My personal solution for evocations is this:
1) Elemental Evocations ignore Spell Resistance. The premise here is that the element, once evoked, is no longer magical and damages targets as though it were any other physical phenomenon.
2) Secondary effects, liberally applied. Fireballs Burn. Lightning Bolts daze. Cones of Cold stagger. If only for one round afterward. In my opinion, Arcane spells are no longer "supposed" to dish out huge damage totals, that's what a fighter's for. I prefer to increase the tactical utility of these otherwise extremely boring and virtually identical spells.
My personal solution for evocations is this:
1) Elemental Evocations ignore Spell Resistance. The premise here is that the element, once evoked, is no longer magical and damages targets as though it were any other physical phenomenon.
2) Secondary effects, liberally applied. Fireballs Burn. Lightning Bolts daze. Cones of Cold stagger. If only for one round afterward. In my opinion, Arcane spells are no longer "supposed" to dish out huge damage totals, that's what a fighter's for. I prefer to increase the tactical utility of these otherwise extremely boring and virtually identical spells.
I like your solution. It seems to me the added utility would make evocations more worthwhile at high levels.
Why not allow evocation spells to be more flexible in the damage type they deal? Instead of Acid Arrow, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Cone of Cold, why not have arrow, ball, bolt and cone spells that can be of any energy type? You could leave the decision of what energy type open to the caster when the spell is cast, or when it is prepared, or you could treat each "flavor" as a seperate spell for the purposes of "known" spells, even though the only difference is the energy type.
I first encountered this idea when I heard a review of Arcana Evolved. While it's interesting, I fear it invalidates energy resistance and immunities. In fact, when it comes to cold and fire, almost everything that is resistant/immune to one is vulnerable to the other, so suddenly instead of knowing your fireball will do little or no damage, you know your coldball will do extra damage.
I would like such power to come at a cost for the spellcaster. I think an appropriate cost would be the Energy Subsitution feat (spend a feat to get this ability) and then the additional cost that using the feat has consequences (by RAW you must prepare the spell in a higher level slot, or by housrule, you run a risk of losing the spell entirely).
Spell penetration is alright I suppose, but it still doesn't make beating a target's SR a sure thing. Perhaps something a little weightier, like adding your spellcasting key ability modifier to your caster check to overcome SR would make things a bit more certain. Of course, this could get out of hand, so perhaps a 3/day limitation on this would work.
I would never want it to be a sure thing. Why even have SR if casters can effectively ignore it as a "sure thing"?
Again, I think this ability should come at a cost for the spellcaster. Without paying the cost, SR is something to be feared. It can neutralize nearly everything a spellcaster might try in battle. But, some spells don't apply against SR, and some casters are willing to take their chances and rely on luck. For the rest, there are feats that can help. Maybe all we need to do is make those feats a little more effective - but then I fear they become "Must Have" feats.
Lastly, why not have a whole plethora of feats that let you add additional effects to evocation spells, like forcing a second save to resist a thematically linked status condition, like dazed, stunned, nauseated, etc.?
There are some such feats, in the splat books. Blistering, for example, which causes a fire spell to do a little more damage and impose a 1 round condition as well.
I'm not fond of having nearly every spell require two saves. Save for half damage and save for secondary effect. That starts to get cumbersome. So does tracking potentially multiple effects on multiple enemies with varying durations and varying expirations.
I think evocation should be about killing them, not slowing, sickening, stunning, etc. If nothing else, tracking which bad guys are dead is much easier on the DM.
Of course, none of the above are new ideas. In fact, with the exception of treating each energy type of a spell as seperate for the purposes of spells known, which is a houserule of my own, this is how evocation magic is handled in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. I played a Magister (the AE equivalent of a wizard) through the entirety of the Shackled City Adventure Path, and I can tell you that even the nastiest demodands, demons, and dragons were reliably damaged by my evocations.
See, I'm not sure I want the "nastiest demodands, demons, and dragons" to be "reliably damaged by evocations". After all, they are the "nastiest" creatures of their type, they should earn some protection from magic that goes along with that title.
I have also DMed this variant magic system for six years now, and found that sorcerous blast, even the vanilla fire version, is not to be taken lightly by even the most SR-and-resistance heavy beasties.
Taken lightly? No, nothing should ever take evocation lightly, unless they are immune to the energy type being used.
But "the most SR-and-resistance heavy beasties" should be able to shrug off much of the magic that comes their way - that's why they are "the most SR-and-resistance heavy beasties". It should mean something. Probably should mean something significant.
My 17th level wizard had the potential to do 100d6 damage to an area, and an -additional- 12d6x 1.5 to one target within that area,in ONE ROUND. I could chose my element including sonic and my DC was in the neighborhood of 30, as I recall. I auto-popped SR32.
All with 3.5 rules out of the PHB and complete arcane.
Evokers are okay for damage.
OK, I'll bite. Care to share how you did this?
Timestop, Delayed Blast Fireball, Quickened Empowered Scorching ray were the spells.
