|
I understand how the system works just fine and i honestly dont see any reason for damage spells to be increased. It also dosent help when most of the so called math is using a spell like fireball (designed for doing damage against a group of enemies) and the complaining when it dosent do that much damage against a single creature. Of course it isent thats not what the spell is designed for. Also unless a creature has evasion most damage spells will still have an affect whether they make the save or not whilst a lot of non damage spells are either hit or miss they either do something or not.
If people are making grand statements about balance and they "aren't power builders" to the point where they are in all seriousness telling us that you get larger bonuses to skills from Charisma than from Intelligence - they are showing that they don't know what they are talking about. And that's both dangerous and sad.
Dungeons and Dragons is a collected work that is over five thousand pages long. Chances are, any particular thing that is being talked about is something that your group hasn't run into during play. But that does not mean that the thing in question is not problematic.
For example: The Extreme Cold rules. Do you even know what they are? What about the Hellish Cold rules? Did you know that Cocytos is apparently so cold that the frickin Ice Devils all freeze to death? Neither did the folks who wrote Fiendish Codex 2! Ice Devils in 3.5 aren't Cold Immune and the environment is so cold that they will all die in their own homes - of cold. That's a real game mechanical problem, which has real solutions (capping Hellish Cold damage at 10 or giving Ice Devils back their historical cold immunity would work).
But you probably never experienced that problem. You probably didn't even know it existed, because it's obscure. And you're on perfectly fine ground to ignore people complaining about it because you never intend to run an adventure in Cocytos and don't care what the rules say about the place. Or even to chime in and say that you intend to ignore Cocytos because you don't care what Fiendish Codices say about that or any other topic. But if you honestly come out of the woodwork and tell people that they are wrong to say that it is a problem on the grounds that you personally have not noticed this problem while gaming - then it is you who are are wrong. You are so incredibly wrong at that point that your input into the game is actively detrimental. It would be objectively better for the project and the game at large for you to say nothing at all.
An argument from personal incredulity, from a personal lack of experience, is a bad argument. And if you make it while people are attempting to get things done then you are a bad person.
-Frank
And as I mentioned in your original thread, that just has the effect of vastly increasing the power of metamagic feats to the point that wizards are one- or two-shotting an encounter that's meant to challenge the entire party.And that's the whole premise here. If an appropriate encounter is meant to engage a 4-person party for even a round or two, then it stands to reason that the wizard's damage spells should do around a third to an eighth of the monster's HP in damage on average. That is what they do right now. No increase in damage is necessary.
But... wow. OK. A third to an eighth is a huge variation. Even if something in that range is desirable, some spells have to be outright bad (or too good) to hit that kind of range. That should be fixed.
Second, and more importantly- that one shot issue? Wizards can do that now, without metamagic feats. So either damage spells are garbage and need to be fixed, or all other spells are too good and need to be fixed. Which do you suggest?
|
|
Problem is its not just me thats saying it several players have said that this isent a problem. I also love how people also presume to know what i do or dont do for my games. As a matter of fact i have thus far played 5 wizards 2 sorerors 1 duskblade and a warmage all using a wide variaty of spells and ive dmned campaigns with several wizards sorcerors etc and ive never came across the problem of damage spells not doing enough damage.
Problem is its not just me thats saying it several players have said that this isent a problem. I also love how people also presume to know what i do or dont do for my games.
It was a hypothetical that didn't mention you at all. If you feel that it applies to you, then it may. You should work on that.
-Frank
It occurs to me that you may just be happier with 4ed since many of the problems you seem to have appear to be addresed there.
People, calm down. You're both escalating tension and getting off of the topic at hand here.
P_R is correct. The vast majority of damage dealing spells are the worst possible choices at their spell tier.
Name me a spell level and I'll name you a non-direct-damage spell that is a better combat choice than every direct damage spell at its same level.
But... wow. OK. A third to an eighth is a huge variation. Even if something in that range is desirable, some spells have to be outright bad (or too good) to hit that kind of range. That should be fixed.
Well the range is largely due to the somewhat unconstrained nature of HP in 3rd edition. It's fairly common for one creature to have 2-3 times as many HP as another creature, both at the same CR and with similar defensive abilities. Then, when the creatures do have differing defensive abilities, it compounds the situation.
Second, and more importantly- that one shot issue? Wizards can do that now, without metamagic feats. So either damage spells are garbage and need to be fixed, or all other spells are too good and need to be fixed. Which do you suggest?
I don't suggest either of those. Those are false conclusions supporting a false dichotomy. Both damage spells and save-or-die spells can exist in a system without one overpowering the other.
And, as I said earlier, the argument that damage spells are garbage does not really lead to the conclusion that they'd be useful if they did a little bit more damage.
And that's the whole premise here. If an appropriate encounter is meant to engage a 4-person party for even a round or two, then it stands to reason that the wizard's damage spells should do around a third to an eighth of the monster's HP in damage on average. That is what they do right now. No increase in damage is necessary.
I wanted to pull this out becausse it's a good point, it illustrates how extraordinarily difficult it is to balance anything to do with D&D magic. And also why evocations are of dubious value. You see, I have no problem in the abstract with what you propose. Let's say a CR X monster lives through 8 CR X attacks. That's way, way longer than D&D monsters tend to live, but it's not at all an unreasonable idea. I haven't crunched numbers of compared it to the other tactical options, but maybe doing 1/8th of someone's hitpoints is a reasonable action to take. And plugging someone with a total of 8 polar rays is a reasonable way to kill them.
The problem is that a Wizard doesn't have 8 polar rays, or even 4 polar rays. A 15th level wizard has one 8th level spell, plus a spell-like ability, plus probably but not necessarily a bonus spell. So if it takes four shots to kill a demon, then the wizard can't even kill one. It isn't reasonable to aska wizard to spend more than one or two spells on a given enemy, because that's al the spells he has. Those spells, therefore, need to be about as a effective as whetevr anyone else is doing. The regrettable thing is that, if a wizard needs to kill things in two spells, he needs to kill thigns in two rounds, which is way faster than a fighter kills anything. Of course, chucking two SoDs with 50/50 success *also* kills something in 2 rounds with 2 spells.
