Damage spells need to do more damage.


New Rules Suggestions

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Yes. It must be done.

+1 damage/die, please. Or change d6s to d8s. And polar ray needs a boost.


(Why, yes, P_R, you are so very smart!)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

In the spirit that I read into the OP,

No, really, they don't.


Reckless wrote:

In the spirit that I read into the OP,

No, really, they don't.

Dude, right on! No need for extra damage at all.


Damage spells are weak compared to other spells. They need a boost to make them as useful as the other spells at the same level. Therefore, a small boost--+1 damage/die--is necessary.


I disagree. I don't beleive their is any problem with the damaging spells on a whole.

They do not need an increase.


RJM wrote:
I disagree. I don't beleive their is any problem with the damaging spells on a whole.

Then you are incorrect.

Fireball does 10d6 damage at level 10. That's an average of 35 damage. High saves mean that the damage is probably going to be reduce by half, to around 18 damage. Add energy resistance on top of that, and well...

Other spells suffer in the same manner.

Dark Archive

Then, instead of increasing damage, why not just remove the caps? That way, spells like fireball still become serious contenders at higher levels, where 10 dice makes it more of a nuisance to your opponent than fatal.

Btw, I don't think spells are underpowered, damage-wise, from my personal gaming experience. The utility of metamagic feats offsets the obstacles that you refer to (successful saves, resistances).


Thammuz wrote:

Then, instead of increasing damage, why not just remove the caps? That way, spells like fireball still become serious contenders at higher levels, where 10 dice makes it more of a nuisance to your opponent than fatal.

Btw, I don't think spells are underpowered, damage-wise, from my personal gaming experience. The utility of metamagic feats offsets the obstacles that you refer to (successful saves, resistances).

While that might be possible, it seems somewhat ridiculous that a fireball would do up to 20d6 damage as a third-level spell (compared to, say, delayed blast fireball). Furthermore, metamagic feats such as Empower Spell and Maximize Spell are fairly weak, although increasing the damage cap might fix that.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:


While that might be possible, it seems somewhat ridiculous that a fireball would do up to 20d6 damage as a third-level spell (compared to, say, delayed blast fireball). Furthermore, metamagic feats such as Empower Spell and Maximize Spell are fairly weak, although increasing the damage cap might fix that.

Well, given the "no cap" idea, then either delayed-blast fireball lacks a purpose (a metamagic feat can delay a spell's time), or then one would look into adjusting the spell's effect (perhaps half the damage is "raw arcane energy", similar to a flame strike's power)?


Psychic_Robot wrote:
RJM wrote:
I disagree. I don't beleive their is any problem with the damaging spells on a whole.

Then you are incorrect.

Fireball does 10d6 damage at level 10. That's an average of 35 damage. High saves mean that the damage is probably going to be reduce by half, to around 18 damage. Add energy resistance on top of that, and well...

Other spells suffer in the same manner.

That's a matter of strategy. If your using a fireball against a creature that likely has a high reflex save and resistance to fire, that's your fault not the spells.


RJM wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:


That's a matter of strategy. If your using a fireball against a creature that likely has a high reflex save and resistance to fire, that's your fault not the spells.

Therefore, players should metagame to know how to use their spells.

Even a tyrannosaurus has a Ref save of +12. It's CR 8. EIGHT. Look at devils, demons, and angels. Formians, arrowhawks, and more.

There is a reason why the Character Optimization boards look contemptuously at blaster characters and classes like the warmage.


Again your point is moot here because well, the T-Rex has a good reflex save. And so using a reflex save-based spell against so creature is likely to fail. Its like winging a Fort save spell against a barbarian, your just asking for failure.


RJM wrote:
Again your point is moot here because well, the T-Rex has a good reflex save. And so using a reflex save-based spell against so creature is likely to fail. Its like winging a Fort save spell against a barbarian, your just asking for failure.

And, again, your point is stupid because you want players to metagame. If I came upon a tyrannosaurus, I would think that a creature of such a hulking size would have a difficult time dodging an fireball. Apparently, it's pretty agile, though. Furthermore, my point was that even low-CR creatures can reduce "good" spells like fireball to uselessness.


Its not metagaming with a knowledge check, which I hope a wizard is likely going to have. A knowledge check should tell a caster that they should probably attack the big dumb and dangerous animal's mind over physically brutalizing it. Besides a general knowledge (nature) check would tell you that most animals tend to be hearty and have quick reflexes.