Elemental Mastery with Archmage P-Class for the elements. Arcane Mastery to take tens to pop sr. Cast at level 20 caster (3 level bump Items/features) and the feat that gives you +2 SR checks. Finally, 28 intelligence with bumps.
Quickened, Empowered Scorching Ray = 63 damage on average
Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball = 70d6 (Timestop only gives you an average of 3.5 rounds) for an extra 245 average damage.
Total Damage = 308 at the cost of a 9th level spell slot, an 8th level spell slot and 3.5 7th level spell slots; which means you can only do it once per day as you only have .5 7th level spell slots remaining.
PfRPG Fighter at 17th level can hit for 237 damage as a standard action an unlimited number of times per day, that jumps to 294.5 at level 20 which seems reasonable to compare against as uncited, likely non-core, items are bumping the caster to level 20 without which the caster's damage drops to 271.25 (Devastating Blow, Powerful Critical, Bleeding Critical, Power Attack and a Curved Elven Blade with magic appropriate for that level are used by the Fighter).
PfRPG Rogue at level 20 can put out 96d6 + 8d3 for an average of 348 (Medusa's Wrath, Stunning Defense and the TWF tree with level appropriate magic items).
Considering the Fighter is only expending a Standard Action and the Rogue is finishing a 2-3 round combo the caster who just spent 5.5 rounds worth of spell slots doesn't seem as good at dealing damage after all; Quickened Black Tentacles + Cloudkill or Quickened Cloudkill + Widened Wall of Ice (Hemisphere), seem like a cheaper combo to me.
Considering the Fighter is only expending a Standard Action and the Rogue is finishing a 2-3 round combo the caster who just spent 5.5 rounds worth of spell slots doesn't seem as good at dealing damage after all; Quickened Black Tentacles + Cloudkill or Quickened Cloudkill + Widened Wall of Ice (Hemisphere), seem like a cheaper combo to me.
Problem is the moment you do damage the time stop combo is over. Besides, mine is an Evoker combo! BIG BANG!
I just wish I had a greater rod of empower. =P
What I was suggesting was a way to kill a large number of creatures without using Timestop, with no save to avoid the effect and no SR checks. The only way to get out of the trap is to use travel magic of some kind or break through 34 inches of ice before you run out of Constitution. This trap only uses up 16 levels worth of spells as opposed to 41.5 levels for the Evocation route. (Re-reading the spells you don't even need to widen the Wall of Ice to capture all of the Cloudkill meaning you only really need to spend 13 spell levels).
In other words, the non-evoker Wizard can achieving the same effect with fewer spells meaning they can continue to adventure long after the Evoker has had to bed down for the night.
Note to DM_Blake:
This is what I meant when I said casters that choose spells wisely would be less upset by spell loss; because the smart caster gets so much more mileage out of each spell level they can keep going even if a few of their tricks don't go off as planned.
Note to the Liches of the world: This is not a knock on anyone's play style. This is an attempt to point out that play style matters when one is thinking about game balance and resource consumption.
My 17th level wizard had the potential to do 100d6 damage to an area, and an -additional- 12d6x 1.5 to one target within that area,in ONE ROUND. I could chose my element including sonic and my DC was in the neighborhood of 30, as I recall. I auto-popped SR32.
All with 3.5 rules out of the PHB and complete arcane.
Evokers are okay for damage.
I'd like to hear more about optimizing an evoker/direct damage arcanist.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think.
We use a houserule in our table regarding evocation effects' colateral damage:
Evocation Spells’ Side Effects
In addition to raw energy damage, sometimes evocation spells can also trigger unpleasant colateral damage as described below. Whenever a saving throw is involved to either prevent or shake a condition off, use the source spell’s DC. At GM’s discretion, spellcasting classes with other elemental-related Supernatural Abilities can apply the following also (count said abilities as zero-level spells for the purpose of save DC).
Fire: Targets suffering full damage from a failed Ref save also Catch Fire (See Heat Dangers). Non-flesh constructs and otherwise creatures made of materials not prone to burning are immune, same as incorporeal or ethereal enemies.
Cold: In addition to the spell’s damage, the target needs to succeed a Fort save to avoid all effects of Severe Cold (See Cold Dangers). Constructs, undead, and otherwise non-living creatures are immune.
Electricity: In addition to the damage, targets suffer from muscle tetanization for 1 round per every 10 points of damage suffered (minimum 1 round, treat target as Entangled). Additional creatures sustaining physical contact with the target at the moment of the electric shock (as in a grapple) suffer 1 point of nonlethal damage per die of damage. Creatures lacking musculature are immune.
Acid: In addition to damage, acid counts as a Sunder attack towards the most immediate item slot (usually armor or vest). Magic cloth items, however, cannot be taken past Broken in this way.
Could I get an explanation of how you are hitting so hard as a fighter?
