evokations has been handwaved away and put down because some other facit of a character has been shown also. It is like having a discussion with a recording......"your argument includes feats"...."your argument includes alternate ideas"....

Save or dies suck unless you work to up the DCs a bit.
Conjuration has some issues that need feats to make work well.
Every school is only fair to average unless you add some focus from the PC, whether it is stat bumping to increase DCs, feat selections, items, or alternate class features.
Just ignoring legitimate arguments doesn't mean you are correct.

That's really not what he's saying. I agree with you, every class has to pump themselves up to specialize a bit. However, Evokers have to do more pumping up than any other caster to end up with far less effect. There are some good spells, but the damage spells are quite mediocre. The sorcerer in your group that you keep talking about had to use three feats just to get fireball to be even remotely workable. Any other caster might have to spend one feat and not be forced into quite that level of specialization. Really, I think you and Psychic_Robot are both raising legitimate arguments, so maybe neither of you should be ignoring the other.


Fake Healer wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:

Considering that most campaigns can survive save-or-dies/save-or-loses, I'd say that they could handle a little extra damage.

Your argument is that characters don't have to limit themselves to one school of spells. In the same manner, fighters don't have to limit themselves to one class--ergo, they aren't weak. Well, by that logic, anyway.

No, the arguement you keep choosing to ignore is that Evokers can and often do wonderful amounts of damage. Every point made on this whole thread to help prove the point about Evokations has been handwaved away and put down because some other facit of a character has been shown also. It is like having a discussion with a recording......"your argument includes feats"...."your argument includes alternate ideas"....

Save or dies suck unless you work to up the DCs a bit.
Conjuration has some issues that need feats to make work well.
Every school is only fair to average unless you add some focus from the PC, whether it is stat bumping to increase DCs, feat selections, items, or alternate class features.
Just ignoring legitimate arguments doesn't mean you are correct.

The fact is that evokers have to spend a lot more resources to get their abilities to function. Everything that you guys have posted is mathematically ridiculous. Wow, you can do 50 points of damage by spending a sixth-level spellslot. Hmm, that's great--too bad that the necromancer can snuff out the life of 12d4 HD of creatures in a 40' radius at the same level.

Are you literally incapable of seeing the difference between spending a feat on Quicken Spell and spending three feats to make fireball not suck?

The arguments against increasing the damage on evocation spells are invalid and made of fail. Everyone in the thread who has posted an argument against increasing spell damage has relied on bad logic:

1. Anecdotal evidence. I don't care what your experiences are; the math says that you are wrong. It's quite likely that your group is really bad at optimizing.

2. "Character optimizers are poopy-head powergamers!" Argumentum ad failinum.

3. Other spells are too powerful. Be this as it may, altering damage spells so that they do more damage is far easier and thus less likely to provoke outrage than nerfing a slew of Core spells. While I agree that many spells are broken, the best that Paizo can hope to do is get rid of the really, really broken things and leave the other things as they are. (Personally, I'd change save-or-dies to save-or-be-reduced-to-negative-one-HP, but that's just me...and I'm against resurrection magic.)

4. "With feats X, Y, and Z, the evoker can be semi-competent!" That's grand. Too bad the other spellcasters only need to take Quicken Spell to win. And Improved Initiative is just icing on that cake. Your point is completely invalidated by the fact that evokers need X, Y, Z, and Quicken Spell to compete.

But other casters need to spend feats to get high DCs! And evokers don't? Yeah, drop that fifty damage--hoo-boy, fitty whole damages!--by half and then apply fire resistance 10. Good game.

5. The evoker can use other spells. Yes, he can. And, like I said, the fighter can multiclass. By that (il)logic, the fighter isn't crippled in 3.5.

Seriously. Every single "rebuttal" to my initial post has been a pithy nothing that can be picked apart with not even a little effort.