If we were starting form scratch there are any number of ways we could balance these spells. Instead of polar ray, we could have a spell called "hand of frost" that let you polar ray at will for 1 round/level. Alternately, we could make a spell called "clutch of ice" that took 2 rounds to cast and did 3d6/level damage. But reformulating D&Ds damage spell paradigm is probably outside the scope fo this project.
So here's how thigns work: right now, the most effective spells are crowd control or save or dies. Damage spells *need* to kill thigns in like 2 shots to be balanced against those. Of course, fighters would need to be *way* better to be balanced against those damage spells. that would be difficult, and not everyone wants the game that lethal. The alternative, nerfing *all* the good spells, would be even more difficult. So it's entirely possible that it's simply impossible for damage spells to be balanced in Pathfinder.
That said, I sincerely doubt bumbing all or most of them to D8/level would break them.
The problem is that a Wizard doesn't have 8 polar rays, or even 4 polar rays. A 15th level wizard has one 8th level spell, plus a spell-like ability, plus probably but not necessarily a bonus spell. So if it takes four shots to kill a demon, then the wizard can't even kill one. It isn't reasonable to aska wizard to spend more than one or two spells on a given enemy, because that's al the spells he has. Those spells, therefore, need to be about as a effective as whetevr anyone else is doing. The regrettable thing is that, if a wizard needs to kill things in two spells, he needs to kill thigns in two rounds, which is way faster than a fighter kills anything. Of course, chucking two SoDs with 50/50 success *also* kills something in 2 rounds with 2 spells.
Riiiight, but again, you're assuming that the 3 other members of the party aren't doing anything. Even in the worst case scenario, where the wizard needs 8 hits to kill something, if you assume that the other 3 members of the party are doing something just as useful, that means that the monster dies in 2 rounds. That means the wizard used 2 spells, not 8.
Plus, metamagic feats and other reasonable optimizations are going to push the damage far above 1/8th of an average monster's HP. Like up to around 1/3 or more, in my experience. For example, at 15th level, we're not talking about a 53 damage Polar Ray being the maximum damage output. Instead, it's more like a Maximized Cone of Cold for 90 damage, plus a Quickened Scorching Ray for 42ish more.
It's not difficult to push that even further, particularly if you use feats and spells from the Complete books or the Spell Compendium. For example, an 8th level spell slot can kick out an Empowered Split-rayed Orb of Acid/Cold/Fire/Electricity for 15d6 * 1.5 * 2, or 157.5 average damage, no save, no SR.
Even if you're satisfied with doing 15d6 damage, no feats, a 15th level wizard doesn't have have to use his two daily 8th level spells to make that happen. Cone of Cold (5th level), Chain Lightning (6th level) and Delayed Blast Fireball (7th level) all do 15d6 damage. The 15th level wizard, assuming one bonus spell at each level, has like 14 spell slots that are 5th level or higher.
These are the kinds of numbers I am talking about when I say that damage spells seem okay right now.
|
But if you honestly come out of the woodwork and tell people that they are wrong to say that it is a problem on the grounds that you personally have not noticed this problem while gaming - then it is you who are are wrong. You are so incredibly wrong at that point that your input into the game is actively detrimental. It would be objectively better for the project and the game at large for you to say nothing at all.
...
I disagree with the notion that experiential evidence is not valid. Especially in a discussion about a game. Extra especially when the only grounds people have given for the "problem" is that their personal experience is that it is a problem, or statements about conclusions drawn on another board they frequent. The fact is, very little other than opinions are being offered here, so one does not merit any extra weight over another.
I have asked that someone who is in favor of changing this particular set of rules to show us the math (versus the damage other characters of the same level are capable of,) and have yet to have that request be satisfied.
The "CO Boards" people are not in complete agreement as P_R has stated. I popped over and have read through many of the discussions, and have seen no great consensus.
The apparent "problem" with Damage Spells is that they are not as equally effective as other types of spells of the same level. Frank's solution was to lower the spell level. The designers of 4th edition have apparently decided to even out the math with other character classes while effectively making the other "optimal" spells less effective ("removing save or die" and "save or be stuck for the rest of combat" spells and effects.)
My preference is that we do not change the damage of damage spells unless we can show they are suboptimal only compared to the damaging abilities of other classes at the same level.
It occurs to me that you may just be happier with 4ed since many of the problems you seem to have appear to be addresed there.
Ewww, no.
I disagree with the notion that experiential evidence is not valid. Especially in a discussion about a game. Extra especially when the only grounds people have given for the "problem" is that their personal experience is that it is a problem, or statements about conclusions drawn on another board they frequent. The fact is, very little other than opinions are being offered here, so one does not merit any extra weight over another.
But if you honestly come out of the woodwork and tell people that they are wrong to say that it is a problem on the grounds that you personally have not noticed this problem while gaming - then it is you who are are wrong. You are so incredibly wrong at that point that your input into the game is actively detrimental. It would be objectively better for the project and the game at large for you to say nothing at all.
...
I think you're misreading Frank here. He's not saying that any given person's experience of a problem doesn't mean it exists; indeed, it very well proves that it's come up at least once. Frank is talking about the notion that the absence of personal experience means that the problem doesn't exist at all. You can say, having experienced a problem, that it exists. You can't say, having not experienced it, that it doesn't exist.
I don't not have an absence of a lack of negatives not unleft from that last paragraph, so I don't suppose I won't dump them in this sentence.
Some time ago, the designers of 3.5e stated that they'd actually increased the power of non-combat spells in order to make them more attractive to players. In light of that, I suggest that damage-causing spells remain where they are - and all the other spells get taken down a notch.
Are you just skipping over what other people are posting? If you actually read some of what others have posted, you would realize that your ideas to "Make nukers better" are wasted. The majority of players are fine with the way things are now.And the majority of players don't understand the mechanics behind D&D, so that argument is moot.