Colossal Animated Object, CR 10, Ref +7 (poor save)
Bebilith, CR 10, Ref +9 (good save)
Adult White Dragon, CR 10, Ref +11 (good save) (vulnerable to fire)
Juvenile Silver Dragon, CR 10, Ref +10 (good save)
Formian Myrmarch, CR 10, Ref +12 (good save)
Fire Giant, CR 10, Ref +4 (poor save) (immune to fire)
Cloud Giant, CR 11, Ref +6, (poor save)
Frost Giant, CR 9, Ref +4, (poor save) (vulnerable to fire)
Eleven-Headed Hydra, CR 10, Ref +8 (good reflex)
Guardian Naga, CR 10, Ref +7 (poor save, Lightning Reflexes)
Gray Slaad, CR 10, Ref +10 (good save)

There's a few CR 10s, I left out most of the immune to fire's since fireball is the example you rave over. Except the exorbanatly low Fire Giant, use a lightning bolt against him.

Anyways a large problem with this is we're using a 3rd level spell against CR 10s, when our main fireball by this point should be coming from 5th level spell instead. Using metamagics that's easy enough, which it can either be an empowered fireball for higher damage potential or heightened for higher base save. Depends on what is more important. Of course, for this purpose it will be the higher damage potential rather than the higher DC right, since total damage output is far more important then strategy.

Anyways, the arguement of resistances is like arguing that weapons should do more damage because there are Damage Reductions.


The spontaneous-casting brethren of the wizard aren't too keen on knowledge skills.

Furthermore, let's look at types.

--Animal: Good Reflex saves.
--Dragon: Good Reflex saves.
--Fire/air elementals: Good Reflex saves.
--Fey: Good Reflex saves.
--Humanoid: Good Reflex saves.
--Magical Beast: Good Reflex saves.
--Monstrous Humanoid: Good Reflex saves.
--Outsider: Good Reflex saves.

And, again, demons, devils, angels, dragons, formians, arrowhawks, ghaeles, and any other number of creatures all have resistances/immunities to energy types. Even if we're using a cone of cold at level 10, it's still not doing a whole lot of good when it's doing half damage and/or being resisted.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

If you want to convince me that damage spells are too weak, you're going to have to put up some math that shows them as being weak compared to a fighter's ability to do damage at the same levels. I don't see it.

As to fireball, it is an area affect spell, meant to be used against several opponents, not just one. As is pretty much every Reflex save spell. So you only get to do 18 damage, but multiply it by the up to 36 creatures you can affect with it, and fireball is far beyond what any fighter can accomplish in 1 round.

Most damaging spells that don't require a Reflex save require a touch attack instead. A T-Rex has a 9 Touch AC. 2nd level Spell Scorching Ray does 4d6 x 2 rays at lvl 7 (vs. CR8 TRex) so 8d6 for an avg. 28 damage (max 48) without any metamagic.... Empowered makes it a 4th level spell for an average of 42 damage, max 72. A wizard with a 10 dex and no other feat bonuses still has a +3 Bab, meaning he hits the TRex on a 6 or better with each ray.

Nope, I just don't see this as being too weak, sorry.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

A good point. Even catching three creatures that make their reflex save makes that 54 dmg from the average fireball. Overall.


Even supposing that you caught all those people in the blast, 18 points of damage is still nothing. Considering the amount of HP level-appropriate monsters have and the likelihood that they have to make their saves/have energy resistance, damaging spells are crap. Polar ray is even worse--whoa, 20d6 damage to a single target? That's junk. Absolute junk.

There are spells that are so much better that one could cast. Furthermore, psionics uses the system that I proposed (+1 damage/die) AND it allows one to choose the energy type upon casting...and psionics are more balanced than Core.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

My number already assumes that they made their saves which isn't even a guarantee. Save DC at 10th level with NPC gear and maximized Intelligence 18, only those with good saves are going to make that, and even then its a fifty fifty split. 19 DC if you add spell focus. 21 if you Heighten. Heck fifty/fifty is decent odds against creatures of equivilant challenge for a spell of a level 2 slots lower than your max slot.

Again arguing resistances is like arguing weapons need to do more damage because there's Damage Reduction.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Polar ray is even worse--whoa, 20d6 damage to a single target? That's junk. Absolute junk..

What?

What?

What?


