As has been pointed out in the thread "Evokers deserve more love!" Evocation magic... well it's just not very evocative. The damage these spells do is nice at the start, but just doesn't scale well. Also the 2 level spell difference between fireball and cone of cold doesn't make sense.
Over all I think this is a problem across the board with the evocation school of magic. It does damage... but it doesn't do it well, it is easy to minimize the effect of the damage dealt, and many times the targets of the spell have enough energy resistance to make the little that might get to them not worth the spell slot used.
Back in the day (1st and 2nd ed.) the damage caps placed on the spells weren't quite the problem they are seen as today: The amount of damage the "average" fighter could do was less, and the amount of hit points the monsters had was less too. However with 3.X both of these numbers have raised to the point that when a spell does an average of 35 points of damage before reduction for saves and resistances it's a drop in the pail compared to the fighter's normal damage (even at lower levels) and the damage a monster can take before it is hurting.
So... what can we do to make these spells more enticing... without throwing them into the domain of "overpowered"?
Perhaps including secondary effects from the type of energy done, this was mentioned in the evokers thread, and could perhaps take some additional inspiration from this thread (on a different forum).
Taking the damage caps off could be another option. It would reduce word count some, and would also help the damage that these spells do remain relavent over a greater number of levels.
Back in 1st edition, there wasn't damage cap.
The difference between cone of cold and fireball was because a lot less monsters were immune to cold.
It's true that in 3.x, fighters do more damage, and hit points are higher, but I found that saving throws were failed more often than in 1st/2nd, dealing generally more damage.
|
Back in 1st edition, there wasn't damage cap.
The difference between cone of cold and fireball was because a lot less monsters were immune to cold.
It's true that in 3.x, fighters do more damage, and hit points are higher, but I found that saving throws were failed more often than in 1st/2nd, dealing generally more damage.
I want to come play in your games. I have played and seen far to many wiz/sorc who couldn't get a failed save on an evoc for game sessions at a time. I had a sorcerer player up and give up on Evoc's (for all time as he put it) because he couldn't damage anything with his spells. Cashed them all in for other spells.
Evoc's biggest problem is Evasion. Good Reflex Saves aren't that uncommon and just about everyone's second favorite stat is Dex (if it isn't their 1st) The other schools all have options that don't involve Ref Saves. Evoc has 2 options. Ref Save (usually a high success rate) or Ranged Touch. There is not an Evasion for Fort saves that i am aware of and while there is Mettle for Will saves that is not comparable to Evasion. Not arguing to get rid of Evasion, just pointing out that Evoc is the one that takes the biggest hit there.
Back in 1st edition, there wasn't damage cap.
The difference between cone of cold and fireball was because a lot less monsters were immune to cold.
It's true that in 3.x, fighters do more damage, and hit points are higher, but I found that saving throws were failed more often than in 1st/2nd, dealing generally more damage.I want to come play in your games. I have played and seen far to many wiz/sorc who couldn't get a failed save on an evoc for game sessions at a time. I had a sorcerer player up and give up on Evoc's (for all time as he put it) because he couldn't damage anything with his spells. Cashed them all in for other spells.
Evoc's biggest problem is Evasion. Good Reflex Saves aren't that uncommon and just about everyone's second favorite stat is Dex (if it isn't their 1st) The other schools all have options that don't involve Ref Saves. Evoc has 2 options. Ref Save (usually a high success rate) or Ranged Touch. There is not an Evasion for Fort saves that i am aware of and while there is Mettle for Will saves that is not comparable to Evasion. Not arguing to get rid of Evasion, just pointing out that Evoc is the one that takes the biggest hit there.
You point out a serious problem, particularly at higher levels. I wish I could point out a mechanic for a fix, but I can't. Once the enemy is likely to have a ring of evasion, they usually do.
You're missing two worthwhile 4th-level Evocation spells: ice storm and shout. Sure, both only do 5d6, but ice storm causes normal bludgeoning as well as cold damage, reduces movement and perception checks, and has no save; shout does sonic damage, can cause deafness, and has a Fort save.
Resilient sphere is a decent 4th-level "save-or-suck" spell for an Evocation specialist who wants to do more than just throw damage spells. Evocation is quite a bit more versatile than just blasting targets: dancing lights, flare, light, floating disk, continual flame, darkness, gust of wind, daylight, tiny hut, wind wall, fire shield, wall of ice, etc.
|
You point out a serious problem, particularly at higher levels. I wish I could point out a mechanic for a fix, but I can't. Once the enemy is likely to have a ring of evasion, they usually do.
Find a DM that designs enemies that have believable items rather than exactly what is needed to make them indestructible.
A lot of the perceived problems with 3.5 are due to min/maxing and metagaming by both the players and the DM. I'm not sure that 'fixing' the system to avoid that is a good thing.
In other forums discussing this same issue, we came up with a two-fold solution to making evocation fun again.
1. Direct Energy Damage bypasses spell resistance. In other words the elements that evocations conjure up are "real" once the spell is cast, so only specific elemental resistances apply.