Hobbes is interesting reading, however, the premise that the average man isn't fit to rule himself and must subordinate himself to the person who knows better is rather outdated: don't you think?
The majority of players I have met do not have a problem with damage output of spells like fireball. Yet you suggest that the majority should be treated as two year olds and told, "no really your wrong, damage sucks because i said so". If you really have a problem with damage output when the majority do not, then it would seem that you should house rule it versus the game being changed so that the majority have to house rule it back.
Personally, the multiple ways spellcasters have to increse thier DCs and so increase the effectiveness of save or die spells is more of a problem than fireballs being only 10d6.
Douse some of the flames guys, it's the internet, and it's discussion over that which has not in any way been set in stone.
The basic fact I keep going back to is that the wizard and specialist wizards have always been able to function well in the game with the current damage. I think characters need to be balanced over specific abilities all being equal, and a even non-optimized build often functions well in the game.
The wizard and other spellcasters have versatility in their damaging ability...in range, effect, scope, function, type, and in the opposing stat they have to overcome. Many of them have additional powerful effects that can accompany them and some of them have completely unique game mechanics that offer them worth in specific situations (like MM always hitting and also being force, which fundamentally makes it an automatic death knell in alot of situations). This is once again in addition to all the other things full casters are capable of doing, even when specifically focused.
Some of the points made about damage and also about specific spells (polar ray) are correct. As a measure of overall character worth (even for the evoker or sorc) probably aren't in my eyes.
My preference is that we do not change the damage of damage spells unless we can show they are suboptimal only compared to the damaging abilities of other classes at the same level.
El Burito handled the rest of this post beautifully, so I'll leave it there. But this part is extremely easy.
At first level, you have the choice between:
- Magic Missile - that does 3.5 damage that automatically hits unless your opponent has full concealment or Spell Resistance. That takes like 2 shots to drop an Orc Warrior, while a Fighter with a warhammer does over 5 damage (dropping an enemy orc warrior in one hit), and hits 65% of the time. Both characters will stop being able to deliver this attack if the Orc Warriors bring them down with damage (which takes 1 hit for the wizard and 2 for the Fighter, and the Fighter gets a better AC), and the Wizard also has to stop when he runs out of magic missiles.
Conclusion: Magic Missile is terrible. The Fighter swinging a basic martial weapon and using a shield is still 30% more offense against the rubric of orc warriors dropped per round, and the Fighter has a lower marginal cost and takes less personal risk spending a round doing that. We can similarly compare anyone capable of using a decent basic melee weapon such as a morningstar - meaning that anyone except a Monk likewise beats this by default.
or
- Burning Hands where multiple Orcs have to save for half against 2.5 damage. Taking 3+ hits at close range to drop however many Orcs you can get into the pile, not only do you not have that many spell slots, but you also are physically unlikely to survive in a melee environment with pissed off orcs for that long while they beat on you with Falchions (+4 to-hit and one hit drops a mage).
Conclusion: Burning Hands is even worse. The Fighter outshines this so horribly that it isn't even funny. So does literally everyone else, no matter what their attack plan is, because there isn't any other playable character whose battle plan involves them not expecting to win a fight against a single Orc.
Moving on up. Let's go to everyone's favorite level for these comparisons: 10th. At this point the Wizard has lots of options available. But basically it comes down to doing 35 damage (save for half) or half that with no save (which is just like they automatically made their save, but whatever). So now the the equivalent to the Orc Warrior is the Stone Giant. Your party is encountering them in small groups. It's also high enough level that the basic warriors in your party are doing things more complex than "swing a non-masterwork longsword," so we'll be focusing in on those as the "options." A Stone Giant has a crap reflex save, but a formidable 119 hit points - so it takes an average of four 10-die spell attacks to drop one. Wizards can also have a lot more hit points at this level, so it probably takes the Stone Giant three hits to drop the Wizard instead of one for the first level Orc against the appropriate Wizard. The Stone Giant gets 2 attacks a turn up close and personal (and maybe attacks of opportunity), but only one at range. Getting four spells off is possible.
But the Other Classes:
- Charge Build You're tenth level. You have a magic Lance, a Griffon Mount, and Spirited Charge. You can seriously charge for over 60 damage, killing a Stone Giant in just two hits. The Stone Giant's AC of 25 is paltry compared to your Attack Bonus, and you probably hit on a 7+ or even better. You'll drop a Stone Giant in 3 attacks and you are a lot more resilient than the Wizard while doing it.
- Halfling Hurler You're a 10th level Rogue who gets an extra 5 d6 of damage on every attack. You have Rapid Shot, so you can throw 3 vials a turn. Each vial hits on a natural 2+, and does 6d6 + equal damage next turn unless the target washes themselves. You can mark both Stone Giants for death in two rounds. Actually, between misses and the damage delay it will take you 3 rounds to kill both. Which is still amazingly better than 4 rounds to kill one or both depending upon where they stand.
- Berserker Everyone loves those berserkers. First off, you can't even die from Hit Point damage unless the battle goes on for more than 8 rounds. You used to be able to get into a situation where you were slated for death but you'd also attack the Cleric coming to save your life, but between Righteous Wrath and Moment of Clarity that no longer happens. Any Stone Giant attacks against you merely use up healing resources, they won't actually put you down. They'd actually be better off grappling you, except that your CMB is so high that they can't. In the meantime, you swing your giant sword into giants for about 38 points a shot, so you'll go through a Stone Giant (and an enormous amount of required healing) in 3 or 4 rounds.
Right. First and tenth, the Evoker comes up short when placed against anyone else that is seriously being sent in to kill things with damage.
-Frank
Hobbes is interesting reading, however, the premise that the average man isn't fit to rule himself and must subordinate himself to the person who knows better is rather outdated: don't you think?
The majority of players I have met do not have a problem with damage output of spells like fireball. Yet you suggest that the majority should be treated as two year olds and told, "no really your wrong, damage sucks because i said so". If you really have a problem with damage output when the majority do not, then it would seem that you should house rule it versus the game being changed so that the majority have to house rule it back.