My 17th level wizard had the potential to do 100d6 damage to an area, and an -additional- 12d6x 1.5 to one target within that area,in ONE ROUND. I could chose my element including sonic and my DC was in the neighborhood of 30, as I recall. I auto-popped SR32.
All with 3.5 rules out of the PHB and complete arcane.
Evokers are okay for damage.
I'd like to hear more about optimizing an evoker/direct damage arcanist.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think.
Maximize Streamers (shining south).
200 untyped damage if you can beat their touch AC. Oh, how often?
Oh, say, once per action they take. In the middle of their action. For CL*Rounds.
Wait.
What?
:: grin::
Non-core evocation is VERY powerful.
Could I get an explanation of how you are hitting so hard as a fighter?
1) Base Strength of 20 + 4 Level Increases
2) +6 Strength Magic Item3) Potion/Spell of Enlarge Person
4) Curved Blade, Elven +5
5) Feats: Devastating Blow, Powerful Critical, Bleeding Critical, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Curved Blade, Elven.
6) Class Ability: Weapon Training(Heavy Blades) and Weapon Mastery (At 20)
Enlarged Curved Blade, Elven: 3d6 19-20 x4 Critical (x5 at 20)
Magic, Strength and Feat Damage Bonuses: 25
Power Attack: 11(32 Strength) x2(Two-Handed) = 22
Bleeding Critical = 2d6
Devastating Blow: 14d6(3d6x4 + 2d6) + 188((25+22)x4) = 237
At Level 20: 17d6(3d6x5 + 2d6) + 235((25+22)x5) = 294.5
This is all assuming Beta rules; Power Attack and some other feats may have been altered in the final release.
I'm cooking up an 11th level adventure for a 3.5 party of mine, and I have a new player who wants to play a blaster sorcerer- he's new to 3.5 and hasn't played since 2nd ed. But, he's been good enough to let me build his PC for him, since he likes to focus more on roleplaying, but also wants to be useful.
So... in one of the Dragon mag's there's a feat called Easy Metamagic- that allows you to subtract one level from the added level cost to any one metamagic feat. That means an Empowered Fireball is a 4th level spell. This plus Energy Substitution Sonic, means he can thow an 15d6 "Thunderball" as a 4th level spell, and with PHII Metamagic Specialist he can do it as a Standard Action.
I think a blaster is doable, if you dig around for the feats and such. Not to mention an Empowered Scorching (or "Screaming") ray as a 3rd level spell doing 6d6 four times- 24d6 damage- since number of targets is also Empowered by the Empower Spell feat. Not too shabby. But maybe not as optimized as some of the other choices.
Scorching Ray only produces 3 rays at 4d6 per ray, so in your example it would deal the equivalent of 18d6 not 24d6 (6d6 x 30). However, even at 24d6 the party Bard should be outclassing the Sorcerer in damage per round while the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian will absolutely blow the Sorcerer out of the water (24d6 is only 84 damage on average).
Also, non-core feats shouldn't be used to support core mechanics. The core system should function as a stand alone and should be balanced under that assumption. DMs may choose to allow non-core material, but that is a separate and distinct issue from whether or not the core material is itself balanced.
Upon further reflection I find myself in the camp with those who feel direct damage magic does not need a boost. Not because I find it to be balanced against the damage output of other classes, I don't think it comes close to being comparable, but because I feel the caster should be focusing on a different niche while letting the non-casters excel in their niche - dealing direct damage.
I agree excepting the non-core builds like the Mailman, or orb-casters. In cases where you just need to get a small amount of damage through in an unpreventable fashion, DD can be very good. Otherwise I'm going to reach for a charger, myself.
I figured it'd look something like that :: hums thoughtfully ::
Upon further reflection I find myself in the camp with those who feel direct damage magic does not need a boost. Not because I find it to be balanced against the damage output of other classes, I don't think it comes close to being comparable, but because I feel the caster should be focusing on a different niche while letting the non-casters excel in their niche - dealing direct damage.
I have to disagree.
If the designers were to make this an official policy, then they would need to also remove all the direct damage spells from the book.
Obviously that won't happen, so it's equally obvious that the game designers are intending that, either:
A. Direct Damage should be viable, in core, without rendering the evoker suboptimal compared to his companions.
or
B. Direct Damage is a trap to snare the unwary and ruin the game experience for any player foolish enough to roll up an evoker.
OK, that's a bit over the top, but I am sure the intent is not B, but I also feel they've fallen a bit short on A, at least at the higher levels.
It's nice that some players can outline a nova trick to deal more damage than the fighter once per day. But all the rest of the dozens of melee rounds the PCs are expected to fight, the Core evoker will be lagging behind and most likely be a bit of a burden for his comerades.
I think the Core evoker needs a bit of work. Maybe touching up the spells a little, but a better idea is simply improving the overall mechanic.
So far my favorite trick in this thread was removing all SR from energy damage. I like that a lot, and it is very easy to rationalize.
But after that, I'm not sure what's next.