2. A secondary effect for each element, listed under Evocations in the Schools section. Fire can ignite and destroy items, Electricity can daze, Cold can slow, Acid burns over turns, sonic deafens, etc. This would be tricky, but done right these spells would be a lot more tactical and less boring. As it stands, they're all exactly the same... xd6 damage. Woot.
Now, that's all well and good for evocation, but I should like to see the same principles applied to all schools, i.e. make the schools descriptions worth reading.
|
The core evocation spells may not do huge single target damage (but when memorized as empowered and maximized I would argue.) Where they win is multi target. Sure a fighter or barbarian might crush a single target, but a wizards can blow away a large group in a single blast. He can also do that damage at a range.
Also to mitigate evasion he can choose to use evocation ray spells, like Polar Ray, Scorching Ray
Finally, when all else fails the evoker should have a bucket load of magic missiles.
For evocation to not be subject to spell resistance it would have to be conjuration...
I want to come play in your games. I have played and seen far to many wiz/sorc who couldn't get a failed save on an evoc for game sessions at a time. I had a sorcerer player up and give up on Evoc's (for all time as he put it) because he couldn't damage anything with his spells. Cashed them all in for other spells.Evoc's biggest problem is Evasion. Good Reflex Saves aren't that uncommon and just about everyone's second favorite stat is Dex (if it isn't their 1st) The other schools all have options that don't involve Ref Saves. Evoc has 2 options. Ref Save (usually a high success rate) or Ranged Touch. There is not an Evasion for Fort saves that i am aware of and while there is Mettle for Will saves that is not comparable to Evasion. Not arguing to get rid of Evasion, just pointing out that Evoc is the one that takes the biggest hit there.
Yes, evasion is a problem. I had houseruled it so that you take 1/4 damage when the save is made. But in some of my campaigns, I have ruled it the "normal" way since these campaigns were particulary deadlier.
You're missing two worthwhile 4th-level Evocation spells: ice storm and shout. Sure, both only do 5d6, but ice storm causes normal bludgeoning as well as cold damage, reduces movement and perception checks, and has no save; shout does sonic damage, can cause deafness, and has a Fort save.
Resilient sphere is a decent 4th-level "save-or-suck" spell for an Evocation specialist who wants to do more than just throw damage spells. Evocation is quite a bit more versatile than just blasting targets: dancing lights, flare, light, floating disk, continual flame, darkness, gust of wind, daylight, tiny hut, wind wall, fire shield, wall of ice, etc.
Yes but at the same time if the player wants to spend a spell slot throwing out a damage spell it should do at least a little more than the fighter's normal swing, that he can do all day every day. He should have to have the slot do next to nothing due to resistances, save throws, and a poor damage pool (10d6 ~ 35 damage).
The problem is even against multiple targets this just isn't worthwhile. You are better off with one of the fighter types going full attack here, full attack there to each monster than burning the spells it takes to significantly injure enemies.
Polar Ray does 1d6 per level... coming out to 20d6 or 70 damage on average to one target... out of a ninth level spell! Disintegrate a transmutation spell, a school that isn't supposed to be known for slaying people directly (changing them into a frog, ok, not directly killing though) deals 40d6 damage (at level 20) and is only sixth level.
Part of the problem is that dice are a poor means of racking up damage. Each two sides on a dice only add a single point of damage on average, to then cap the amount of dice you have at well about half the hit dice of most monsters garuantees that the damage is going to be insignificant.
|
|
Conjuration bypasses Spell resistance because of the logic that conjuration summons a medium by which it inflicts its effect upon the target. It conjures a real physical sword that strikes the target or conjure real acid to burn the target. It would be very simple to apply the same discriptor to Evocation [Energy] spells, they invoke real fire to burn a target or invoke and manipulate real electricity to shock a target. /QUOTE]That was my point, evocation doesn't bring fire in to existence that then scorches the foe, it is magical fire. Spell resistance is an important balancing factor and it shouldn't be invalidated easily, conjuration is a special exception not that rule.
I won't disagree that some weird spells have ended up as conjurations, that feel more like evocations.
|
|
Polar Ray does 1d6 per level... coming out to 20d6 or 70 damage on average to one target...
Nit picking but it is level 8.
It is also AOE, sure a fighter going full attack can do more damage on avg to the foes adjacent to him, but a wizards could do (if you were filling the area with foes) 70 damage to roughly 50 foes at once (20-ft radius, pi*r^2, avg foe 5x5) It is not likely, but that is the power that a wizard has.
The wizard also has feats to help overcoming spell resistance and increasing his DC.
At best evocation needs a few additional ray spells (which exist outside of the SRD already.)
|
|
I also think there should be a more definite line between Conjuration and Evocation ... Conjuration should center on conjuring physical matter or creatures. The creation of energy should almost always fall in the realm of Evocation.
I thought that the above was a good enough point to pick out and quote. This is something that has been on my mind for a while as well.
I agree that 'real' energy created by Evocations should bypass SR in the same way that real matter created by Conjuration does.
Polar Ray does 1d6 per level... coming out to 20d6 or 70 damage on average to one target...