Personally, the multiple ways spellcasters have to increse thier DCs and so increase the effectiveness of save or die spells is more of a problem than fireballs being only 10d6.
If the majority of players don't have a problem with mechanics, then the mechanics should be changed without their consent. They won't care if fireball does more damage--in fact, the party evoker will likely think he's gotten quite the boost when, in fact, he's barely being put on part with a necromancer or transmuter. The fact is, those that don't know the mechanics shouldn't be making decisions about the mechanics. That's like saying that we should ask the input of John Q. Public when redesigning a bridge that needs to be redone for the benefit of all.
John Q. will say, "We like the bridge how it is! Don't change it."
The architects will say, "Um...the bridge has a number of flaws in its design. These should be fixed."
Then John Q. will reply, "The majority of people are fine with the current bridge! You're just squalling like a two-year-old! Our uninformed opinion is more important than yours because we're the majority!"
And then the architects would all /facepalm and realize that democracy is flawed.
|
|
I think you're misreading Frank here. He's not saying that any given person's experience of a problem doesn't mean it exists; indeed, it very well proves that it's come up at least once. Frank is talking about the notion that the absence of personal experience means that the problem doesn't exist at all. You can say, having experienced a problem, that it exists. You can't say, having not experienced it, that it doesn't exist.
And I would say that this is also false reasoning. Just because "George" has a problem with a rule, does not mean the problem with the Rule exists. Maybe the problem is "George" and the way he is looking at the Rule. If "George" comes on here and says "Everyone knows that the Light spell is broken, because it lets you see in darkness, and I don't think you should be able to do that.", people have every right to express a different opinion. The idea that people cannot refute a perceived problem within the rules is ludicrous.
|
|
At first level, you have the choice between:[list] The Fighter outshines this so horribly that it isn't even funny. So does literally everyone else, no matter what their attack...
I agree that 1st level Evocation sucks comparably. Thank you.
Moving on up. Let's go to everyone's favorite level for these comparisons: 10th. At this point the Wizard has lots of options available. But basically it comes down to doing 35 damage (save for half) or half that with no save (which is just like they automatically made their save, but whatever).
Actually, since we're going with optimized builds for the comparison class, let's compare it to what an optimized Evoker can do too, shall we.
Scorching Ray Maximized 5th level 51 damage per casting no save touch attack( (Math 4d6 x 2 Maximized 48 +3 Evoker’s Specialist Bonus)
Fireball Empowered 5th level 55 damage x number of enemies caught in it save for 1/2 Assuming you use it on 2 targets, one saves, one fails (Avg DC 16 vs +6 reflex), 82 damage (Math avg 10d6 = 35 x 1.5 =52+3 Evoker’s Specialist Bonus)
Scorching Ray Empowered 4th level 45 damage per casting, no save touch attack (Math avg 4d6=14 x 1.5 = 21 x2 rays =42+3 Evoker’s Specialist Bonus)
Scorching Ray 2nd level 31 damage per casting Math (Avg 4d6= 14 x2 = 28 +3 Evoker’s Specialist Bonus)
Add in another 2 points to those Scorching Ray spells if using Point Blank Shot.
Charge Build You're tenth level. You have a magic Lance, a Griffon Mount, and Spirited Charge. You can seriously charge for over 60 damage, killing a Stone Giant in just two hits. The Stone Giant's AC of 25 is paltry compared to your Attack Bonus, and you probably hit on a 7+ or even better. You'll drop a Stone Giant in 3 attacks and you are a lot more resilient than the Wizard while doing it.
You get to charge the giant once. Unless you want to move at least 10' between charges, which, with a Stone Giant's 10' reach, will provoke an attack of opportunity. Even using withdrawal only protects you from the first square you leave.
Halfling Hurler You're a 10th level Rogue who gets an extra 5 d6 of damage on every attack. You have Rapid Shot, so you can throw 3 vials a turn. Each vial hits on a natural 2+, and does 6d6 + equal damage next turn unless the target washes themselves. You can mark both Stone Giants for death in two rounds. Actually, between misses and the damage delay it will take you 3 rounds to kill both. Which is still amazingly better than 4 rounds to kill one or both depending upon where they stand..
Please excuse my ignorance, but what are you throwing that causes 6d6 damage the second round? Acid Flasks do 1d6 the first round and 1 splash. Alchemical Fire does 1d6 and 1 splash with 1d6 the next round. For that matter (and based on your proven expansive knowledge of the game, this is probably my ignorance speaking again) what ability/feat allows a rogue to apply his sneak attack damage to every (ranged) attack? (And the third shot hits on a 5 or better, but we'll assume that lands)
Berserker Everyone loves those berserkers. First off, you can't even die from Hit Point damage unless the battle goes on for more than 8 rounds. You used to be able to get into a situation where you were slated for death but you'd also attack the Cleric coming to save your life, but between Righteous Wrath and Moment of Clarity that no longer happens. Any Stone Giant attacks against you merely use up healing resources, they won't actually put you down. They'd actually be better off grappling you, except that your CMB is so high that they can't. In the meantime, you swing your giant sword into giants for about 38 points a shot, so you'll go through a Stone Giant (and an enormous amount of required healing) in 3 or 4 rounds.
Not ignoring this, just agreeing with it.
So, overall, at 10th level, I can't agree, given that 2 out of your 3 examples do not bear out. Perhaps with further explanation regarding the rogue & charger I might be persuaded.
This is the kind of discussion that has merit, imo. Not just "my experience" versus "your experience", so thank you for putting up some numbers.
|
CO boarders, awaken! Don't automatically acclaim yourselves to be the ones to know the mechanics "the best". I've been watching from the side, and the problem appears to be way you bring the problems up. The 1st post does not hold any proof nor reasoning to why the damage should be increased.
I shall bring out the Warmage. A one-trick-pony, adept in dealing damage with spells, has made a decent entry. CO boarders might say it is weak, but players tend to think differently. I doubt the slight increase in damage via Warmage Edge holds a huge relevance here, even though it closely pars with the much desired +1/die damage.