Actually an empowered Scorching Ray would deal 6d6 (or 4d6 plus 50% which is the same) and the amount of rays is also increased by 50% giving an extra ray.
I don't believe this is the official ruling.
The number of rays is not a "variable" of the spell, and thus not increased, by official ruling.
I'm talking making a playable character that is an effective blaster, could care less about "core vs. non core". Core vs. non-core is simply a designation made by a publisher- does this matter for any group's specific game? If a feat is deemed by the group as being balanced, then use it, regardless of core vs. non-core- well that's my philosophy at least.
But it doesn't always work that way.
In our group, we vote. Someone brings something up, each player who has an opinion voices it, sometimes there's a discussion, then we vote on whether we want to ban it or use it. It's a group with 4 DMs and a couple other players and we all have somewhat varying degrees of game mechanics knowledge/understanding/experience.
So if we had an evoker, and if that evoker brought up a feat from some splat book, that evoker might be shot down if enough people thought the feat was overpowered.
In which regard, we seem to agree with you when you say "If a feat is deemed by the group as being balanced, then use it, regardless of core vs. non-core". But there are many things we decline to use - that's what might interfere with building the perfect non-core evoker.
And as a second thought, what about if you wanted to build an evoker in an official gaming society? Those rules are very clearly laid out and usually very Core-oriented. Hard to convince them to listen to your houserule, or to accept a rule in an obscure third-party splat book. Heck, it's often hard to confince them to accept a rule from an official non-Core product.
So far my favorite trick in this thread was removing all SR from energy damage. I like that a lot, and it is very easy to rationalize.But after that, I'm not sure what's next.
I think that might actually put them over as far as power level, though I do think this thought is on the right track. Honestly I'd like to see SR function more like DR rather than just a "spell AC" which means all or nothing. I know we already have energy resistance for that, and I know I'm not offering up any alternatives at this time, but I think the all or nothing philosophy of SR is the crux of the high level caster (of any ilk)'s problems and changing this mechanic would leave me much more open to other methods of spell mitigation (as was discussed at length by you in another thread).
But all it is doing is making Evokers on par with Orb-casting "Conjurers".
I think it's along the lines of removing the "Combat Casting + Skill Focus: Concentration" trick which existed for no other mechanic (much less Skill Focus: Greatsword). Energy Resistance is available to anybody and will work how it's intended against Energy Damage. Where's the problem? Rather than allowing wonky exploits like overlapping Resistance + SR, why not just make sure level-scaling/effective options for Energy Resistance are available?
I believe Jason did comment at one point that things like school classification will be looked into, and this seems like such a ripe area to tweak, that I'm optimistic it will also be dealt with in the Final rules.
I have to disagree.If the designers were to make this an official policy, then they would need to also remove all the direct damage spells from the book.
This statement is just silly. It's like saying if the designers didn't want bards or clerics or sorcerers to try and outdo fighters in weapon combat they would just remove all of their weapon proficiencies.
Obviously, not every possible character idea or option is going to be optimal or even average. Players have to be free to choose below average characters in order to feel rewarded when they choose to play above average characters. Otherwise.... you're playing 4th Edition.
Anyway, I'm rooting for you to be right, I want a blaster build to be viable in core rules, but you gotta make the argument the right way to arrive at the right answer :)
Actually an empowered Scorching Ray would deal 6d6 (or 4d6 plus 50% which is the same) and the amount of rays is also increased by 50% giving an extra ray. All numericals are increased by 50%. Thus 4 rays, for 6d6 each.
btw, I'm talking making a playable character that is an effective blaster, could care less about "core vs. non core". Core vs. non-core is simply a designation made by a publisher- does this matter for any group's specific game? If a feat is deemed by the group as being balanced, then use it, regardless of core vs. non-core- well that's my philosophy at least.
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Only variable numerics are affected by Empower Spell. Since the number of rays is not a random variable that effect does not meet the feat's definition of a variable numeric. You only get 3 rays.
As an example, consider Cure Light Wounds:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
An Empowered CLW would heal (1d8*1.5)+5. The +5 is not affected by the metamagic as it is a non-random effect; the bonus is determined by caster level. The same is true for Scorching Ray. The number of rays is determined by caster level not a random variable.
As for core versus non-core: When discussing the overall balance of a core rules system the availability of options external to that core is no more relevant than the ability of a DM to make House Rules. I could post new rules ideas on these boards, your group could review them and decide that you think they are balanced and want to use them, but those new rules wouldn't have any place in a discussion about the balance of the RAW core material. Equally so, the presence or absence of non-core material that boosts direct damage magic isn't topical to a thread discussing whether or not direct damage magic in the core rules using RAW standards is balanced.
Actually an empowered Scorching Ray would deal 6d6 (or 4d6 plus 50% which is the same) and the amount of rays is also increased by 50% giving an extra ray. All numericals are increased by 50%. Thus 4 rays, for 6d6 each.
btw, I'm talking making a playable character that is an effective blaster, could care less about "core vs. non core". Core vs. non-core is simply a designation made by a publisher- does this matter for any group's specific game? If a feat is deemed by the group as being balanced, then use it, regardless of core vs. non-core- well that's my philosophy at least.