Nit picking but it is level 8.
It is also AOE, sure a fighter going full attack can do more damage on avg to the foes adjacent to him, but a wizards could do (if you were filling the area with foes) 70 damage to roughly 50 foes at once (20-ft radius, pi*r^2, avg foe 5x5) It is not likely, but that is the power that a wizard has.
The wizard also has feats to help overcoming spell resistance and increasing his DC.
At best evocation needs a few additional ray spells (which exist outside of the SRD already.)
Polar Ray? We talking about the same spell here?
Polar Ray
School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 8
casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a white ceramic cone or prism)
efect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect ray
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
description
A blue-white ray of freezing air and ice springs from your hand. You
must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage
to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level
(maximum 25d6) and 1d4 points of Dexterity drain.
Not an AOE, though I was wrong on level. The Dex Drain is new to Pathfinder and not in the 3.5 spell.
Beyond that absolute Maximum Spell DC for a PC wizard is 34. Considering anyone with a good Ref Bonus is going to have a decent Dex too (and even those with a bad Ref Bonus) plus the usually magic items (cloak of resistance, Dex stat booster, maybe a pale green Ioun Stone), and saves at level twenty are generally going to be over +20 for good save classes and over 15 for bad save classes.
We still have even scratched energy resistance which is going to generally drop at least 20 points of damage if not absorb it all.
At 15th level, polar is not better than orb of energy, maybe because orb spells of 4th are a little overpowered.
15D6 damage + side effect and no SR for orb, just 15D6 with SR for polar ray.
For 4 levels of differance, polar ray is lame (or orb spells are overpowered, you choose).
|
|
Sorry your right Polar Ray isn't an AOE, but it has no save, range, and (now) a secondary effect. The list of creatures with 20 resistance vs cold just isn't that long.
On the topic of saves a creature trying to hit a DC 34 with a +20 fails the save 65% of the time, and with +15, 90% of the time. Seems like the odds favor the caster.
*edit*
Found the spell I had been confusing it with, the 6th level freezing sphere.
|
|
At 15th level, polar is not better than orb of energy, maybe because orb spells of 4th are a little overpowered.
15D6 damage + side effect and no SR for orb, just 15D6 with SR for polar ray.
For 4 levels of difference, polar ray is lame (or orb spells are overpowered, you choose).
We really shouldn't be balancing against non-srd content. (We are enhancing current SRD content, and it should be internally consistent, but content outside of the SRD shouldn't be considered and I regret raising it.)
That being said Polar Ray vs Disintegrate, the polar ray seems worse, but it only requires one roll to do its full damage, the ranged touch, disintegrate requires both a ranged touch and a save.
|
|
Creatures have significantly more HPs in 3rd ed vs 2nd/1st; alot of that is CON modifiers are more lucrative.
Spells do the same amount of damage as previous editions however.
This has been a problem I've seen - that damage/evoc spells are far less effective than crowd-control/debilitating effective spells.
One thing we've done is add 1 to each dice for element-damage spells.
Fireball at 10th level is 10d6+10.
That has helped significantly - especially with the minimum damage.
Robert
The core issue with damage-dealing spells is threefold:
-Area-of-effect is bad, full-attacking is good. Since every creature in D&D operates just as effectively at 1HP than at full HP, thus, the only point of damage that matters is the last one. Thus, spiking one target with a full-attack wins out over damaging multiple targets any day.
Solution: hit point thresholds; Bloodied but meaningful.
Bloodied is perhaps the greatest thing to come out of 4E, because it solves the massive hole in the rules known as "how does he look?" Currently, the rules to quickly determine the condition of another creature or party member are incredibly lacking. But everybody knows when something is Bloodied.
So let's take Bloodied a step further. If Bloodied were to make a creature weaker in some way, perhaps by imposing -2 to attacks, saves, skill checks, and ability checks, suddenly damaging a creature but not killing it has an effect. And thus, area-of-effect damage can become meaningful.
-Xd6 is bad, full-attacking is good. This problem is inherent with full-attacking in general. Damage comes in such massive spikes from full-attacks that anything that can't compete with a full-attack's damage, like a damage spell, is subpar.
Solution: We'd have to somehow remove full-attacks. I post about this one in length right here.
-Spell resistance, then Reflex save, then energy resistance. Imagine playing a Fighter. Then imagine what the game would be like if:
-You first rolled to hit a monster's AC.
-The monster received a save to halve your attack's damage.
-The monster had DR 30/-.
And to top it all off:
-You only get one attack per round.
Well, that's what it's like to cast damage spells. Even worse when you throw in energy immunity, golems, Spell Immunity, and Evasion into the picture. Incredibly worse when you account for the movement promoting making full-attacks easier to pull off, and then you've got the movement to make casting slower.
Solution: This is a toughy, since it's so tied in to the core of the game. Secondary effects for Evocations? Not bad, depending on the effect. No SR for Evocations? Might be a bit much. I've posted something that could help the whole spellcasting scene in general, too.
Damage spells could use some tweaking, but I'm of the belief that other aspects of the game (full-attacking, binary saves, spell resistance, etc) need it more.