Anry wrote:

My number already assumes that they made their saves which isn't even a guarantee. Save DC at 10th level with NPC gear and maximized Intelligence 18, only those with good saves are going to make that, and even then its a fifty fifty split. 19 DC if you add spell focus. 21 if you Heighten. Heck fifty/fifty is decent odds against creatures of equivilant challenge for a spell of a level 2 slots lower than your max slot.

Again arguing resistances is like arguing weapons need to do more damage because there's Damage Reduction.

Heighten is absolutely useless. The point is, damage spells aren't on par with other spells.

Reckless wrote:

What?

What?

What?

Why waste your time with one spell that's going do around 70 points of damage to a single target when you could cast a spell that's going to kill the target outright?

Allow me to reiterate:

There are spells that are so much better that one could cast. Furthermore, psionics uses the system that I proposed (+1 damage/die) AND it allows one to choose the energy type upon casting...and psionics are more balanced than Core.

The Exchange

I see what you mean and have talked to others about this issue, but as it stands right now, Damage spells are fine the way they are. They do an apporpiate amount of damage for their level and have their uses against level appropiate encounters and those out side that range. I don't know how most of you CO people look at encounters, but I use a lot of mooks in my games and pumping up that fireball would be seriously deadly. The wizard then could just solo everything until the big fight. Where is the fun for the party? The evoker can do his job as well as any other character in the party. Even with some of the "better" spell choices, the party may congradulate you, but over time, they may come to despise you for taking away all the fun in the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree the damage spells do not always compare on higher levels the effects of spells that are save or die effects. However generally its 1 monster saves or dies, you have a chance of a spell that did nothing at all (not talking the upper most spells). Sure if you win it died instantly (assuming your big baddie doesn't have death ward and other benefits that can save its life). Where as the humble fireball (as is) can clear all of the BBEG's minions leaving a much more leveled fight for the magically juiced up fighter. As for hating on polar ray, that spell is like ray of doom, especially when you know were your landing it (for example any sized red dragon) and if need to land that hit use lower leveled slots to give yourself true strike (or if Spell resist is the problem, the true casting version)

I suppose in general evocation has its uses and its downfalls. The counter to its downfalls is not to make it stronger, but find another way around your enemies defenses. So the answer isn't d8 fireballs or d10 polar rays / scorching rays but is actually use a different thing to fight it, if your a focused specialist evoker or blast sorcerer fighting devils with spell resistance and energy resistance its the cost or your specialization. When you fight an adamant golem with 15/- DR and is too heavy to trip, grapple, or knock down the fighter doesn't get to pull out his staff and spell book and melt down the golem with conjuration spells or sink him into the group because he is too heavy and you turned the floor below him into mud.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Psychic_Robot wrote:

Why waste your time with one spell that's going do around 70 points of damage to a single target when you could cast a spell that's going to kill the target outright?

Allow me to reiterate:

There are spells that are so much better that one could cast. Furthermore, psionics uses the system that I proposed (+1 damage/die) AND it allows one to choose the energy type upon casting...and psionics are more balanced than Core.

1) You could cast a spell thatmight kill the target outright, if it fails its save . If it makes its save, you're going to do what? 3d6+20? 5d6? Unless the creature has Spell Resistance, Cold Resistance, or Immune Cold, I'd rather the 70 points of damage, allowing the rest of my team to do their jobs. Damage spells are not ineffective just because of save or die spells exist (and, btw, imo suck.)

2) Psionics are more internally balanced than Core, I'd agree in theory, but I'm not convinced they're balanced with the Core. Are they balanced with a Fighter? with a Rogue? Upping the power level of Magic so it matches Psionics may not necessarily be the way to go here.

The Exchange

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.


Reckless wrote:
Damage spells are not ineffective just because of save or die spells exist (and, btw, imo suck.)

I'm sorry you feel that way. The people at the CO boards do not, however.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Reckless wrote:
Damage spells are not ineffective just because of save or die spells exist (and, btw, imo suck.)
I'm sorry you feel that way. The people at the CO boards do not, however.

No biggie. We can't all agree about everything. My opinion is just that. And I certainly don't have a problem disagreeing with people on these or "the CO" boards.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Reckless wrote:
Damage spells are not ineffective just because of save or die spells exist (and, btw, imo suck.)
I'm sorry you feel that way. The people at the CO boards do not, however.

And the people on the CO boards are not the ones attempting to adjust the game over here. I would suggest that you come up with a stronger argument than "the CO board people have had this debate." The CO board people really have no say on how the game is played by the majority.