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.Only variable numerics are affected by Empower Spell. Since the number of rays is not a random variable that effect does not meet the feat's definition of a variable numeric. You only get 3 rays.
As an example, consider Cure Light Wounds:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).An Empowered CLW would heal (1d8*1.5)+5. The +5 is not affected by the metamagic as it is a non-random effect; the bonus is determined by caster level. The same is true for Scorching Ray. The number of rays is determined by caster level not a random variable.
I fear that we are starting this and this thread again...
As much as I agree with you, it seems that Empower Spell has a lot of disagreement on what it can exactly empower...
|
The Empower dilemma really isn't that much of a dilemma. By the example in the Empower Spell feat, you multiply the total roll, after inclusive additions. The example has an empowered Magic Missile doing (1d4+1)x1.5 per missile. This means Cure spells would do (nd8+n)x1.5 healing.
However. The number of missiles from Magic Missile and the number of rays from Scorching Ray is not a variable. A 7th level wizard can always guarantee firing 4 magic missiles, and can always guarantee firing 2 scorching rays. He doesn't fire 1d3 rays, or 1d4+1 missiles. Similarly, he can guarantee the range of the spell, the caster level of the spell, and so on. None of these are variable. You don't get extra rays from scorching ray for the same reason you don't multiply the range of an empowered spell by 1.5.
The Empower dilemma really isn't that much of a dilemma. By the example in the Empower Spell feat, you multiply the total roll, after inclusive additions. The example has an empowered Magic Missile doing (1d4+1)x1.5 per missile. This means Cure spells would do (nd8+n)x1.5 healing.
However. The number of missiles from Magic Missile and the number of rays from Scorching Ray is not a variable. A 7th level wizard can always guarantee firing 4 magic missiles, and can always guarantee firing 2 scorching rays. He doesn't fire 1d3 rays, or 1d4+1 missiles. Similarly, he can guarantee the range of the spell, the caster level of the spell, and so on. None of these are variable. You don't get extra rays from scorching ray for the same reason you don't multiply the range of an empowered spell by 1.5.
See, this is exactly the problem I was speaking of.
I, too, agree that the number of rays is not influenced by Empower Spell.
I, however, just like Argothe (and a lot of other people) think that an Empowered Cure spell would be (nd8x1.5)+n , not (nd8+n)x1.5
This is a problem that, in those two thread above, went on for looooong without a solution.
As such, I think that without the final Rules, speaking of Empower Spell is a risky thing; some people used it in a way during 3.x (nd8x1.5, plus n), while other people used it in yet another way (nd8+n, x1.5) - but we still don't know how we would use it in the final version, hoping that it would be more clear and streamlined.
Just my 2c.
|
|
See, this is exactly the problem I was speaking of.I, too, agree that the number of rays is not influenced by Empower Spell.
I, however, just like Argothe (and a lot of other people) think that an Empowered Cure spell would be (nd8x1.5)+n , not (nd8+n)x1.5
This is a problem that, in those two thread above, went on for looooong without a solution.
As such, I think that without the final Rules, speaking of Empower Spell is a risky thing; some people used it in a way during 3.x (nd8x1.5, plus n), while other people used it in yet another way (nd8+n, x1.5) - but we still don't know how we would use it in the final version, hoping that it would be more clear and streamlined.
Just my 2c.
You get into hair-splitting with the Cure spells because the +n they add to their healing is level-dependant, allowing you to argue that it's separate from the nd8 and thus should not be empowered. To be honest, there isn't a simple solution for that one; it's all about the perspective. If you see the variable as being nd8+n, then the whole thing's empowered. If you see it as being nd8 with a level-dependant addition on the end, then you'd only empower the d8s. In that way it differs from Magic Missile and the like, where the non-level dependent nature of each missile's damage makes it easy to adjudicate. Both versions of empowered Cure are valid interpretations by the rules, and people probably shouldn't sweat over finding the 'right' reading of it; as far as I can tell, they're equally correct. As you say, maybe the Pathfinder Empower Spell will be clearer.
You get into hair-splitting with the Cure spells because the +n they add to their healing is level-dependant, allowing you to argue that it's separate from the nd8 and thus should not be empowered. To be honest, there isn't a simple solution for that one; it's all about the perspective. If you see the variable as being nd8+n, then the whole thing's empowered. If you see it as being nd8 with a level-dependant addition on the end, then you'd only empower the d8s. In that way it differs from Magic Missile and the like, where the non-level dependent nature of each missile's damage makes it easy to adjudicate. Both versions of empowered Cure are valid interpretations by the rules, and people probably shouldn't sweat over finding the 'right' reading of it; as far as I can tell, they're equally correct. As you say, maybe the Pathfinder Empower Spell will be clearer.