-Matt
On the topic of saves a creature trying to hit a DC 34 with a +20 fails the save 65% of the time, and with +15, 90% of the time. Seems like the odds favor the caster.
It seems to... until you realise that is only at level 17 and above and a maximum of 6 times a day. After that it drops by at least 5% per spell level, and at lower levels more since you can't afford all the stat boosters to get the DC that high. We are talking 9th level spells everytime to get that DC. If the wizard uses only a 5th level spell those saves favor the target with them saving 45% of the time. Because of the way magic items work everything but staves have the lowest possible save DC. Meaning a scroll, wand, ring, etc of "Ninth level spell X" only has a save DC of 23. Most staves don't provide ninth level spells.
Also would you really want to burn a ninth level spell on a 65% chance you might affect your target? With an INT of 36 (maximum possible for a PC by core) and being level 20 you have 6 ninth level spells each one is 18% of your most powerful stuff possible and it only has a 65% chance of doing you any good.
|
|
-Spell resistance, then Reflex save, then energy resistance. Imagine playing a Fighter. Then imagine what the game would be like if:-You first rolled to hit a monster's AC.
-The monster received a save to halve your attack's damage.
-The monster had DR 30/-.And to top it all off:
-You only get one attack per round.
Addressing the full attack, 1) you have to roll to hit the monsters AC 5 times, once per attack, and each one is successively less likely to hit. With a 5% auto fail chance.
If the monster has DR 5/- it would be effectively DR 25/- as each attack loses 5.At that tier of game play it isn't unusually to have DRs just as it isn't unusual to have SR, or Resistance to a type of damage. There are almost not monsters who have Resistance 30 to all types of damage. So just like a warrior needs to have a few different weapons in his arsenal to damage different types of foes you need to memorize a fire spell and and ice spell, and a force spell etc.
And to top it all off:
-You only get one attack per round.
Mitigated by AOEs
Well, that's what it's like to cast damage spells. Even worse when you throw in energy immunity, golems, Spell Immunity, and Evasion into the picture.
What about incorporeal creatures, displacement, concealment, cover etc: which mitigate or discount physical damage, clearly DR which comes in all shapes and sizes.
Incredibly worse when you account for the movement promoting making full-attacks...
Not sure what you mean, but remember that a martial combatant must be with 5ft of his foe to get a full attack, where as a wizard may not need to move at all, and should a wizard move, she may still cast her 90% of her spell repertoire.
I just don't see any problem with evokers that isn't doesn't have a like penalty for martial characters. Evocation specialists are kings AOE DPS, they may not be the best at single target DPS, but they shouldn't be universally good. That is why the capstone power is fine, +5 damage against 1 targets sucks, but +1 damage against 5-10 targets is 25-50 bonus damage.
|
|
On the topic of saves a creature trying to hit a DC 34 with a +20 fails the save 65% of the time, and with +15, 90% of the time. Seems like the odds favor the caster.
It seems to... until you realise that is only at level 17 and above and a maximum of 6 times a day. After that it drops by at least 5% per spell level, and at lower levels more since you can't afford all the stat boosters to get the DC that high. We are talking 9th level spells everytime to get that DC. If the wizard uses only a 5th level spell those saves favor the target with them saving 45% of the time. Because of the way magic items work everything but staves have the lowest possible save DC. Meaning a scroll, wand, ring, etc of "Ninth level spell X" only has a save DC of 23. Most staves don't provide ninth level spells.
Also would you really want to burn a ninth level spell on a 65% chance you might affect your target? With an INT of 36 (maximum possible for a PC by core) and being level 20 you have 6 ninth level spells each one is 18% of your most powerful stuff possible and it only has a 65% chance of doing you any good.
First off just because PCs have +20/+15 as there base saves most monsters don't. Even if your main foe did, to be on par with your power, his minions don't nor would other battle field fodder. You save your big spells for your big foes, and use your little spells on the others. You also have buffing and protection spells, utility spells etc so just because you aren't directly damaging a foe you can affect him in ways which cannot fail.
My understanding of Scrolls, and wands it was as caster level, which for treasure is the min-level to cast spell, but for items you craft for yourself it is your level. I suppose ones stats don't factor in, but they probably should (I guess an item for the magic item / equipment discussion.)
It can be your level, but if it is the item costs more. Also save DC's are still completely unaffected for items (except staves).
Actually many monsters have much better than PC's of equal level save throws and that's before they magic themselves up or use equipment.
Outsiders, Dragons both have all good saves (and specific magical effects that raise save throws more for good outsiders of archon and angel types).
Fey, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids all have two good saves.
Undead have good will saves and immunity to some magics (and huge vulnerability to others, a situational monster)
Constructs are mostly immune to magic (situational vulnerability)
Examples:
Challenge rating 10
Young Adult Brass + 13 + 10 + 12
Courtal + 8 +9 +10
11 headed hydra +12 + 8 + 5
Bebelith + 16 + 9 + 9
Fire Giant + 14 + 4 + 9
Noble Salamander +12 + 10 + 11
A balor for a level 20 example is +22 +19 +19 before any items or what not.