The Exchange

Number 1 is an opinion on the way you and certain others use your version of math to prove your point. Bush had some interesting takes on math also, I believe it was dubbed 'fuzzy math'
Number 2 is not of any concern or anything I particularly care about in this instance.
Number 3. I have never stated that ANY spells are too powerful. Some are more useful in certain conditions but I don't think that ANY spells are way cooler or more effective than others.
Number 4 proves my point about not your listening to any of my points. Never did I bring up 50 damage. I brought up an average of 60-80 damage that overcomes all fire resistance and can burn creatures with immunity to fire for half damage.
and Number 5 is just a grandstand on your part to try to add bloated superiority to your argument.

Of course others' arguments seem pithy to you, you don't care to listen to their side well enough to really understand what they are saying.
With that I say good luck on your charge to fix the unbroken. I won't continue this 'discussion' any longer.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I cant help but find it ammusing that everyone uses for an example a lone wizard of X school facing lone monster of x type. I mean maybe ive been playing D&d diffrently for several years but generally its usually a team activity.

I also find it kind of funny people use fireball as an example of how damage spells dont do enough damage since its a spell designed for tacking out or damaging groups of enemies instead of a lone creature. Of course its unimpressive if your throwing it at a lone enemy thats not what its designed for.


Fake Healer wrote:


Number 1 is an opinion on the way you and certain others use your version of math to prove your point. Bush had some interesting takes on math also, I believe it was dubbed 'fuzzy math'
Number 2 is not of any concern or anything I particularly care about in this instance.
Number 3. I have never stated that ANY spells are too powerful. Some are more useful in certain conditions but I don't think that ANY spells are way cooler or more effective than others.
Number 4 proves my point about not your listening to any of my points. Never did I bring up 50 damage. I brought up an average of 60-80 damage that overcomes all fire resistance and can burn creatures with immunity to fire for half damage.
and Number 5 is just a grandstand on your part to try to add bloated superiority to your argument.

Of course others' arguments seem pithy to you, you don't care to listen to their side well enough to really understand what they are saying.
With that I say good luck on your charge to fix the unbroken. I won't continue this 'discussion' any longer.

Good thing I wasn't just talking about you, eh, Fake Healer? Unless, of course, you're the only one who in this thread who has said that damage spells don't need a boost. (Considering that I said, "Everyone in the thread who has posted an argument against increasing spell damage has relied on bad logic"...)

If any of the arguments presented in this thread held weight, then I'd consider them. However, much like the CODzilla thread, people disagreeing aren't just not right, they're very, very wrong.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
Hmm, that's great--too bad that the necromancer can snuff out the life of 12d4 HD of creatures in a 40' radius at the same level.

Wait, are you seriously saying that evocations suck compared to the mighty Circle of Death? Because Circle of Death is a spell that's useful oh.... never. You get it at 11th or 12th level and it doesn't work on anything with more than 9 HD. Fail.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
But other casters need to spend feats to get high DCs! And evokers don't? Yeah, drop that fifty damage--hoo-boy, fitty whole damages!--by half and then apply fire resistance 10. Good game.

You're arguing against yourself here. If a creature can make a save against a fireball, it can make a save against a save-or-die spell too. And then you haven't even done 15 damage--you've done 0. Fail.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Are you literally incapable of seeing the difference between spending a feat on Quicken Spell and spending three feats to make fireball not suck?

What exactly are you quickening here? Your argument seems to be that evocations suck compared to save-or-die spells, but you have to use an 8th level spell slot to quicken even the first, mediocre save-or-die spell. Which is going to affect nothing.


Kevin Mack wrote:

I cant help but find it ammusing that everyone uses for an example a lone wizard of X school facing lone monster of x type. I mean maybe ive been playing D&d diffrently for several years but generally its usually a team activity.

I also find it kind of funny people use fireball as an example of how damage spells dont do enough damage since its a spell designed for tacking out or damaging groups of enemies instead of a lone creature. Of course its unimpressive if your throwing it at a lone enemy thats not what its designed for.

That's true. I certainly get what you're saying. Fireball is just a very iconic spell. But aside from a couple of examples (scorching ray works fairly well) the lackluster performance of evocation spells carries to other spells as well.