See, this is exactly the problem I was speaking of.I, too, agree that the number of rays is not influenced by Empower Spell.
I, however, just like Argothe (and a lot of other people) think that an Empowered Cure spell would be (nd8x1.5)+n , not (nd8+n)x1.5
This is a problem that, in those two thread above, went on for looooong without a solution.
As such, I think that without the final Rules, speaking of Empower Spell is a risky thing; some people used it in a way during 3.x (nd8x1.5, plus n), while other people used it in yet another way (nd8+n, x1.5) - but we still don't know how we would use it in the final version, hoping that it would be more clear and streamlined.
Just my 2c.
As long as we all agree that Scorching Ray doesn't get an extra ray from Empower, the issue, for the purposes of this thread, should be considered closed.
|
|
As long as we all agree that Scorching Ray doesn't get an extra ray from Empower, the issue, for the purposes of this thread, should be considered closed.
Indeed. Getting back to the thread's topic, I'd say that Pathfinder may be going some way to redress the perceived imbalance between Evocation spells and other avenues of attack. The Bard preview has mentioned some nerfing of spells like Hideous Laughter, which may indicate that 'save or suck' spells in general are being nerfed down. If that's the case, Evocation becomes more useful in comparison. If Evocation still needs improvement, my plan is to take the Orb spells from Spell Compendium, shunt them into Evocation and profit. Area damage spells are already just fine; if you're fighting multiple enemies, you're going to be out-damaging your meleeists, even if your damage is more widely spread. As far as I can see, the argument is that direct damage spells against lone targets doesn't measure up to melee combatants, and the no save no SR Orb spells would seem a useful way to shore that weakness up.
Also, I disagree with the people that want to let wizards change the elemental type of their Evocation spells. There's already a way you can do that, and it's called Archmage. For lower-level characters, the Energy Substitution metamagic feat can help, too. Acid substitution seems to be the best choice; it's the rarest resistance and immunity out there.
I don't like changing the SR rules because SR does factor into the CR assignments, as was mentioned previously. But upping the dice type by 1 (d6 to d8, d8 to d10, etc) for an evocation school spell cast by an evocation specialist....its simple and it addresses the problem of stagnant spell damage vs. climbing NPC hit points.
While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the viability of the dice increase, I think the whole statement, especially the first part, is like wearing blinders.
The assumption tht changing the SR rules is bad because SR was factored into the CR assignments, but increasing the caster damage is OK - this assumption completely overlooks the fact that caster damage is factored into the CR assignments too.
You even suggest as much yourself when you say "addresses the problem of stagnant spell damage vs. climbing NPC hit points."
My point is that both ideas affect the CR assignments. One decreases the enemy's ability to survive incoming damage, the other increases the PCs ability to inflict the damage. Either way, the enemy dies faster.
The only real reservation I have with increasing the size of the dice is that it increases the size of the math. Some players are lightning calculaters and do math in their heads like Rain Man. Other players end up counting their attack rolls on their fingers and toes (yeah, 1d20 + 13 can be a mathematical challenge for many players). Adding up a bunch of d6 is already math, but making the numbers on the dice bigger (because they're now d8 instead of d6) is just harder math.
Well, that and the fact that many players only carry around a small dice bag with just one or two of each die in it, except for d6, which they often have by the handful.
Other than that, increasing the evocation spells to the next larger die might work very well.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.
W
hich (obviously) accomplishes the same thing.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.W
hich (obviously) accomplishes the same thing.
Sort of outside my original intent here, I meant to focus on all direct damage not just Evokers, but what about a simple tweak to the Evocation School Power? Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.
Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
What does that do to the damage an Evoker Nova can dish out?
|
|
Sort of outside my original intent here, I meant to focus on all direct damage not just Evokers, but what about a simple tweak to the Evocation School Power? Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.
Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
You could always think about changing the Evocation School Power to be similar to Warmage Edge. It could add +Int to damage on Evocation spells. You could also allow a similar feat to Extra Edge, which adds +1 damage and a further +1 damage for every 4 Warmage levels to Warmage Edge.
Since it only works for Evocations, and only once per spell, it wouldn't be quite as good as Warmage Edge, which would allow Warmages to keep some of their individuality.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.W
hich (obviously) accomplishes the same thing.Sort of outside my original intent here, I meant to focus on all direct damage not just Evokers, but what about a simple tweak to the Evocation School Power? Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.
Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
I too would want to see all direct damage improved. I would not want to see only those who are specialized in arcane evocation school get effective evocation magic.
I should have made it more clear that I frequenly use the term "evoker" to mean "someone who is casting an evocation-type spell at this moment" and not to mean the Evoker specialist.
I would think that if we find a way to make evocation useful to everyone, then the Evoker specialist would be even better because of his specialty - that would be a good time to figure out if he's better enough (though my initial take is the BETA version is not).
What does that do to the damage an Evoker Nova can dish out?
Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
The Timestop Nova that was previously proposed? It slightly less than doubles the damage output - an additional 280 for a total of 525 area damage and 111 more to one target, assuming that you did find an item that gives you +3 to your CL as the OP for this suggested. Still only an average of not quite 116 damage per round considering you had to burn 5.5 actions worth of resources to pull it off and most of your high level spell slots. And again, you can only do it once. If you are going to go out in a single blaze of glory... make sure it is a big blaze.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.W
hich (obviously) accomplishes the same thing.Sort of outside my original intent here, I meant to focus on all direct damage not just Evokers, but what about a simple tweak to the Evocation School Power? Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.
Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
I too would want to see all direct damage improved. I would not want to see only those who are specialized in arcane evocation school get effective evocation magic.
I should have made it more clear that I frequenly use the term "evoker" to mean "someone who is casting an evocation-type spell at this moment" and not to mean the Evoker specialist.
I would think that if we find a way to make evocation useful to everyone, then the Evoker specialist would be even better because of his specialty - that would be a good time to figure out if he's better enough (though my initial take is the BETA version is not).
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?Or maybe just add +1 per die.W
hich (obviously) accomplishes the same thing.Sort of outside my original intent here, I meant to focus on all direct damage not just Evokers, but what about a simple tweak to the Evocation School Power? Rather than grant +1 damage scaling to +5 at level 20 per spell, you grant +1 scaling to +5 per die? So at level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball would be 20d6 + 100 rather than 20d6 +5.
Evocation specialists get a little more punch, non-casters still own the direct damage role (at least for single targets) and casters specializing in other schools still have a reason to focus on another niche.
I too would want to see all direct damage improved. I would not want to see only those who are specialized in arcane evocation school get effective evocation magic.
I should have made it more clear that I frequenly use the term "evoker" to mean "someone who is casting an evocation-type spell at this moment" and not to mean the Evoker specialist.
I would think that if we find a way to make evocation useful to everyone, then the Evoker specialist would be even better because of his specialty - that would be a good time to figure out if he's better enough (though my initial take is the BETA version is not).
Not at all. The problems for evokers run deeper than a tiny little bonus like +1/die will help.
I was originally replying to Dr. Johnny Fever who proposed increasing the die size, which I found mechanically awkward and possibly difficult for some players with small dice bags.
So I proposed an alternative to his idea which Jreyst pointed out, correctly, accomplishes the same thing.
The original post:
I don't like changing the SR rules because SR does factor into the CR assignments, as was mentioned previously. But upping the dice type by 1 (d6 to d8, d8 to d10, etc) for an evocation school spell cast by an evocation specialist....its simple and it addresses the problem of stagnant spell damage vs. climbing NPC hit points.While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the viability of the dice increase, I think the whole statement, especially the first part, is like wearing blinders.
The assumption that changing the SR rules is bad because SR was factored into the CR assignments, but increasing the caster damage is OK - this assumption completely overlooks the fact that caster damage is factored into the CR assignments too.
You even suggest as much yourself when you say "addresses the problem of stagnant spell damage vs. climbing NPC hit points."
My point is that both ideas affect the CR assignments. One decreases the enemy's ability to survive incoming damage, the other increases the PCs ability to inflict the damage. Either way, the enemy dies faster.
The only real reservation I have with increasing the size of the dice is that it increases the size of the math. Some players are lightning calculaters and do math in their heads like Rain Man. Other players end up counting their attack rolls on their fingers and toes (yeah, 1d20 + 13 can be a mathematical challenge for many players). Adding up a bunch of d6 is already math, but making the numbers on the dice bigger (because they're now d8 instead of d6) is just harder math.
Well, that and the fact that many players only carry around a small dice bag with just one or two of each die in it, except for d6, which they often have by the handful.
Other than that, increasing the evocation spells to the next larger die might work very well.
Or maybe just add +1 per die.
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?
Chatting about this with my DM he convinced me the +1 per die rule would be broken. Not because it would overpower direct damage magic versus physical attacks but rather because it would overpower Evokers versus other specialists. The bonus exceeds what all schools offer so why play anything other than an Evoker.
The bonus exceeds what all schools offer so why play anything other than an Evoker.
Because, even with that bonus, Evokers are "weaker" than other casters. At least until we see all the spell changes...
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?Chatting about this with my DM he convinced me the +1 per die rule would be broken. Not because it would overpower direct damage magic versus physical attacks but rather because it would overpower Evokers versus other specialists. The bonus exceeds what all schools offer so why play anything other than an Evoker.
Obviously Pathfinder has nerfed some spells. Probably some more we don't know about. Discussing upcoming Pathfinder magic schools is problematic before we have the book.
So I'll answer your question from a 3.5 perspective.
(I use terms like evoker or illusinist to refer to a preference for a type of spells, not necessarily to someone who officially specializes in a school of magic)
In 3.5, an evoker could easily spend 2-3 spells to thin the enemy ranks significantly, while an enchanter, conjurer, or illusionist could do it with a single spell. Example: we recently fought a large group of undead coming up a staircase. My mage with a single Grease spell stopped them in their tracks. Occasionally one made it through and the barbarian, cleric, and rogue hacked its lonly little self to bits. I could have used maybe 4 burning hands to accomplish that same simple feat by killing them myself, but the one Grease spell was far more efficient.