Bloodied is perhaps the greatest thing to come out of 4E, because it solves the massive hole in the rules known as "how does he look?" Currently, the rules to quickly determine the condition of another creature or party member are incredibly lacking. But everybody knows when something is Bloodied.
So let's take Bloodied a step further. If Bloodied were to make a creature weaker in some way, perhaps by imposing -2 to attacks, saves, skill checks, and ability checks, suddenly damaging a creature but not killing it has an effect. And thus, area-of-effect damage can become meaningful.
Excellent take. Sort of a lightweight "wound penalties" mechanic. Make it a circumstance penalty.
|
Would it be too lame/simple to just have a spell modeled after fireball and lightning bolt for each energy type?
Fireball > Ball of Lightning, Ball of Acid, Ball of Sound, Ball of Ice, all with exactly the same stats.
Lightning Bolt > Fire Bolt, Ice Bolt, Corrosive Bolt, Thunderclap, all with the stats.
Maybe one for each energy type for each type of damage area: ray, cone, etc.
Just a thought.
Yes and no Mosaic. In a way that was exactly what was done in the Psionics handbook... the developers just admitted it was all basically the same and used the same power each time with a different tweak based on the energy.
It's a cop out... but it's an understandable and acceptible one in my opinion.
Problem with monsters is that very often their HD are much greater than their CR. So it gives them better attack bonus, save bonuses, Hp than a character of equal level. Lot of CRs were not handled correctly, but that's a monster problem.
The core issue with damage-dealing spells is threefold:
-Area-of-effect is bad, full-attacking is good. Since every creature in D&D operates just as effectively at 1HP than at full HP, thus, the only point of damage that matters is the last one. Thus, spiking one target with a full-attack wins out over damaging multiple targets any day.
I don't fully agreed. When a lot of monsters are damaged by an area spell, a fighter can kill several of them with a full attack, and can use cleave more easily.
The problem, is that fighters do to much damage since the beginning of 3.0 compared to evocation spells. And with PRPG it seems it's not going to stop. I would like the balance ajusted lower than ever higher than before...
Yes but at the same time if the player wants to spend a spell slot throwing out a damage spell it should do at least a little more than the fighter's normal swing, that he can do all day every day. He should have to have the slot do next to nothing due to resistances, save throws, and a poor damage pool (10d6 ~ 35 damage).You're missing two worthwhile 4th-level Evocation spells: ice storm and shout. Sure, both only do 5d6, but ice storm causes normal bludgeoning as well as cold damage, reduces movement and perception checks, and has no save; shout does sonic damage, can cause deafness, and has a Fort save.
Resilient sphere is a decent 4th-level "save-or-suck" spell for an Evocation specialist who wants to do more than just throw damage spells. Evocation is quite a bit more versatile than just blasting targets: dancing lights, flare, light, floating disk, continual flame, darkness, gust of wind, daylight, tiny hut, wind wall, fire shield, wall of ice, etc.
A 10th level (Pathfinder) fighter who does 30-35 damage on average per attack? The most damaging weapon, the greatsword, has an average damage of 7.7, including the chance of a critical; how it the fighter adding around +20 to average damage? A 10th level evoker can throw out Empowered fireballs and lightning bolts as 5th level spells (15d6 or 52.5 damage on average, 26.25 on a save, to all in an area) and Empowered scorching rays as 4th level spells (two 6d6 rays for 12d6 total damage, 42 on average, no save ranged touch; an 11th level evoker gets a third 6d6 ray for 18d6 total, 63 on average). As far as pure damage goes, a 20th level evoker can cast an Empowered delayed blast fireball as a 9th level spell (30d6 or 105 damage on average, 52.5 on a save, to all in a 20 foot burst).
|
|
The core issue with damage-dealing spells is threefold:
-Area-of-effect is bad, full-attacking is good. Since every creature in D&D operates just as effectively at 1HP than at full HP, thus, the only point of damage that matters is the last one. Thus, spiking one target with a full-attack wins out over damaging multiple targets any day.
I don't fully agreed. When a lot of monsters are damaged by an area spell, a fighter can kill several of them with a full attack, and can use cleave more easily.
The problem, is that fighters do to much damage since the beginning of 3.0 compared to evocation spells. And with PRPG it seems it's not going to stop. I would like the balance ajusted lower than ever higher than before...
So we can compare, please express exactly how much damage you thing a fighter does.
For the sake of argument lets use a level 20 fighter, with 36 Strength, who is greater weapon focus/specialized in two handed sword.
So his base +dmg is +13 str, +4 spec, +5 weapon,+5 weapon mastery, so +27
He has 4 attacks at +20, +15, +10, +5.