Let's look at a single target spell: Polar Ray, which is 8th level

Polar Ray allows spell resistance and requires a touch ranged touch attack, so we'll say on average (since a great number of foes have SR at 15th level or higher) it's about a little more reliable than swinging a sword. At the level you get it, polar ray can an average of 52.5 damage, and, of course, there's not much wiggling room b/c it's level 8. (If you want to waste three feats on it, and you're in a colder area, you can always get cold spell specialization to bring this up to 60.5).

A marut inevitable (SR 25 BTW) is a pretty standard MM foe, and has 112 hp. Again...you do less than half it's HP in damage (slightly over if you waste three feats on cold spell specialization AND you're in the right area). I'm sorry, but, as a wizard, if I choose to use my biggest spell for the day, of which I have one or two in a typical campaign, I better be able to simply wipe a foe who is merely AT CR off the planet.

This spell does have a fairly high cap, but I think epic is a little beyond the scope of this discussion, so lets take it to the high end of the core books. At level 20, polar ray will do an average of 70 damage...I don't think a pit fiend is going to be very impressed by that.

I don't think people who are pro-damage upgrade are ignoring evidence shown to them any more than the anti-upgrade people are ignoring evidence shown to them. It seems like we have a lot of stubborness on both sides. I can see a lot of what you guys are saying, can you honestly say you can't see any validity to what we're saying?


Benimoto wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Hmm, that's great--too bad that the necromancer can snuff out the life of 12d4 HD of creatures in a 40' radius at the same level.
Wait, are you seriously saying that evocations suck compared to the mighty Circle of Death? Because Circle of Death is a spell that's useful oh.... never. You get it at 11th or 12th level and it doesn't work on anything with more than 9 HD. Fail.

And yet it will one-hit all those 9 HD creatures, unlike the mighty fireball, which will do all of fifty-some damage when boosted with metamagic.

Benimoto wrote:
You're arguing against yourself here. If a creature can make a save against a fireball, it can make a save against a save-or-die spell too. And then you haven't even done 15 damage--you've done 0. Fail.

Fortunately, the necromancer has spent his feats on increasing his save DCs, unlike the evoker who spent his feats on upping his damage and neglecting his DCs.

Benimoto wrote:
What exactly are you quickening here? Your argument seems to be that evocations suck compared to save-or-die spells, but you have to use an 8th level spell slot to quicken even the first, mediocre save-or-die spell. Which is going to affect nothing.

Forcing two saves in a round makes it substantially less likely that the target will succeed on both. The odds favor the non-evoker.


The burden of proof is on the folks who desire a shift. In fact, you have to be so convincing that a group of publishers for a game that hasn't been released yet are going to listen to you and make changes to the magic system. The fact that there are a hundred plus posts on this thread filled with people who are not convinced that your argument is not only valid, but also valid enough to demand pretty drastic changes to a system we've grown accustomed to, is evidence that the proof leaves much to be desired.

For example, compare a circle of death with a maximized Fireball. Both might kill a whole lot of creatures, depending on the creatures, and the situation. The circle requires expensive components, and has a chance of doing absolutely nothing. The fireball, while potentially having a less maximum effect, will do at least something, and is cheaper.

There are situations where the Circle is better. There are situations where I'd rather have the Fireball. In the end, it's not that you have proven nothing, it's that you haven't proven enough. So far, all I can tell that has been proven is that non-evocations work better in a number of situations than evocations. Frankly, I knew that already, and I remain unconvinced that evocations require an upgrade. It's not that I haven't heard good arguments, and I'm not particularly hard headed either. But saying that enchantments or necromantics are better for killing things is only true in some situations, and not true in others. If it were, than the folks who claim that their actual experience with the game contradicts your argument would have had an entirely different experience, and you would receive a great boost in your plight to Paizo to overhaul the spells. But as it stands, there is little doubt in my mind that drastic change will not take place. If your arguments fail to be convincing enough to sway the masses, then they won't be enough to sway the intentions of the game designers.