Now I speak from personal experience; a barbarian inflicts a LOT more damage than a wizard with almost any spell (though a 12th level druid with an empowered Arc Lightning is horrid). With the iterative attacks the warrior's damage multiplies faster than a wizard's. Around the 5th level, before the warriors get their second attack per round, the fireball is fierce and dreadful. After that, a warrior often gets to do two or three attacks (haste is our friend), each dealing around 15-20 damage if we are speaking of a two-handed weapon dude.
It depends largely on the way of playing. Those who thrive more on the character concept, such as a Sword & Board fighter, tend to play in groups that don't think much on the power side. Additionally, some might even accept the fact that a wizard is more powerful, because it's magic! Doy, of course it's more powerful, shiny particles and glitter and glee!
Since Pathfinder aims to be in the organized play industry as well, it's more important to have a clear, balanced set of rules with very little holes or overpowering aspects for the sake of equality. Granted, those people I've seen to clearly powerplay have always been frowned upon and eventually been exiled from a gaming group after another. But I know people who have been stubborn enough to argue about some power combo they so eagerly wanted to use despite others finding it grossly against all ethics of gaming.
So, to say a valuable comment to this nonexistant vote, I vote in favor for the +1 damage/die suggestion. Of course, I'd prefer have some or all of the "save or die" and "save or suck it" spells reduced in power. Nevertheless, Burning Hands dealing 5d4+5 is nowhere near superpowerful. Ever tried to shoot a 15 ft. cone without damaging your friends? Thought as much. ;)
Moving on up. Let's go to everyone's favorite level for these comparisons: 10th. At this point the Wizard has lots of options available. But basically it comes down to doing 35 damage (save for half) or half that with no save (which is just like they automatically made their save, but whatever).
Right, Reckless already mentioned it, but I would add that at 10th level, the Wizard can also supplement his Maximized or Empowered spells with Quickened Magic Missiles if he really wants to go for burst damage. That's another 17-ish damage on top of the 45-55 damage you're already doing.
And defensively, it's very difficult to ever top the wizard. A spell like Improved Invisibility, or Fly or even Mirror Image will basically rule out the giant doing any significant damage.
Evokers can potentially use every other spell available to a wizard. That's an important point to consider. We're not talking about balancing the damaging abilities of a class that only does damage. We're talking about balancing the damaging abilities of a class that already does a lot of other things very well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misreading Frank here. He's not saying that any given person's experience of a problem doesn't mean it exists; indeed, it very well proves that it's come up at least once. Frank is talking about the notion that the absence of personal experience means that the problem doesn't exist at all. You can say, having experienced a problem, that it exists. You can't say, having not experienced it, that it doesn't exist.
And I would say that this is also false reasoning. Just because "George" has a problem with a rule, does not mean the problem with the Rule exists. Maybe the problem is "George" and the way he is looking at the Rule. If "George" comes on here and says "Everyone knows that the Light spell is broken, because it lets you see in darkness, and I don't think you should be able to do that.", people have every right to express a different opinion. The idea that people cannot refute a perceived problem within the rules is ludicrous.
No.
NO.
NO!
I'm really getting short tempered with you, so I'll keep this extremely bare.
Not experiencing a problem is not the same thing as experiencing a non-problem.The fact that you haven't experienced a problem may mean that it doesn't exist. But it also may mean that you simply haven't experienced it for any of a thousand other reasons (characters selected other spells, players never read spells in question, spells were never cast in the manner that breaks the game, or whatever).
If you think that something isn't a problem, you'd better back that up with analysis or relevant personal experience or your supposition is worthless. Experience is relevant not merely because it involved playing the game, or even that it involved using the parts of the game that are being claimed as broken. It's relevant only if it included using the game elements cited in the manner predicted to break the game and it did not break the game.
So a relevant response to someone complaining about light might be "Our game has used light to see in the dark. We found that it had similar effects to the use of Torches, which our characters also had. As such, I do not find the use of cantrips to be out of line to save on materials which cost copper pieces." An irrelevant response would be "I've played a lot of D&D and I've never bothered casting light, so it's not broken." The first is an experience of the power being used in the way that was supposed to be unbalanced, the other was not. And way too often people come on this board to offer the second kind of critique.
If someone says that Rule X is broken because Y, you could make any of the following statements in response:
- The use of Rule X in conjunction with Y is in line with using Rule M in conjunction with N, I believe this is balanced.
- You are correct, I propose the following modification to Rule X or Y in order to fix the problem.
- You are incorrect, as you are reading Rule X and/or Y incorrectly.
- You are incorrect, Rule Z already accounts for this.
And the following are bad responses:
- Rule X is not broken because the DM could change the rules.
- Rule X is not broken because I have personally never experienced Rule X with Y.
If you make one of these bad responses, you are wrong. You are a bad person at this point. Your arguments make the world a worse place to be in.
-Frank
|
|
Not experiencing a problem is not the same thing as experiencing a non-problem.The fact that you haven't experienced a problem may mean that it doesn't exist. But it also may mean that you simply haven't experienced it for any of a thousand other reasons (characters selected other spells, players never read spells in question, spells were never cast in the manner that breaks the game, or whatever).
I completely agree.
If you think that something isn't a problem, you'd better back that up with analysis or relevant personal experience or your supposition is worthless. Experience is relevant not merely because it involved playing the game, or even that it involved using the parts of the game that are being claimed as broken. It's relevant only if it included using the game elements cited in the manner predicted to break the game and it did not break the game.
Likewise, I would say that if you come here saying something is broken, you must back it up with analysis or your supposition is worthless.
If someone says that Rule X is broken because Y,
That would be great! Could we get some of that here?
And the following are bad responses:
Rule X is not broken because the DM could change the rules.
Rule X is not broken because I have personally never experienced Rule X with Y.
If you make one of these bad responses, you are wrong. You are a bad person at this point. Your arguments make the world a worse place to be in.
Ok, Frank, I can agree these are bad responses.