He gets +3 focus, +5 weapon, +13 str, and +5 mastery, so
+46, +41, +36, +31
For the sake of maximizing damage output he power attacks for 13 (MIN(BAB, STR)) as well. so an extra 26 points of damage
So
+33, +28, +23, +18
so 4 attacks, 4x(2d6+53) = avg 4x(7 + 53) = 4x60
= 240
Now vs a random CR 20 monster, the Balor, AC 36
he has a miss rate of
15%, 40%, 65% and 90%
I have to leave for work, so I am leaving this post partially unfinished, I will come in and fix it when I am in the office
For the sake of argument lets use a level 20 fighter, with 36 Strength, who is greater weapon focus/specialized in two handed sword.
So his base +dmg is +13 str, +4 spec, +5 weapon,+5 weapon mastery, so +27
Average damage per hit = (7 (greatsword) + 5 (enhancement) + 19 (Str w/two-handed weapon) + 4 (specialization) + 5 (mastery)) x 1.1 (chance/effect of 19-20/x2 critical) = (7+5+19+4+5) x 1.1 = (40) x 1.1 = 44, about the same as a 7th-10th level evoker with an Empowered scorching ray
Full Power Attack damage per hit = (40+26) x 1.1 = (66) x 1.1 = 72.6, about halfway between the damage caused by failed and successful saves against an Empowered delayed blast fireball from a 20th level evoker
Full attacking w/full Power Attack (+33/+28/+23/+18) against an AC 36 balor will cause, on average, (72.6 x 0.9) + (72.6 x 0.65) + (72.6 x 0.4) + (72.6 x 0.15) = (65.34) + (47.19) + (29.04) + (10.89) = 152.46 total; note, however, that this total stays the same regardless of the number of foes
Compare to a 20th level evoker with 36 Intelligence, Empower Spell, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, and Greater Spell Penetration. An Empowered delayed blast fireball will do 30d6 damage (105 average) with a DC 32 Ref save (vs. +19) for half damage (40% chance) and penetrates Spell Resistance with CL 24 (vs. SR 28; 85% chance o penetrating); per the Elemental Power ability of a 20th level evoker, a balor's Fire Immunity is treated as Fire Resistance 20
(105 damage - 20 resistance) x 0.8* saving throw x .085 spell resistance = (85) x 0.8 x 0.85 = 85 x 0.68 = 57.8 average damage per target; against 3 balors, the evoker does more total average damage (173.4) with one spell than the fighter can do with a full attack; an Empowered freezing sphere (22.5d6 cold, save DC 31) would do (78.75 -5) x 0.775 x 0.85 = (73.75) x 0.65875 = 48.5828125 average per target, even though it targets a lower resistance value
*- .5 (always does half damage) + (.5 x .6 (chance of failing save)) = .5 + .3 = .8
|
|
@DragonChessPlayer Thanks for finishing the math, I was "working from first principles" but from the looks of things you've done this math before.
To absolutely max out the warrior damage, can we assume the two appropriate critical feats, the one that improves the threat range, and the one that gives you +4 to confirm and imp. vital strike
So Damage becomes (7x3+5+19+4+5 + 26) = 80.
Against the Balor the to hit remains
.9 and .65
with crit being chance being
.2*.95 and .2 * .85
.19 and .17
so damage becomes:
80*(.9 + .19 + 65 + .17) (just factoring because I'm lazy)
=152.8 (I didn't expect vital strike to hurt damage that much)
So non-vital crits become
.2*.95, .2 * .85, .2 * .6, .2 * .35
.19, .17, .12, .07
66 * (.9 + .19 + .65 + .17 + .4 + .12 + .15 + .07)
66*2.65 = 174.9
So a shade higher then the three target evoker.
(and we are just assuming here that the warrior has a cold iron enchanted +5 two handed sword.)
So I stand by my statement that evocation is fine.
|
If this has been mentioned before then I apologise in advance. What if it was simply made that evokers could apply the Empower spell feat to all evokation spells without it using up a higher lvl spell slot? Heck make this an ability for all schools (ie you can apply the magic feat most appropriate to your school's spells without expending a higher spell slot.)
|
|
If this has been mentioned before then I apologise in advance. What if it was simply made that evokers could apply the Empower spell feat to all evokation spells without it using up a higher lvl spell slot? Heck make this an ability for all schools (ie you can apply the magic feat most appropriate to your school's spells without expending a higher spell slot.)
That's an ... interesting idea. I dismissed it out of hand at first reading and I was wrong - I think that could have some benefits in further flavouring the different specialists. I'm not sure about free but perhaps at a lower increment than normal.
What do you suggest as a mapping from the other schools to feats?
|
|
well off the top of my head
Universal Keep as is (Yes they have the ability to apply any metamagic feat without raising spell lvl but its limited whilst a specialist would be able to do it to all his school spells if he wished.)
Evocation/ empower
Transmutation / Extend
Illusion /silent and still
Admittedly the other 4 I will have to think about a bit but hey anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
well off the top of my head
Universal Keep as is (Yes they have the ability to apply any metamagic feat without raising spell lvl but its limited whilst a specialist would be able to do it to all his school spells if he wished.)
Evocation/ empower
Transmutation / Extend
Illusion /silent and stillAdmittedly the other 4 I will have to think about a bit but hey anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
This is a very cool idea - but I'd probably make it a 1 spell level reduction, or you'd have issues balancing say extend vs empower.