Well a few more things.

Extra spells aren't like refering to multiclassing, because every evoker has them. Not one or two or a specific build but every single one of them at every level of the game. Also the evoker has spells on the evocation spell list that do other things besides strait damage. He also has the most damage at the most range, minus some specific optimized build that I'm sure can outrange him.

Also, if the goal is to make the evoker function admirably in combat and he then does, that's not anecdotal even if he cannot be optimized.

If the goal is optimization, then the evoker can also be optimized. I don't have some radical dislike for the CO boards even though I don't usually game that way...rarely have I had this problem of optimization spill over into my game unwanted and unchecked, so I think this problem is more of an internet phenomenon that a problem at the gaming table. When powergaming does occur, typically most people are on the same page and that's what the group is looking for.

Either way the evoker can be optimized with some builds to make him very powerful. The question if he's the most powerful optimized build or just a solidly powerful one doesn't seem to be what's being debated here.

There also are certainly spells that seem overpowered, but the list is shorter than the internet wants to believe because the arguments around them are typically situational and often assume that the wizard can pull any spell he wants at any time. There are some spells that are truthfully problematic, but the internet list that's basically the entire spellbook is utterly wrong.

Like I said, I wouldn't be against a slight boost in the damage for evocation...specifically for evokers but if that doesn't happen it won't be a tragic event that makes the class terrible.

And come on Psi-Robot...this is starting to look more like one of your Gleemax threads than the ones you have typically been posting on here. Let's not make this place like that place...this place is fun.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
And yet it will one-hit all those 9 HD creatures, unlike the mighty fireball, which will do all of fifty-some damage when boosted with metamagic.

No it won't. It'll kill 12d4 HD of them, so 2-4 in most cases. An empowered fireball at 12th level does 63 damage on average. So if they have less than 8 or 9 HD, fireball would have killed them anyways.

So if you manage to get a group of 2-4 creatures who have more than 63 HP, but not more than 9 hit dice, and you get them to all fail their saves, then congratulations, you've made Circle of Death less than a total waste.

I'm not seeing many facts or math, or much logic here. You're just scoffing at people who disagree with your premise, and not even doing that very convincingly.


Jank Falcon wrote:

The burden of proof is on the folks who desire a shift. In fact, you have to be so convincing that a group of publishers for a game that hasn't been released yet are going to listen to you and make changes to the magic system. The fact that there are a hundred plus posts on this thread filled with people who are not convinced that your argument is not only valid, but also valid enough to demand pretty drastic changes to a system we've grown accustomed to, is evidence that the proof leaves much to be desired.

For example, compare a circle of death with a maximized Fireball. Both might kill a whole lot of creatures, depending on the creatures, and the situation. The circle requires expensive components, and has a chance of doing absolutely nothing. The fireball, while potentially having a less maximum effect, will do at least something, and is cheaper.

There are situations where the Circle is better. There are situations where I'd rather have the Fireball. In the end, it's not that you have proven nothing, it's that you haven't proven enough. So far, all I can tell that has been proven is that non-evocations work better in a number of situations than evocations. Frankly, I knew that already, and I remain unconvinced that evocations require an upgrade. It's not that I haven't heard good arguments, and I'm not particularly hard headed either. But saying that enchantments or necromantics are better for killing things is only true in some situations, and not true in others. If it were, than the folks who claim that their actual experience with the game contradicts your argument would have had an entirely different experience, and you would receive a great boost in your plight to Paizo to overhaul the spells. But as it stands, there is little doubt in my mind that drastic change will not take place. If your arguments fail to be convincing enough to sway the masses, then they won't be enough to sway the intentions of the game designers.