However, the problem also lies with the other side of the case, where the argument is presented as:
Rule X is broken, we should fix it by doing Y.
or
Rule X has been discussed to death at Site Y and they all agree that Rule X is broken. (When a quick perusal of Site Y shows more discussion than agreement.)
or
Rule X Sucks. Disagree with me? You’re stupid. You don’t know the rules.
People are responding in a like manner to the OP and you have a problem with the responses. I have a problem with the OP’s presentation, and that is why I have asked for the math behind the conclusion of suckage. In fact, I would go so far as to say we both have the problems with the exact same kind of posting. I just see it in both the OP and the responses, and would argue that the OP’s opinions are no more valid than the respondents’, without relevant comparative data.
How many games have you designed? Do you have a phd in D&D? I seek your qualifications, because you have made this statement, and yet seek to redesign the game.
You don't need to have designed a game to know how it works. I agree that damage spells are lacking, and they need to be made better.
|
Just posting this up again to show you why damage spells should stay the same. I do agree that Polar Ray is not 8th level spell material but it too can be abused with a rogue with sneak attack if done right.Also thinking about it, DO you really want the enemies throwing back the same powerful spells that you are using against it?
EX. My CR 7 Human Wizard(Using Pathfinder) decimates the party with a 9d6+9 fireball because only the rogue has a chance to save and the average damage is now 40.5 against the avg 7th level fighter's HP at 43+(7xCon)(10 for first plus 5.5/level). If that fighter's con was 13 that means that fireball just about took him out. That player wouldn't be happy if the Wizard rolled higher for damage.
Let me take this example to 3.5
CR 7 Human Wizard would still seriously hurt the party. 7d6+7 for an avg. of 33.5 against the same fighter. That's still most of his health in one hit. Put that up against any other member of the party besides the rogue and you just wiped out the party.
Damage is balanced the way it is and it doesn't need anymore tweeking to put it on par with Save or die effects. Save or die effects are less likely to work because they have more than one disadvantage against them unlike the damage spells.
I don't know why this argument is not being brought up. Yes uping damage spells helps the players but it also hurts them more.
|
|
You don't need to have designed a game to know how it works.
Of course you don't. But it would help P_R's stance if he could show that he actually know the game's mechanics, or at least game mechanics in general, since he is suggesting by his post that you have to be a game designer to discuss changes to the game.
That's like saying that we should ask the input of John Q. Public when redesigning a bridge that needs to be redone for the benefit of all.
John Q. will say, "We like the bridge how it is! Don't change it."
The architects will say, "Um...the bridge has a number of flaws in its design. These should be fixed."
Then John Q. will reply, "The majority of people are fine with the current bridge! You're just squalling like a two-year-old! Our uninformed opinion is more important than yours because we're the majority!"
And then the architects would all /facepalm and realize that democracy is flawed.
See what I mean? Do you see what I was responding to?
I agree that damage spells are lacking, and they need to be made better.
Velderan, thank you for registering your opinion. Care to back it up with any facts? Or just adding to the poll?
Reckless, do you care to respond in any way to the numerical analysis that I posted on this very thread?
Many of us are already in the convinced pile as we've gone over the numbers hundreds of times, several times on this very board. What do you have to offer or claim here?
-Frank
|
|
Reckless, do you care to respond in any way to the numerical analysis that I posted on this very thread?
Many of us are already in the convinced pile as we've gone over the numbers hundreds of times, several times on this very board. What do you have to offer or claim here?
-Frank
I did, above. you must have missed it.
PS-Also, if you have time, could you provide me with links that might help me be convinced? If not, I understand. If I have time, I look for them on my own.
Ah indeed you did. Things you overlooked:
- The maximized Evoker doesn't have enough spells to take on a group of Stone Giants if he's using 5th level spell slots for the purpose. He only has 3 (2 for level, 1 for Int bonus).
- The Mounted Charger gets to use Ride-by-Attack with a Lance.
- A 10th level Halfling Hurler can and will invest in a ring of blink and a pile of Acid Flasks.
-Frank
Just thought I should mention this to ya Frank. The Pathfinder people seemed to have removed that feature on blink with the current Alpha, where your attacks are treated as invisible. Doesn't change discussions of prior balance, but it's something to be aware of.
|
|
Ah indeed you did. Things you overlooked:
- The maximized Evoker doesn't have enough spells to take on a group of Stone Giants if he's using 5th level spell slots for the purpose. He only has 3 (2 for level, 1 for Int bonus).
This is one of the reasons I listed the spell levels, actually. An Empowered Scorching Ray does 45, and the Wizard has 4 of those available on top of the 3 5th level ones.
Plus, along the same lines as the blink ring below (and for a little over half the cost), a 10th Level Evoker should probably benefit from a maximize metamagic rod, meaning he can maximize his fireball 3 times for 103 Damage to each target that misses its save each time. 51 damage on a save. Again assuming 1 makes it and 1 fails, 154 damage.
Or Maximized Scorching Ray for 51 damage, so at that point you're better off using Fireball.
ok so
Maximized (Rod) Fireball (lvl 3) 103/51 times number of targets , usable 3 times
followed by
Empowered Fireball 52/26 times number of targets OR Maximized Scorching Ray 51, usable 3 times
followed by
Empowered Scorching Ray 45, useable 5 times.
The Mounted Charger gets to use Ride-by-Attack with a Lance.
Ah, good point. You're right, I completely missed that.
A 10th level Halfling Hurler can and will invest in a ring of blink and a pile of Acid Flasks. -Frank
Yep, that'll get you sneak attack every attack. With a 20% miss chance per throw, which isn't too terrible. That's 24d6 a round if he hits (84 damage) with all three each round.
• Charge Build You can seriously charge for over 60 damage, killing a Stone Giant in just two hits. The Stone Giant's AC of 25 is paltry compared to your Attack Bonus, and you probably hit on a 7+ or even better. You'll drop a Stone Giant in 3 attacks and you are a lot more resilient than the Wizard while doing it.