I'd also suggest extend for conjuration.
|
|
well off the top of my head
Universal Keep as is (Yes they have the ability to apply any metamagic feat without raising spell lvl but its limited whilst a specialist would be able to do it to all his school spells if he wished.)
Evocation/ empower
Transmutation / Extend
Illusion /silent and stillAdmittedly the other 4 I will have to think about a bit but hey anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
This is a very cool idea - but I'd probably make it a 1 spell level reduction, or you'd have issues balancing say extend vs empower.
I'd also suggest extend for conjuration.
Fair enough
Come to think about it extend spell would work for enchantment and divination as well but that is a bit bland if four schools use extend Also Necromancy is a bit of a kicker trying to decide what would work best for that.
well off the top of my head
Universal Keep as is (Yes they have the ability to apply any metamagic feat without raising spell lvl but its limited whilst a specialist would be able to do it to all his school spells if he wished.)
Evocation/ empower
Transmutation / Extend
Illusion /silent and stillAdmittedly the other 4 I will have to think about a bit but hey anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
This is a very cool idea - but I'd probably make it a 1 spell level reduction, or you'd have issues balancing say extend vs empower.
I'd also suggest extend for conjuration.
Fair enough
Come to think about it extend spell would work for enchantment and divination as well but that is a bit bland if four schools use extend Also Necromancy is a bit of a kicker trying to decide what would work best for that.
You could just keep it general, instead of forcing particular specialist/feat combinations.
Improved Metamagic
At 10th level (roughly), the specialist wizard gains increased facility in applying metamagic to their specialty spells. When applying metamagic to spells of their specialty, the spell level adjustment is one less than normal, to a minimum zero (i.e., Empower Spell would only raise the effective level by one instead of two). If applying multiple metamagic feats, the reduction occurs only once (i.e., a Silent and Still spell would be effectively one spell level higher).
Sure energy damage beats DR, but it doesn't beat energy resistance, which most monsters over challenge rating 10 have and was the type of resistances I was talking about.
Back in the day fighters took their extra attacks at full THac0, no reduction. Reducing BAB (THac0's replacement) on additional attack is purely a 3.x thing.
Also AOEing relies on having several monsters in one place at one time, and doesn't address spells like polar ray.
On the idea of chaining metamagic to schools of magic:
Enchantment -- Heighten spell
Abjuration -- quicken spell
|
|
Sure energy damage beats DR, but it doesn't beat energy resistance, which most monsters over challenge rating 10 have and was the type of resistances I was talking about.
But most monster's don't have universal energy resistance, it is ALWAYS typed, short of a handful of monsters (like Golems) which are immune to almost everything. So the job of the caster is to pick the right spell for the right monster, much like a warrior needs an arsenal of weapons.
Each character fills a different role, an evoker is not a single target, burst damage character. The evoker is a mass damage dealer, AOE's are the evokers bread and butter. Each character class doesn't need to be balanced against the others in all situations. A Rogue can do huge damage to a single target, a warrior stands at the front line and give/take a beating, a Cleric can blast undead into oblivion, a transmuter can manipulate single targets well, and an evoker lays waste to areas. The wizard, and its school specialists are fine.
So let's take Bloodied a step further. If Bloodied were to make a creature weaker in some way, perhaps by imposing -2 to attacks, saves, skill checks, and ability checks, suddenly damaging a creature but not killing it has an effect. And thus, area-of-effect damage can become meaningful.
Like Mattastrophic, I like the idea of a Wounded condition that gives a penalty to AC, attacks, saves etc. It is one of the good ideas of 4E. I'd like it if PF would integrate such a concept. I've also implemented in my PF Beta playtesting sessions "healing surges" (adapted for PF hp balance) -- mainly because our party didn't have a cleric or a paladin. But they work quite well and players enjoy them. You can't "heal" yourself more than half your total hit points however. You still need rest or magical healing for the *big* injuries :-)
(105 damage - 20 resistance) x 0.8* saving throw x .085 spell resistance = (85) x 0.8 x 0.85 = 85 x 0.68 = 57.8 average damage per target
Incorrect. You don't subtract the resistance from the damage before you make saves.
(105 average damage - 20 resistance) * 0.6 chance for full damage = 51.
(52.5 average saved damage - 20 resistance) * 0.4 chance to save for half = 13.
51 + 13 = 64 expected damage pre-SR.
64 * 0.85 = 54.4 expected damage.
Also, your conclusion is incorrect. While casters may or may not do more average damage to a group of 3 balors than a fighter full-attacking, the fighter lowers the expected damage the group takes significantly faster than the wizard does while doing very similar damage. Example (We'll say the balors each do an equivalent of 50 points of damage per round just for discussion purposes):
Fighter combat:
1 - Fighter reduces balor 1 to ~140 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 150).
2 - Fighter kills balor 2. Balors do 100 damage (total 250).
3 - Fighter reduces balor 2 to ~140 hp. Balors do 100 damage (total 350).
4 - Fighter kills balor 2. Balors do 50 damage (total 400).