So You're saying that I shouldn't argue something because other people don't agree with me? Meh. Also, the changes being asked for aren't exactly drastic. A little bit of a boost so that one of the schools of magic doesn't suck. Not such a drastic request. Besides, no 'masses' here, There have been like five people who've posted more than once. While there is some feedback from players being taken into account, I'm pretty sure the designers see it as more than just a democracy, so I'm unconcerned what the masses think. Besides that, if they logically read through the thread and looked at everyone's posts (which I trust they're smart enough to do) I really doubt they'd be swayed by the arguments or math of the 'keep it the same' crowd.

The Exchange

Benimoto wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
And yet it will one-hit all those 9 HD creatures, unlike the mighty fireball, which will do all of fifty-some damage when boosted with metamagic.

No it won't. It'll kill 12d4 HD of them, so 2-4 in most cases. An empowered fireball at 12th level does 63 damage on average. So if they have less than 8 or 9 HD, fireball would have killed them anyways.

So if you manage to get a group of 2-4 creatures who have more than 63 HP, but not more than 9 hit dice, and you get them to all fail their saves, then congratulations, you've made Circle of Death less than a total waste.

I'm not seeing many facts or math, or much logic here. You're just scoffing at people who disagree with your premise, and not even doing that very convincingly.

But he did argue that Quicken would force two saves.....at the......cost of....two...spells....Hmmmm. I guess if we are talking about two spells each we should count 63(save for half)+63(save for half) Vs. 12d4 HD (save for none) + 12d4 HD (save for none). So if the creatures fail only one of the evokers spells he takes 94 damage(fail both and 126, save both and 63).

Hmmm. Yeah I'm convinced now. Not really.
BTW, good post Benimoto.


Velderan wrote:

So You're saying that I shouldn't argue something because other people don't agree with me?

Uh...hold on let me check...

Nope, never said that.

Velderan wrote:
Also, the changes being asked for aren't exactly drastic. A little bit of a boost so that one of the schools of magic doesn't suck.

Very well, I suppose the word "drastic" is relative. To me, any change without cause would be drastic. But thats a rather inconsequential portion of my statement; one that I won't argue further. The real issue here is the question of evocations "sucking". Which, I say again, has hardly been proven with math, or any other element for that matter.

Velderan wrote:
Besides, no 'masses' here, There have been like five people who've posted more than once.

Again, semantics. But it just reinforces my point. The fact that there are not more people in support of your argument could be taken as a small amount of evidence that no problem really exists in any significant way.

Velderan wrote:
Besides that, if they logically read through the thread and looked at everyone's posts (which I trust they're smart enough to do) I really doubt they'd be swayed by the arguments or math of the 'keep it the same' crowd.

And how does one "logically read"? You must mean if they read the posts with a discerning eye for reason. Well, again, it's not up to us to do any swaying, the burden of proof is on you. If the arguments that are mathematically based were accurate or enough to convince people that there really is a problem, then their wouldn't be any discussion. The people you are trying to convince at this stage are just as smart as game designers.


Jank Falcon wrote:
Velderan wrote:

So You're saying that I shouldn't argue something because other people don't agree with me?

Uh...hold on let me check...

Nope, never said that.

Velderan wrote:
Also, the changes being asked for aren't exactly drastic. A little bit of a boost so that one of the schools of magic doesn't suck.

Very well, I suppose the word "drastic" is relative. To me, any change without cause would be drastic. But thats a rather inconsequential portion of my statement; one that I won't argue further. The real issue here is the question of evocations "sucking". Which, I say again, has hardly been proven with math, or any other element for that matter.

Velderan wrote:
Besides, no 'masses' here, There have been like five people who've posted more than once.

Again, semantics. But it just reinforces my point. The fact that there are not more people in support of your argument could be taken as a small amount of evidence that no problem really exists in any significant way.

Velderan wrote:
Besides that, if they logically read through the thread and looked at everyone's posts (which I trust they're smart enough to do) I really doubt they'd be swayed by the arguments or math of the 'keep it the same' crowd.

And how does one "logically read"? You must mean if they read the posts with a discerning eye for reason. Well, again, it's not up to us to do any swaying, the burden of proof is on you. If the arguments that are mathematically based were accurate or enough to convince people that there really is a problem, then their wouldn't be any discussion. The people you are trying to convince at this stage are just as smart as game designers.