Scarab Sages

fliprushman wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Reckless wrote:
Damage spells are not ineffective just because of save or die spells exist (and, btw, imo suck.)
I'm sorry you feel that way. The people at the CO boards do not, however.
And the people on the CO boards are not the ones attempting to adjust the game over here. I would suggest that you come up with a stronger argument than "the CO board people have had this debate." The CO board people really have no say on how the game is played by the majority.

Which are the CO boards? I'm not familiar with that board...


Seconded


fliprushman wrote:


And the people on the CO boards are not the ones attempting to adjust the game over here. I would suggest that you come up with a stronger argument than "the CO board people have had this debate." The CO board people really have no say on how the game is played by the majority.

My argument is that the math has been done and that damage spells are lacking. The people on the CO boards--the mildly psychotic number-crunchers--are all in agreement that damage spells suck.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:


Which are the CO boards? I'm not familiar with that board...

Character Optimization boards.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Yes. It must be done.

+1 damage/die, please. Or change d6s to d8s. And polar ray needs a boost.

Wow ...what brought you to this strange thought. 15d6 or more isn't enough for you?

It isn't that I disagree I just want to know why it isn't enough. We once played a game with an arcane trickster who used a polar ray with his sneak attack, trust me when you roll enough dice you think it was a haymaker from an old game of champions.....it seems...overkill.


15d6 is 53 points of damage. It's a single target spell. What do you think you're shooting with it?

Nalfeshnee. CR 14. 174 HP, and Cold Resist 10.Also SR. Takes 5 Rays to kill, without the SR, which I'm too lazy to look up.

Horned Devil. CR 16 172 HP, Cold Res 10, SR 28. Takes about 9 rays to kill.

Colossal Scorpion. CR 12. 300 HP. 6 rays to kill.

One Polar Ray doesn't do anything that makes it worth memorizing.

The Exchange

fliprushman wrote:

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.

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.


This is the carryover from the other alpha.

Well, the fighter may outdamage the spellcasters (I say MAY because there are too many things that have the potential to wreck that in the game).

First I have to go back to the point that was made with the troll, which is that the wizards damage functions well at most levels losing some of that near the top.

Second is of course that the the versatility of damaging ability makes up for a ton of what they lack in raw power. You have damage effects from the wizard that rely on all three saves plus AC as a counter. You have multiple energy sources that you can pick and effects that won't normally even hit things that can make physical attacks fail. Spells often have a much different mechanic in the fact that they have exessive range, can target multiple opponents, have spreading effects along with DoT, are AoEs, have no miss chance, or have unique effects along with their ability to do damage such as with the hand spells, black tentacles, etc. The damage can be adjusted, maximize, increased in range, increased in scope, source-output changed, or even be a free action with the use of metamagic which is another option that attacks really don't have. To do solid potential damage they also rarely rely on a full round action except in the case of spontaneous casters using metamagic.

The full casters also have additional spells with wide ranging abilities and what they get for focusing on damage spells costs them little in versatility (outside the versatility they already have in damaging), adding a small benefit towards effect but costing them very little.

We aren't really talking about changing ineffective classes, changing ineffective builds, but trying to universally balance abilities across the board and that's something I don't really like. That's what I feel 4th is doing with the homogenization of all the classes, having abilities, templates, and gain rates all being fundamentally identical so the scaling is simple. It's effective but it's boring and in my opinion sucks the life out of the flavor.

I do think that some spells could use a good re-working though (polar ray of course, which everybody is right on) and a few other spells mainly at the higher levels...but the damaging spells as a whole don't need to be reworked or do significantly more damage.

Options to increase that damage with either a long-term commitment with multiple feats or tradeoffs I think would be fitting though, but I would expect to see that more in additional supplements than core material.

A few might be nice though.

Sovereign Court

Another way to approach this problem would be to decrease the efficiency of non-damage spells. A few that come into my mind are Web and Glitterdust. There are a lot others, but I don't dwell with them now. Going this route of practically rewriting all spells would be strenous, and would harm backwards compatibility (unless spells from supplements would be revised too somehow).

As we know, Web and Glitterdust tend to be those spells that effectively end the battle in the caster's favor. A quick fix to Glitterdust would be to reduce the blindness effect to a 50% miss chance, or so. Icky dust in my eyes.


Orion Anderson wrote:
15d6 is 53 points of damage. It's a single target spell. What do you think you're shooting with it?

You've picked a lot of the harder targets there. You're ignoring monsters like the Beholder, who would die in two hits. Any 15th level NPC targets who have 80-140 hp also go down quick.

