Back in 1st edition (AD&D)a 13th level wizard did 13d6 with a fireball-- more damage with a fireball or magic missile than a 10th level wizard.
I think this changed in 2nd edition.
But in AD&D you stopped getting hit dice above about 10th level and just gained a few hit points so it kind of made sense.
now in 3rd edition (& pathfinder) you get tonnes of hit points but evocation spells still have the cap. Can someone tell me the reason for these caps?
(and by the way why do some 1st level spells like burning hands & shocking grasp cap apply at 5th level but magic missiles not apply until 9th level?)
You just discovered why Evocation is a weak school :).
: ) sure pick on the weak kid
but why are these spells given extra weakness?
does anyone know the game design reason?
Creative Director
|
The primary reason is that capping the damage dice helps to keep spells of lower levels less powerful than higher level spells. If there were no caps, then a 3rd level spell would do the same damage as a 9th level spell at 20th level, which doesn't make sense—the 9th level spell should remain a more powerful and better choice at 20th level than the 3rd level one, and not just because there's a LOT more 3rd level spells available to that caster.
Basically, by capping the spell damage, spellcasters are encouraged to rely on their highest level spells for the biggest punch.
Psionic powers DON'T have level caps like this. As you level up, your lower level spells effectively transform into phantom higher level spells; they still take up a lower level spell known but you can supercharge them by spending extra points. As a result, a Psion can expend a LOT more power with more spells.
Basically, all of this amounts to a sort of throttle on magic to keep spellcasters from overwhelmingly dominating the scene at higher levels. They did this a LOT in 1st edition, to the extent that fighters and thieves might as well retire. By throttling lower level spells so they remain low level even when a spellcaster is powerful, the balance between classes is preserved.
I don't have the math mojo to do a proof as to WHY throttling is good, but there are a lot of game balance reasons for it.
In any case... I don't actually understand the idea that damage caps "weaken" spells. Even at 10d6, a fireball can damage a LOT of targets at once as a standard action... area effects ALWAYS do less damage to single targets than do specific targeting spells.
|
Creative Director
|
I think that the 3ed designers at a few points failed to grasp The Big Picture (same problem with Undead HP). That, or they didn't intend for casters to be dedicated HP damage dealers, leaving that to the melee classes.
They didn't miss anything. As I mentioned in my earlier post, damage caps are a way to keep spellcasters from dominating the game.
If you want spellcasters to dominate your game... by all means remove the caps. But don't be surprised if that increases the number of PC fatalities once you start doing battles with numerous spellcasters...
Remember that game balance has to go both ways; it has to be balanced so the PCs aren't overpowered, and it has to be balanced so that foes aren't too tough.
|
I do agree with capping, and I believe that it should stay. I do however also think that a Wizard will almost always be better off with something else than casting evocation spells. Cone of Cold (saves vs. Reflex or take moderate damage) vs. Hold Monster (save or die, really) are both the same spell level.
Hiya
They didn't miss anything. As I mentioned in my earlier post, damage caps are a way to keep spellcasters from dominating the game.
If you want spellcasters to dominate your game... by all means remove the caps. But don't be surprised if that increases the number of PC fatalities once you start doing battles with numerous spellcasters...
Or another way would have been if 1e would have had more stringent rules for making characters like, say, 3d6 in order, with minimums for race and class, and maybe have Int for a magic-user indicate which actual level of spells a spellcaster could cast. So, for example, maybe with an Int of 'only' 14, he could cast a maximum level spell of, say level 4 or 5 spells.
...er... wait a minute. They did do that. ;)
IME, removing the caps will not cause spellcasters in 1e/2e games to suddenly 'dominate' the game. I've been at this RPG thingie for 30 years now, and I've *never* encountered the so-called "ultimate wizard" type situations so many folks claim are problems or potential problems. The only time I've seen that is when the DM and players are in the realm of "Monty Haul / Munchkin" campaigns where stats are determined by rolling 1d8 +12 (of 1d4+16 for your prime requisite), Ki-Rin, Dragons and Djinn are acceptable player character races, and every city, town or village has 'unlimited magic shops' where any item in the book can be bought or sold.
Remember that game balance has to go both ways; it has to be balanced so the PCs aren't overpowered, and it has to be balanced so that foes aren't too tough.
I totally agree with this. However, game balance can be achieved in several different ways. The "1:1 damage/hit potential" is just the most simplistic and short 'immediate gratification' way. There have/are several threads about "1e game balance" at various forums of late (EnWorld, Dragonsfoot and I think here and at KenzerCo). From what it looks like, there is a general consensus that in 1e game balance was achieve via the expectation of much longer campaigns (years and years of play) and probabilities (such as the probability of rolling the stats needed to play a paladin using 3d6, in order).
I do agree with capping, and I believe that it should stay. I do however also think that a Wizard will almost always be better off with something else than casting evocation spells. Cone of Cold (saves vs. Reflex or take moderate damage) vs. Hold Monster (save or die, really) are both the same spell level.