To step in on Velderan's behalf:

No one is arguing the intellect of the game designers or the posters. Rather, those of us in the "increase the damage" camp are arguing based on mathematical competence of the aforementioned parties. Quite frankly, given what I've seen in a number of threads, there are a number of people on these forums that lack mathematical competence--or even knowledge of the rules. I do, however, trust that the developers have more intimate knowledge of the game than I do, and I trust that they are acquainted with the CO Boards.

Thus, there is but one thing for them to do: increase the damage on evocation spells.

The reason I initially suggested 1d8+1 is because I assumed that the monsters were going to have more HP in Pathfinder because of the ways that characters can get more HP in the system (favored class, Toughness, variant starting HP). I agree that perhaps the 1d8+1 is too strong in terms of 3.5, but a damage of +1 damage per die is not at all overpowered (given that psionics, which is far more balanced than anything Core, has energy spells that do an additional +1 damage per die).


Also, the argument that "the masses disagree with you!" is an argumentum ad failinum--the appeal to popularity. Twenty million teenage girls might like the newest incarnation of N'Sync, but it doesn't mean that the music isn't s+$&.


Benimoto wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
And yet it will one-hit all those 9 HD creatures, unlike the mighty fireball, which will do all of fifty-some damage when boosted with metamagic.

No it won't. It'll kill 12d4 HD of them, so 2-4 in most cases. An empowered fireball at 12th level does 63 damage on average. So if they have less than 8 or 9 HD, fireball would have killed them anyways.

No it doesn't. A maximized fireball already at the damage cap does only 60 damage and has a Save DC like unto a 3rd level spell. I'm not a huge circle of death fan (really more of a cloud kill person), but this math is horse pucky.

-Frank


Frank Trollman wrote:
No it doesn't. A maximized fireball already at the damage cap does only 60 damage and has a Save DC like unto a 3rd level spell. I'm not a huge circle of death fan (really more of a cloud kill person), but this math is horse pucky.

Oh yeah, it sure is. My mistake, fireball caps out at 10d6, so an empowered version would only do 52 damage even at 12th level. Geez, and I was so smug too. ;)


Psychic_Robot wrote:
Also, the argument that "the masses disagree with you!" is an argumentum ad failinum--the appeal to popularity. Twenty million teenage girls might like the newest incarnation of N'Sync, but it doesn't mean that the music isn't s!@%.

And we all know the music is. Although that is just our opinion. Which might just be what this argument is about here. It's hard to argue against the laws of thermo dynamics, for example, because they can be proven mathematically. It's easier to argue against this particular point because a lot of folks here haven't seen much in the way of mathematical proof.

Frank Trollman wrote:


No it doesn't. A maximized fireball already at the damage cap does only 60 damage and has a Save DC like unto a 3rd level spell. I'm not a huge circle of death fan (really more of a cloud kill person), but this math is horse pucky.

-Frank

Watch your language, Frank, theres no need to get nasty. But this isn't a problem our group experiences. We use the same save DC's for all spells (half caster level plus ability mod, etc.) So a maximized fireball is about on par with a circle of death when we use it. Which is likely one reason, now that I think about it, that I don't think evocations are under powered.

Frank Trollman wrote:
Aha Jank, thats the thing. Thats not SRD, so your whole point is pretty much meaningless.

Sorry to put words in your mouth, Mr. Trollman, I'm just guessing that you might say something along those lines, but correct me if I'm wrong.

My house rules do go a long way towards making sure a Maximized fireball is comparable to a circle of death. Hey, give it a try, you might like it, I dunno. I won't put a lot of effort into convincing anyone here that it is the only way to go. But it may solve your problem without having to increase actual damage.


Jank Falcon wrote:
And we all know the music is. Although that is just our opinion. Which might just be what this argument is about here. It's hard to argue against the laws of thermo dynamics, for example, because they can be proven mathematically. It's easier to argue against this particular point because a lot of folks here haven't seen much in the way of mathematical proof.