5 - Fighter reduces balor 3 to ~140 hp. Balors do 50 damage (total 450).
6 - Fighter kills balor 3.
Wizard combat:
1 - Wizard reduces all three balors to ~240 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 150).
2 - Wizard reduces all three balors to ~190 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 300).
3 - Wizard reduces all three balors to ~140 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 450).
4 - Wizard reduces all three balors to ~90 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 600).
5 - Wizard reduces all three balors to ~40 hp. Balors do 150 damage (total 750).
6 - Wizard kills all three balors.
As we can see, the wizard does kill the group just as fast, but firstly he had to use ALL of his eighth level spells to do it, and secondly the balors dealt two-thirds more total damage to the party while he spread the damage evenly.
This is ignoring the fact that you're using a completely min-maxed wizard, and ignoring some of the balor's defenses. Using a more normal wizard that only starts with 18 intelligence and doesn't wish himself +5 intelligence (so 31 with level up stats and a +6 int item), you've only got a save DC of 29 (10 base + 7 spell level + 10 intelligence + 2 spell focus). Balors make that save 55% of the time. Then you factor in unholy aura, which it has at will, and it has a 75% chance to save.
(105 damage - 20 resistance) * 0.25 chance to fail the save = 21.25.
(52.5 damage - 20 resistance) * 0.75 chance to pass the save = 24.375.
21.25 + 24.375 = 45.625 expected damage pre-SR.
45.625 * 0.85 = 38.781 expected damage.
Why on EARTH would you ever use the evoker? He's worse at his job than a fighter. The fighter is doing more damage per hit than the evoker is, and in this example he actually gets more attacks!
|
|
Solution: hit point thresholds; Bloodied but meaningful.Bloodied is perhaps the greatest thing to come out of 4E, because it solves the massive hole in the rules known as "how does he look?" Currently, the rules to quickly determine the condition of another creature or party member are incredibly lacking. But everybody knows when something is Bloodied.
So let's take Bloodied a step further. If Bloodied were to make a creature weaker in some way, perhaps by imposing -2 to attacks, saves, skill checks, and ability checks, suddenly damaging a creature but not killing it has an effect. And thus, area-of-effect damage can become meaningful.
This is exactly the kind of system I have house ruled into my home campaign. We find it helps to alleviate the meta-gaming of current HP status. "The fighter is bleeding badly from that last strike," is so much better than "Could I get a little healing over here? I'm down to 8 HP."
We also use a penalty system that kicks in when a creature is "bloodied" (we use 1/5 of total HP round down, minimum of 1 HP), which in our version, allows the attacker to select which type of penalty they want to inflict upon successfully "wounding" an adversary (ie. creature is a fast mover? penalize movement speed. creature has high AC? penalize AC to make it easier to hit next time. plus many others.)
We find this system shows a little more gradual reduction in strength/health in a more interesting way than the regular rules.
With these rules you get the hero, maybe bleeding from a near mortal attack and suffering from a gimped leg (movement penalty), still able to pull off a rousing victory. Makes for great visceral story telling.
There is more to our rules regarding death, dying and massive damage etc, but I just found it interesting that someone else had made the same connection we did.
Cheers
Evokers are not better at dealing damage, unless you're talking about dealing damage to armies (in which case Druids are better - Control Winds + Wall of Fire is the best army-killer in the game). Evokers have to deal with spell resistance, reflex saves + evasion, and energy resistance, which reduces both their average and their minimum damage to very low levels, and their maximum damage output pales compared to the melee classes or, God forbid, an archer.
You havn't seen a fighter put out 20d6 at range? Then you havn't seen an archer Fighter. 20d6 averages to 70 damage, pre saves/spell resistance/energy resitance.
3d10 (longbow + improved vital strike) +5 (magic bow) + 5 (strength) + 5 (weapon training) + 4 (greater specialization) for an average of 35.5 per hit.
4 attacks from BAB. 1 from Manyshot. 1 from Rapid Shot. -2 from Improved Vital Strike (which is fine because the last two attacks aren't likely to hit anyway), but +2d10 for every other attack.
That gives us 4 attacks at 35.5 average damage per attack (and this isn't very optimized, mind you). If even two of those attacks hit, he's done more damage than the wizard. Most likely at least three of them will hit, meaning he's dealing at least 50% more damage than the wizard - before we even count the wizard having to beat reflex saves, energy resistances, and spell resistances. Oh, and the fighter can do this 14,400 times per day, assuming he has a cheap quiver of infinite arrows. The wizard is going to get about 8-12 shots of that much damage and that's if he was completely idiotic and memorized only damaging spells.
Face it. Damage dealing as a spellcaster is about as far from useful as you can get. There are too many checks to beat and the damage doesn't even scale half as fast as enemy hit points do. You're far better off concentrating on save-or-dies and save-or-sucks. Why bother with 70 average pre-check (touch AC, spell resistance, energy resistance) damage from polar ray when you could essentially kill a creature outright by passing fewer checks (fort save, spell resistance) with baleful polymorph at a much lower spell level?