In 3.5, an evoker could wound a big boss or tough single-mob encounter time and time again without killing it. Or maybe after multiple rounds the evoker's damage might land the killing blow. But the enchanter or illusionist might take that mob right out of the fight on round 1. For example, we just fought a huge cave troll. It was CR 8 and we were all 4th or 5th level - way over our heads. This troll had over 100 HP and was dishing out way over 20 HP per round - dropped our barbarian down to single digits in the first round and would have killed him next round. But my mage landed a Hideous Laughter and incapacitated the troll until we hacked it to bits. A couple heal spells from the cleric and we were good to go. Had I hit him Acid Arrow instead, I might have done 20 HP to him. Scorching ray would be no better. He would have killed our barbarian and started on our weaker melee guys next. I could have blown 5 or 6 spells before we killed it, and we would have needed a dozen heal spells after the fight.
That kind of one-shot Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spell can end a fight instantly, while direct damage usually cannot.
That's why nobody would play an evoker, even if he had +1 damage per die.
(Which isn't entirely true, since some people still play evokers even without that bonus, and it can be fun slinging around a bunch of damage, but it's just not as effective as controlling the entire battlefield)
Which, by the way, given your many arguments about spells and spell selection, I'm quite sure you alredy knew all this. Were you just asking to provoke responses and see what people would say?
That kind of one-shot Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spell can end a fight instantly, while direct damage usually cannot. That's why nobody would play an evoker, even if he had +1 damage per die.
Amen, brother. And there are three (3) ways of fixing that:
Of the three choices, it seems abundantly clear that Paizo is going with Option (3).
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?Chatting about this with my DM he convinced me the +1 per die rule would be broken. Not because it would overpower direct damage magic versus physical attacks but rather because it would overpower Evokers versus other specialists. The bonus exceeds what all schools offer so why play anything other than an Evoker.Obviously Pathfinder has nerfed some spells. Probably some more we don't know about. Discussing upcoming Pathfinder magic schools is problematic before we have the book.
So I'll answer your question from a 3.5 perspective.
(I use terms like evoker or illusinist to refer to a preference for a type of spells, not necessarily to someone who officially specializes in a school of magic)
In 3.5, an evoker could easily spend 2-3 spells to thin the enemy ranks significantly, while an enchanter, conjurer, or illusionist could do it with a single spell. Example: we recently fought a large group of undead coming up a staircase. My mage with a single Grease spell stopped them in their tracks. Occasionally one made it through and the barbarian, cleric, and rogue hacked its lonly little self to bits. I could have used maybe 4 burning hands to accomplish that same simple feat by killing them myself, but the one Grease spell was far more efficient.
In 3.5, an evoker could wound a big boss or tough single-mob encounter time and time again without killing it. Or maybe after multiple rounds the evoker's damage might land the killing blow. But the enchanter or illusionist might take that mob right out of the fight on round 1. For example, we just fought a huge cave troll. It was CR 8 and we were all 4th or 5th level - way over our heads. This troll had over 100 HP and was dishing out way over 20 HP per round - dropped our barbarian down to single digits in the first round and would have killed him next round. But my mage landed a Hideous...
I tend to agree with this analysis.
|
That kind of one-shot Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spell can end a fight instantly, while direct damage usually cannot. That's why nobody would play an evoker, even if he had +1 damage per die.Amen, brother. And there are three (3) ways of fixing that:
Add conditions to different energy types (stunning to electical spells, catch on fire (continuing damage) to fire spells, nauseated/sickened to acid spells, slow to cold spells, for example), as proposed earlier. That way the spells actually impede the enemy's ability to fight, which simple damage does not.
Add wound status levels to the game: wounded living things are fatigued, and those below 1/2 hp are exhausted, or whatever. This makes combat gritty and more "realistic," and it also kills PCs left and right, making smart heroes afraid to get into fights.
Nerf the save-or-die/save-or-suck spells. Of the three choices, it seems abundantly clear that Paizo is going with Option (3).
Which will just mean enchanters suck as bad as evokers. Oh, well...
(I think that's a BAD thing, btw).
Do you think a +1 per die for all direct damage spells for all classes mitigates the problem adequately?Chatting about this with my DM he convinced me the +1 per die rule would be broken. Not because it would overpower direct damage magic versus physical attacks but rather because it would overpower Evokers versus other specialists. The bonus exceeds what all schools offer so why play anything other than an Evoker.
I disagree with the conclusion. Moreover, I specified ALL direct damage spells for ALL spell casters.
Which will just mean enchanters suck as bad as evokers. Oh, well... (I think that's a BAD thing, btw).
Right. Which leaves you and I with a different task: boost the fighting classes enough to stand against the real, un-nerfed spells.