Again, I'm not one to use an appeal to authority, but there is a REASON that the CO boards look contemptuously at damage spells. The frequency with which one encounters energy resistance at higher levels coupled with the high saves of monsters just castrates damage spells.

Jank Falcon wrote:
Watch your language, Frank, theres no need to get nasty. But this isn't a problem our group experiences. We use the same save DC's for all spells (half caster level plus ability mod, etc.) So a maximized fireball is about on par with a circle of death when we use it. Which is likely one reason, now that I think about it, that I don't think evocations are under powered.

So you think that nukes are fine--and you're arguing this--even though you aren't actually playing by the rules?

/facepalm


No I don't think nukes are fine. They ARE fine, in my game. Yes, we use different save DC rules which MIGHT be why I don't have the same problems you do. I don't know. I wasn't on the CO boards when these conversations were taking place, so I can't answer to that one way or another.

If the designers of this game change the evocations, I'll just change them back. If they don't, then you can change yours if you haven't already. There, "problem" solved either way. We may have just waisted our time anyway sense they have already mentioned that they are predominately not interested in new rules suggestions. And if they were, then streamlining save DC's is certainly easier than re-writing spells, assuming that was where the rift in our experiences lies.


Velderan - Using Polar Ray as an example is almost a low blow. We both know that you could do more damage with Empowered Scorching Ray, 63 average damage in a 4th level slot. Just two of those can potentially kill the marut.

The marut's SR can be a bit of a problem if you don't have access to Assay Spell Resistance or something similar. Since one of Pathfinder RPG's selling points seems to be "You can use all your old 3.5 books" I'd imagine that many or most players will have access to stuff like Spell Compendium though. If not than a feat or spell to debuff SR might be in order.

I disagree with your viewpoint that an 8th level spell should automatically wipe a CR15 opponent off the planet with little or no chance of failure. That might be part of why we see things differently. A CR 15 monster is supposed to be an appropriate encounter for an entire party of 15th level adventurers though, not just a lone wolf evoker. It should theoretically be an even match for the lone PC though one on one fights aren't what D&D is really designed for.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
1. Anecdotal evidence. I don't care what your experiences are; the math says that you are wrong. It's quite likely that your group is really bad at optimizing.

Psychic Robot - I think anecdotal evidence is perfectly valid when discussing game rules. Playtest results, after all, are basically "anecdotal evidence". I also don't think that "the masses disagree with you" is in an invalid argument here. I'd imagine that what "the masses" players like is an important part of game design though not the only thing to take into consideration.

Your point about elemental resistances making elemental damage spells less effective is something I can agree with. This is the whole point of elemental resistances after all. They can be largely avoided using Searing Spell, Piercing Cold, or Elemental Substitution though. Lord of the Uttercold isn't bad either and has some other uses. If you're looking for a "Core Only" fix in Pathfinder then feats, class abilities, or spells that let you vary your damage types or reduce resistances might be sensible. An ability that lets you bypass or avoid 10 resistance seems better to me than just slapping +10 damage on Fireball so it will blow through the resistances.

I notice that you scaled back your proposal from 1d8+1 to 1d6+1. This changes the parameters quite a bit. That's +15 damage on an empowered Fireball instead of +30, a significant difference. I'm not going to be so hardheaded as to sit here arguing that the game will become unplayably broken if you add +1 per level to damage spells. I still think there's no need for it though. It is kind of like if a player decided that greatswords do too little damage and should be raised to 4d6. After people pointed out that would be a bad idea he might say "Ok, let's just increase it to 3d6 then." Obviously the game would survive and still be playable if greatwords did 3d6. I still don't think there's any reason to make that change though.


In the face of empirical proof, anecdotal evidence sputters and falters.

My main issue is that--as you have probably surmised--Core-only evokers are pretty lame.

101 to 128 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
Recent threads in Combat & Magic