Do you play in a game where the party frequently only encounters one creature? That analysis is fine for those types of meetups. However, if you find yourself in situations with more than one opponent, fireball and other area spells are frequent choices due to the damage that they deal in a big swath.
|
|
Well, take any Paizo AP and review encounters in later modules (from 3+). Majority of combats are against single opponent, max 2-3.
And spreading damage in a big swath does you little good. In D&D, damage does not reduce combat ability. Imagine that you face four hill giants. What's better, doing xd6 damage to each of them (fireball, cone of cold etc) - what will hardly kill them due to high HP vs capped dmg problem - or taking one out for good (hold monster, or even hold person in Pathfinder) ? In the first case, you have four hill giants hitting your party, in the latter - three.
Mid-to-high level D&D combat is against single enemies mostly. If there is anything that 4ed did well, it's implementation of "boss and his mooks" idea - in 3.5/PF, a CR 15 Lich surrounded by a bunch of, let's be liberal, CR 5 lesser undead doesn't work, because CR 5 monsters are not even a remote threat to a lvl 15 character. Sad but true.
Nerfing high level casters has done something which was unintended...it prolongs high level encounters into slugfests which take hours to resolve.
The designed party size in 1e/2e was 6-8 characters, in 3e it's 4. Hit Points went through the roof, the highest number of hit points in the first MM is I think 120ish (from memory, correct me if I'm wrong). Players have loads more HP. Monsters have Loads more HP...
But the wizards and sorcerors keep getting governed, now in PFRPG, Save or Die spells aren't it's save or take some dmg (NOT enough to kill big nasty beasts.)
Here's a way to resolve it, if you want to put some punch back in the evocation spells. Remove the caps, but also increase the die types of the higher level evocation spells, Maybe d8s for 4-6 spells and d10s for 7+ spells.
The level 20 Wizard can choose to toss a 20d6 fireball, or a 20d10 Delayed blast fireball. Also return save or die spells. And return magic missiles to their 1e glory. 10 1d4+5 missiles at level 20! YEAH!
Spellcasters don't scare players anymore...They should.
And spreading damage in a big swath does you little good. In D&D, damage does not reduce combat ability. Imagine that you face four hill giants. What's better, doing xd6 damage to each of them (fireball, cone of cold etc) - what will hardly kill them due to high HP vs capped dmg problem - or taking one out for good (hold monster, or even hold person in Pathfinder) ? In the first case, you have four hill giants hitting your party, in the latter - three.
That's looking at the first round. My players have been finding that the artillery works pretty well in the rounds after the first one because even the giants don't stand up long. So while they may face 4 giants attacking that first round, they're knocking down more in subsequent rounds, reducing the number of attacks they face in the long run (once those giants stop and engage with full attack actions).
So I wouldn't dismiss damaging spells as doing little good.|
Creative Director
|
Well, take any Paizo AP and review encounters in later modules (from 3+). Majority of combats are against single opponent, max 2-3.
I'm not so sure how true this is. But that may just be because I just recently finished working on the climax of Council of Thieves, which has a LOT of combats with larger groups.
And when you consider that in lots of areas, there are creatures in close proximity and unless you play the monsters without tactics at all, they'll come to help allies when fights begin.
Again... if you want spellcasters to have no damage caps, that's an easy houserule to institute. I'd LOVE to hear actual for-real feedback of a campaign (not one encounter... a WHOLE CAMPAIGN) where the spellcasters had their damage caps removed. In the meantime, though, the rules as written have caps in there for a reason, and I feel I've already explained that above so I'm not really interested in arguing for argument's sake about which play style is better.
Thanks for the responses. I agree that it seems the reason is to make people rely on higher level spells for bigger punch etc
But why then is it just a cap on damage dice- not say effective caster level?
Magic missile because it does 1d4+1 per 2 levels (due to the fact it is a force effect, no save, ranged, no miss) gets to max out it's damage at 9th level but burning hands at 5th- shouldn't magic missile max out at 5th level effectiveness for damage (ie 3d4+3)?
would a 'forceball' area effect spell at 3rd level doing 1d6 per 2 levels no save, force effect, maximum 10d6 be OK because it maxs out at 10 dice? ( I note vampiric touch goes to 10 dice)
And why is it only damage dice that are effected- why doesnt displacement have a maximum duration of 10 rounds? mirror image a maximum of 10th level caster for determining images & duration etc ? why do these spells keep getting better in all ways as you go up levels-- they dont even suffer from the weakness of a low DC save that fireball would?
I note that when the damage cap was brought in (2nd edition) there was no difference in the number needed to save against a 3rd level spell vs a 7th level spell- now it is 4 points higher, this already gives higher level spells a bit more punch IMO.
Plus a 15th level character is likely IMO to have more than three times the hp's of a 5th level character due to con enhancement & toughness feat availability; and they are likely to have a higher relative saving throw as well-- so where a 5d6 attack from a 3rd level spell may scare a 5th level character a 15d6 from a 3rd level spell not so much (even a 15d6 from an 8th level spell is not too scary)to a 15th level character.
I am not really advocating one way or the other on any of this I have just been looking at the game design logic recently and am trying to get my head around the reasoning for some of the decisions, and importantly if doing things differently has any big obvious flaws.