• Halfling Hurler You're a 10th level Rogue who gets an extra 5 d6 of damage on every attack. You have Rapid Shot, so you can throw 3 vials a turn. Each vial hits on a natural 2+, and does 6d6 + equal damage next turn ( This is where I thought you went wrong- Not equal damage {6d6} the next turn) unless the target washes themselves. You can mark both Stone Giants for death in two rounds. Actually, between misses and the damage delay it will take you 3 rounds to kill both. Which is still amazingly better than 4 rounds to kill one or both depending upon where they stand.
• In the meantime, you swing your giant sword into giants for about 38 points a shot, so you'll go through a Stone Giant (and an enormous amount of required healing) in 3 or 4 rounds.
So by my math, the Evoker can kill 1, 2, or more stone giants in 3 rounds, whereas the others can go through 1. The difference is the Evoker can’t do it twice in one day. (Unless he gets multiple Rods at 14,000 GP each- he could have up to 3)
This thread reminds of that old saying about it being easier to catch flies with honey than it is with vinegar. No matter how good the idea, how well thought out, or how much sense it makes, people will always be turned off by poor presentation.
Except that there is little recourse for defense. For some reason, if Frank ever defends his point, he's seen as the bad guy and the instigator of hostilities.
I've seen similar stances before from others, but were less defended, and they get drowned out by the passive-aggressive nay-sayers and never actually got anywhere.
I suspect that by this point, there are entrenched people for both sides, so unbiased debate is impossible.
|
|
I suspect that by this point, there are entrenched people for both sides, so unbiased debate is impossible.
Not impossible. There are plenty of people willing to rationally discuss the merits of arguments, should actual arguments be presented. I think the discourse between Frank and myself has been rewarding enough to merit this thread, at least for my education, if nothing else.
Things you may not have noticed:
- Blink does not apply a miss chance to thrown items, because they stop blinking when they stop being attended objects.
- If Paizo goes through with their plan to nerf blink into the Rogue wastebin, then people will stop using it. But that doesn't get rid of wands of greater invisibility, or the plane old standard of wearing a blindfold of true darkness and keeping a rock with deeper darkness cast upon it in your mouth.
- Even if the Evoker can run through his high end spells/items/whatever to kill a Stone Giant in three rounds, that's still not even impressive and it's using up a lot of high end daily abilities.
Remember the guy with the sword doesn't even have to kill the giants faster. He just has to, on average, not kill them any slower to make the Wizard into something of a hobo if he's using up top spell levels.
This is why I support reducing the spell levels on Evocations rather than changing the damage. With the right feats and equipment you seriously can kill things in reasonable numbers of actions with Evocations. It's just that using up your top spells to kill an opponent in a reasonable number of actions is itself only reasonable if the enemy isn't fighting back during this period - and that's not how Evocation rolls.
-Frank
For almost the exact same price as the Ring of Blinking, a wizard can purchase 2 lesser rods of maximize...
Where is the source material that states that thrown objects stop blinking once they leave your possession? I have a DM trying to say they have a chance of 'stopping' while ethereal, and thus maintain the miss chance.
|
|
Things you may not have noticed:
- Blink does not apply a miss chance to thrown items, because they stop blinking when they stop being attended objects.
Cruising way off topic, but let's go for that ride....
You throw them on the Ethereal Plane because you just blinked there, and they sail off into the Ethereal Plane and they miss. Same thing with spells you cast -- 20% failure. The Blink spell is pretty specific about the fact that you are shifting Planes and this is why you miss 20% of the time with attacks and spells. Your item become unattended on the Ethereal Plane. And, yes, I would give you a 20% chance to loose something you drop while Blinking because you may drop it into the Ethereal Plane.
If Paizo goes through with their plan to nerf blink into the Rogue wastebin, then people will stop using it. But that doesn't get rid of wands of greater invisibility, or the plane old standard of wearing a blindfold of true darkness and keeping a rock with deeper darkness cast upon it in your mouth.
Absolutely right, there are probably hundreds of ways for a 10th level rogue to insure Sneak Attack damage most of the time, and players will find them.
Even if the Evoker can run through his high end spells/items/whatever to kill a Stone Giant in three rounds, that's still not even impressive and it's using up a lot of high end daily abilities.
Actually, he easily kills two or more Stone Giants in 2 rounds using up 2 3rd (mid-level) spells enhanced by an item. (154 damage in a 20' spread) And this leaves him with all of his higher level daily slots. But by the 2nd fight of the day, it will take him 3-4 rounds, and by the 3rd or 4th fight, he starts to become a liability to the rest of the group.
This is why I support reducing the spell levels on Evocations rather than changing the damage. With the right feats and equipment you seriously can kill things in reasonable numbers of actions with Evocations. It's just that using up your top spells to kill an opponent in a reasonable number of actions is itself only reasonable if the enemy isn't fighting back during this period - and that's not how Evocation rolls.-Frank
I can see what you're saying. If the only thing about the spells that changes is the level, then the rest of the math still holds true, just which resource they use changes, and how early they gain access to that resource changes. Interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would break down with some of the supplements out there, but with the core rules, I could see it working.
So, while I stick to the contention that they really don't need to do more damage, I think lowering their levels has potential. Now, perhaps we can look at what that would do....
say, the changes it makes to a 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 11th level Evoker... hmmmn.
Reckless-- Do you also rule that when blink wears off or is dispelled, the character has a 50% chance of being stuck in the ethereal plane? If not, that would suggest that items no longer subject ot blink return to the material.
Another vote for "more damage". The damage spells during the mid-levels (e.g. scorching ray, fireball) are pretty good against opposition geared towards enemies close to the level of acquisition.
But then, it breaks down, because most damage spells scale with one die per level, while creatures scale with more than one HD+Con bonus per CR. Plus a rise in saves AND rise in resistances.
More importantly, look at the CR system - it assumes that an increase in two CRs is equal to a doubling in power - roughly equivalent to a increase in one spell level.
Some spells do that increase as well - for example save-or-dies or battlefield control.