Plus, as I mentioned in the thread about this on alpha 1, the wizard isn't just fighting his target alone in most cases. If it takes 4-8 hits for a target to go down, and there's 4 people fighting, that means that combat is over by the end of the second round. It's not like the wizard is just sitting there casting polar ray 6 times in a row. More like the wizard casts it once, and then maybe a second time if things are going badly.

Another problem with that logic is that you're looking at a 15th level wizard casting just one spell, with no feats, equipment or anything else. It's kind of like complaining that a 15th level fighter does only 1d8+7 damage. A 15th level wizard has 8 feats and 200,000 gp worth of equipment. Feats like Empower Spell, Spell Penetration and at 15th level, Quicken Spell are helpful in powering up the wizard's blasting spells. There isn't an overflowing amount of equipment, but things like the metamagic rods or an orange prism ioun stone are very affordable by 15th level.

But really, the main problem with this thread is people are spending a lot of time arguing against themselves. Damage spells suck and are useless, but an extra +1 damage per die would redeem them?


Benimoto wrote:
Orion Anderson wrote:
15d6 is 53 points of damage. It's a single target spell. What do you think you're shooting with it?
You've picked a lot of the harder targets there. You're ignoring monsters like the Beholder, who would die in two hits.

Good luck hitting a Beholder with one. And for that matter, even if killing a Beholder in two hits was sufficient to keep it from killing you, your family, and your dog, we're still talking about a CR 13 monster vs. a 15th level character.

But regardless, I vastly prefer the option of reducing Damage Spells in Spell Level rather than pumping up the damage die. It's less disruptive to the game and preserves a lot more backwards compatibility.

-Frank


Yes, that would probably work. One could probably just drop most evocation spells by a level (or in the case of polar ray, a level or three).


Frank Trollman wrote:
Good luck hitting a Beholder with one. And for that matter, even if killing a Beholder in two hits was sufficient to keep it from killing you, your family, and your dog, we're still talking about a CR 13 monster vs. a 15th level character.

Oh come on. A beholder who constantly uses its anti-magic eye isn't in a fight, it's in a staring contest. Even if there were two Beholders, an EL 15 encounter, we're still talking about 4 hits--a 1-round fight. Besides, there are a grand total of 2 CR 15 monsters in the Monster Manual, both of which any halfway optimized wizard can kill in 3-4 spells.

Frank Trollman wrote:
But regardless, I vastly prefer the option of reducing Damage Spells in Spell Level rather than pumping up the damage die. It's less disruptive to the game and preserves a lot more backwards compatibility.

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.


Actually, I think Frank's idea makes Empower Spell very much worthwhile. I think that I'd support his suggestion, then--rather than making the spells do more damage, allow the nukers to nuke without sucking.

The Exchange

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.


fliprushman wrote:
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.

The Exchange

That's a bad assumption on your part. I think you should spend less time on the boards at WotC and actually play in groups that don't visit those boards. You will be amazed at the diversity of players that do understand.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And you know better than us rather prentencious i must say. Telling several players on a forum that they don't know the mechanics of the game they have been playing for god knows how many years isn't exactly going to win over people to your argument.

The Exchange

Orion Anderson wrote:

15d6 is 53 points of damage. It's a single target spell. What do you think you're shooting with it?

One Polar Ray doesn't do anything that makes it worth memorizing.

Fighting all of these monsters yourself and expecting to kill em all in one shot are you?


fliprushman wrote:
That's a bad assumption on your part. I think you should spend less time on the boards at WotC and actually play in groups that don't visit those boards. You will be amazed at the diversity of players that do understand.

I was talking about these boards. I don't go to the CO boards anymore because, well, I hate them. But the posters also happen to know the ins-and-outs of the math behind D&D.

Kevin Mack wrote:
And you know better than us rather prentencious i must say. Telling several players on a forum that they don't know the mechanics of the game they have been playing for god knows how many years isn't exactly going to win over people to your argument.

It also happens to be the truth. When there are people who think that Quicken Spell only works on arcane spells, that Intelligence is less useful than Charisma, that magic missile is overpowered, and the like, it's pretty clear that they don't understand the mechanics of D&D.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Or maybe there not min/max power builders? Just a thought.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Or maybe there not min/max power builders? Just a thought.

No. They don't understand how the system works. Their lack of "min/max power build[ing]" is incidental but not relevant to this discussion.

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / New Rules Suggestions / Damage spells need to do more damage. All Messageboards