BTW: We have often played delayed blast fireball as doing 1d6+1 damage per level- I thought this was the 1st edition rule we used it for so long but I think I am wrong.
Thanks for the responses. I agree that it seems the reason is to make people rely on higher level spells for bigger punch etc
But why then is it just a cap on damage dice- not say effective caster level?
Because other parameters still increase (such as range, or duration for non-instantaneous spells). If you limit effective caster level for damage, you restrict other spell parameters that you want extended at higher level.
Because other parameters still increase (such as range, or duration for non-instantaneous spells). If you limit effective caster level for damage, you restrict other spell parameters that you want extended at higher level.
And one thing nobody wants to deal with is a long (or medium or short) range that varies from spell to spell even when cast by the same caster.
And one thing nobody wants to deal with is a long (or medium or short) range that varies from spell to spell even when cast by the same caster.
Because other parameters still increase (such as range, or duration for non-instantaneous spells). If you limit effective caster level for damage, you restrict other spell parameters that you want extended at higher level.
But Varianor that is my point- spells which dont rely on damage just keep getting better & better with every level- haste gets 1 extra person and lasts for 1 extra round EVERY level, even after 10th. Mirror image gets an extra image per 3 levels & lasts longer- so obviously the game design logic that we want you to use your higher level spells for more punch doesnt apply to these spells-- and of course these low level spells already are not dependent on a saving throw so do not suffer at higher levels from having a low DC (like 3rd level fireball does)
and Bill, fair enough, although damage dice vary from spell to spell when cast by the same caster to some extent, but in essence I accept your reasoning.
bearing in mind that the reason for such caps is to limit the power of lower level spells compared with higher level ones let us deal with these specific examples:
1) why does magic missile get to max out it's damage at 9th level when burning hands and shocking grasp max out at 5th? ( IMO maxing at 10th is pretty reasonable for all these spells and because of the low cap BH & SG become pretty useless after 3rd level and completely useless after 7th)-- this question really focuses on the anomaly that is magic missile rather than my main point.
2) why doesnt mirror image have a maximum +3 additional images (ie at 10th level)? it seems the cap only applies to damage doing spells
3) why does acid arrow have up to 6 rounds duration- it should be 3?
4) why does hold person not have say a hit dice cap- or a duration cap?- sure it is restricted in that it only effects humanoids but..
5) for that matter hold monster as a 5th level spell should have a 15hit dice limit (like cone of colds 15d6 damage limit)- shouldn't it?
It seems to me that evocation/damage doing spells get limits to the things that principally govern their effectiveness as you go up levels but other spells do not.
I mean if you are pro caps so that people are required to rely on their high level spells then shouldn't they be consistently applied?
I do a fair bit of houseruling in my games but before I tinker with something like caps i want to get as much info on the reasoning behind them & the consistency that I can.
1) why does magic missile get to max out it's damage at 9th level when burning hands and shocking grasp max out at 5th? ( IMO maxing at 10th is pretty reasonable for all these spells and because of the low cap BH & SG become pretty useless after 3rd level and completely useless after 7th)-- this question really focuses on the anomaly that is magic missile rather than my main point.
It's less about the final level and more about the final dice. 1st level spells generally cap at 5 dice of damage - burning hands just gets there faster than magic missile.
2) why doesnt mirror image have a maximum +3 additional images (ie at 10th level)? it seems the cap only applies to damage doing spells
Non-damage effects, particularly conditional ones, aren't as important to cap. In the case of mirror image, you're often facing more attacks, so the spell may actually last less time at higher levels.
3) why does acid arrow have up to 6 rounds duration- it should be 3?
Second level spell, could cap out at 10 dice. Designers actually though it balanced out with less.
4) why does hold person not have say a hit dice cap- or a duration cap?- sure it is restricted in that it only effects humanoids but..
Being a low level already hinders the growth of its save DC. Plus, keeping it limited in targets is already a balancing factor compared to hold monster.
5) for that matter hold monster as a 5th level spell should have a 15hit dice limit (like cone of colds 15d6 damage limit)- shouldn't it?
No. A single-target spell subject to an initial negating save and another one in each subsequent round is limiting enough.
Bill Dunn did a nice and thorough analysis. Let's say that there's definitely issues with the spell mechanics in 3.#, but overall they work and fairly well within their parameters. Note that while haste does keep increasing in the amount of characters it can effect, it functionally caps out at the size of the party, or "party + allies" in the event that they have some NPCs around. (The spell also has some problems in its design that could have used even more tinkering than it got when it went from 3.0 to 3.5 version.) Its duration often doesn't matter in a short fight - they typically last 3-5 rounds. In a long fight, they tend to increase as level increases, so it just lasts long enough to get through the encounter without having to readjust everyone's sheet again.
To view it differently, defense will almost always improve because it's a utility. Offense caps out to force casters to use higher level sources of damage, which attempts to balance out the amount of overall effect casters can have. It's not perfect, but it works overall okay.
IMO, if you want to start houseruling the system for spell effectiveness and/or lethality, consider raising spell DCs for lower level spells to match the higher level spells and see what happens!