And mind you, I'm not even a COer - I've just played in Red Hand of Doom and played an evoker. It's not even funny, how quickly my damage spells became useless. I only stayed useful by packing up metamagic rods and using the Eberron CS to get that feat, where you get extra standard actions for action points.
When I've burned out of action points, I usually went from evoker to utility mage (buffs, stuff like baleful polymorph) - I was equally effective, but it's a shame if you cannot play an evoker.
Cheers, LT.
|
|
Reckless-- Do you also rule that when blink wears off or is dispelled, the character has a 50% chance of being stuck in the ethereal plane? If not, that would suggest that items no longer subject ot blink return to the material.
No, because that is not something the spell specifically states, unlike this:
Physical attacks suffer a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal or incorporeal creatures, the miss chance is only 20%. If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. If the attacker can both see and strike ethereal creatures, the attacker suffers no penalty. Likewise, the character's own attacks suffer a 20% miss chance.
Individually targeted spells have a 50% chance to fail against the character while blinking unless the character's attacker can target invisible, ethereal creatures. Likewise, the character's own spells have a 20% chance to activate just as the character goes ethereal, in which case they typically do not affect the Material Plane.
It says "attacks", not "melee attacks."
|
|
So, I worked up a brief "More Average damage. more spell selections per level, hopefully not totally broken" damage spell system, since you all have me thinking about it.
To create a given spell, choose one of the following types of effect Ball, Blast, Bolt, Chain, Cone, Ray, Split Ray, Touch, Zone. Choose from the following Energy Types: Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Force, Positive, Sonic, Negative. Apply damage according to the following chart:
Spell Damage
Level
0 1d6+1
1 2d6+3
2 4d6+6
3 6d6+9
4 8d6+12
5 10d6+15
6 12d6+18
7 14d6+21
8 16d6+24
9 18d6+27
Ball spells affect all creatures in a sphere, and allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. Spell Resistance Applies. The sphere is 5’ in radius at 0 level and adds 5’ radius per spell level after that.
Blast spells allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. No Spell Resistance.
Bolt spells affect all creatures in a line effect, and allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. Spell Resistance Applies. This line is 10’ in length at 0 level and 30’ per level of the Spell after that.
Chain Spells affect one creature at the regular damage level, and then 1 creature at the next lower damage level, then another, etc, until you drop to 0 damage level affect, and allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. Spell Resistance Applies.
Example: A 3rd level Chain of Sound spell does 6d6+9 sonic damage to the first target, 4d6+6 sonic damage to a second target. 2d6+3 to a third target, and finally 1d6+1 to a fourth target.
Cone spells affect all creatures in a cone, and allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. Spell Resistance Applies. Cones are 10’ per side at 0 level and add 10’ per side per level after that.
Ray spells require a ranged touch attack. No Save, but Spell Resistance Applies
Split Ray spells require a ranged touch attack. You gain one extra ray for every two steps down the damage chart you take. Split Ray spells are named by how many rays you have, ie Double ray, Triple Ray, etc. No Save, but Spell Resistance Applies
Example a 4th level Double Ray of Acid produces 2 rays which do 4d6+6 acid damage each., while a 4th level Triple Ray of Acid produces 3 rays which do 1d6+1 acid damage each.
Touch spells require melee touch attack, but can be used to channel through weapons with appropriate feats/class abilities, etc. No Save, but Spell Resistance Applies
Zone spells affect all creatures in a column, and allow a Reflex Save for Half Damage. Spell Resistance Applies. Columns are 5’ in diameter and 10’ height at level 0 and add 5’ in diameter and 10’ in height every level after that
Spell....Bolt.......Ball........Cone........Zone
Level....Line.......Sphere......Side........Column
.........Length.....Radius......Length......Diameter/Height
0........10’........5'..........10’..........5’/10’
1........30’........10’ .......... 20’ .......... 10’/20’
2........60’ ........15’ .......... 30’ .......... 15’/30’
3........90’ ........ 20’ .......... 40’ .......... 20’/40’
4........120’ ........ 25’ .......... 50’ .......... 25’/50’
5........150’ ........ 30’ .......... 60’ .......... 30’/60’
6........180’ ........ 35’ .......... 70’ .......... 35’/70’
7........210’ ........ 40’ .......... 80’ .......... 40’/80’
8........240’ ........ 45’ .......... 90’ .......... 45’/90’
9........270’ ........ 50’ .......... 100’ ..........50’/100’
Spells
Ball of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Blast of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Bolt of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Chain of [Energy] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Cone of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Ray of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Double Ray of [Energy] 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Triple Ray of [Energy] 4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Quadruple Ray of [Energy] 8, or 9
Touch of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Zone of [Energy] 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9
Additional thought: make a metamagic Feat to make energy spells “Energy Conjuration”, ignoring Spell Resistance.. but how many levels would that bump it? Three seems about right, same as maximize. I’m not sure…..
|
|
Another vote for "more damage". The damage spells during the mid-levels (e.g. scorching ray, fireball) are pretty good against opposition geared towards enemies close to the level of acquisition.
But then, it breaks down, because most damage spells scale with one die per level, while creatures scale with more than one HD+Con bonus per CR. Plus a rise in saves AND rise in resistances.
More importantly, look at the CR system - it assumes that an increase in two CRs is equal to a doubling in power - roughly equivalent to a increase in one spell level.
Some spells do that increase as well - for example save-or-dies or battlefield control.
And mind you, I'm not even a COer - I've just played in Red Hand of Doom and played an evoker. It's not even funny, how quickly my damage spells became useless. I only stayed useful by packing up metamagic rods and using the Eberron CS to get that feat, where you get extra standard actions for action points.
When I've burned out of action points, I usually went from evoker to utility mage (buffs, stuff like baleful polymorph) - I was equally effective, but it's a shame if you cannot play an evoker.
Cheers, LT.
I would like to hear more of this. Can you describe to me the make-up of your party? What level you were? How often you cast spell? What tactics you used? I'm not trying to say that you did anything wrong, but I just want to know so that the example is complete. Just stated what you had leaves you open to flaming because you forgot to mention something important like this.