We could make a similar comparison between the 6th level spells Chain Lightning and Disintegrate. I could potentially deal 40d6 damage to one creature, if it fails its save, or I could deal 11d6-20d6 damage to dozens of creatures. Only those with evasion or lightning immunity can potentially ignore CL entirely. If the target of disinitegrate saves, however, he takes a mere 5d6 damage, which is pretty poor damage to one target for a 6th level spell.Disintegrate needs a touch attack AND a save. It sucks as a combat spell when compared to flesh to stone.
It's still too useful in out-of-combat situations to skip. :p
At 10th level, we're talking about a DC of about 22 for a focused blaster (+5 int, +2 focus and greater focus, +3 spell level, fireball). CR8 goons at that point, will have about a 35% chance to save for half damage if reflex is their bad save. So you have 35*.65 + 17,5*.35 = ~28 average damage from a fireball (per target). That is not taking into account elemental and spell resistances, which are common. A paladin or fighter will reliably outdamage that, and that's right before they gain their third attack but exactly when many wizard spells max out (so it's a level that is in favor of wizards). A decent two-handed fighter could do about 60 dpr average unbuffed (seen in the DPR olympics, yes optimized but that was against CR10 and not CR8), so yeah, when you hit three or more enemies your blast is better. EDIT: In straight damage, it's more, that is. Dealing 60 damage to one opponent is often better than dealing 25 damage each to 3 opponents.
I haven't seen a 10th level melee character that can do 10d6 damage to multiple opponents every round yet, especially if they are spaced out. I have seen several that can do such damage (and more) to one opponent, maybe even two if the dice roll well. Post 10th level such things are easier, but at that level most blaster mages will be using the higher level spells for serious damage anyways, so as to have a higher damage cap.
That is also not accounting for evasion, lightning reflexes, and improves lightning reflexes.
As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered or maximized fireball does nothing.
|
As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered + maximized fireball does nothing.
And his next spell would be Horrid Wilting or Black Tentacles. :) Maybe just Deep Slumber.
As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered + maximized fireball does nothing.And his next spell would be Horrid Wilting or Black Tentacles. :) Maybe just Deep Slumber.
Yeah, but by then they will have spread out, the fighter and cleric will have killed a few, etc... He had what looked like a perfect blasting moment, and burned a high power spell for no effect.
The point is that there are far more ways to decrease the damage done by blasts than there is to increase the power of blasts.
That is also not accounting for evasion, lightning reflexes, and improves lightning reflexes.As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered or maximized fireball does nothing.
And they would all be dressed in paper maché full plates, standing on their knees with large beards. Oh, the poor wizard won't suspect a thing...
|
Adding a feat chain that lets you add your Int mod or caster level to damage for all spells of a given descriptor (i.e. fire, force, cold, etc)would help immensely, as would the Energy Substitution feat (or one like it, to get around immunity to your favorite blasting flavor). Metamagic Rods of Empower, Maximize and Widen spell too.
As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered or maximized fireball does nothing.
And you, Sir, would get the "ass hat GM of the year" award. Seriously - you'd set up a mage to use his spell and only have it be blown off on purpose?
Pure "ass hattery" in the extreme. :-(
Maybe this is why the magic-types cry "I'm so weak" all the time.
Bringing it back to thread-relevance, I'm with TwoWolves on the "let's try feats" to make this work out for the blasters.
Another bone to pick was brought up by Abraham Spalding --> why do higher level spells use the SAME damage die as lower level ones?
To us, this sounds like some direct spell adjustments also should be part of fixing the problem.
I'd also say that it's about high time to challenge the basic premise of meta-magic feats while we're at it.
As a DM if I really want to piss the blaster off, I give him a nice clumped up ground of rogues with LR and imp LR. Drink their sweet, sweet tears as their empowered or maximized fireball does nothing.And you, Sir, would get the "ass hat GM of the year" award. Seriously - you'd set up a mage to use his spell and only have it be blown off on purpose?
Pure "ass hattery" in the extreme. :-(
Maybe this is why the magic-types cry "I'm so weak" all the time.
Bringing it back to thread-relevance, I'm with TwoWolves on the "let's try feats" to make this work out for the blasters.
Another bone to pick was brought up by Abraham Spalding --> why do higher level spells use the SAME damage die as lower level ones?
To us, this sounds like some direct spell adjustments also should be part of fixing the problem.
I'd also say that it's about high time to challenge the basic premise of meta-magic feats while we're at it.
Of course it could all have been an illusion too, it all depends on how much of an arrogant jack$#@ the blaster has been. Besides, the rest of the group would be in tears from laughter.
But that is entirely besides the point.
My point is based on this.
Using standard points buy, you get a caster with 18 to their primary stat. That gives them a starting DC of 15. A level 10 caster will have a +4 magic item(for 16k gold) and 2 stat increases from level and both spell focus feats for a DC of 24 on a level 5 spell. A level 20 caster caps out with a 29 to their casting stat(with a +6 stat item). Add in spell focus and greater spell focus and you get a DC of 30 for a level 9 spell. If they use a lower level spell slot, their DC will be worse.
A level 1 rogue with an 18 dex has a reflex save of +6 and will only fail a reflex save 40% of the time. At level 10, the rogue will likely have a +2 cloak of resistance, and a +4 to dex item for a reflex save of +15 with evasion, +17 if they take lightning reflexes. That drops their save failure chance to 30% and they now take no damage. At level 20, a rogue will have cloak of resistance +5 for a +27 chance to their reflex save with lightning reflexes. Even if they fail the save by rolling a 1 or 2 against a ninth level spell, they will likely have improved evasion and some kind of energy resistance.
A level 20 fighter who focuses on strength will still have around a 20 dex giving them a save of +18(+6(class) +5(dex) +5(cloak) +2(feat)) with a reroll and some kind of energy resist.
My point is that defenses to spells scale up faster than the DC and damage from spells does. Spell focus and greater spell focus is countered by iron will, lightning reflexes, and great fortitude. There is nothing casters can get that will counter the improved version of these feats. As a caster gain boosts to their casting stats from levels and magic items, other classes gain boosts to stats that up their saves. As a caster gets access to higher level spells and thus higher spell DCs, class's strong saves go up at the same rate(+1 per 2 levels), while weak saves go up 33% slower. Blast spell damage goes up by 1d6 per level, health goes up by 1d6 to 1d12 per level depending on class. Finally, casters don't have anything to increase their DCs that really compares to a cloak of resistance, and they no longer have any good way of getting around energy resists like the energy substitution feats. Eventually, melee and archer types can get weapons strong enough to cut through almost any damage reduction, casters have few ways of getting around energy resists.
Thus, the biggest problem I see with blasting is that it starts out decent at low levels, but it gets worse the higher you get.
Ok, well, your points are already well documented up thread (maybe not in so much detail). But Blast of AoE vs. Improved Evasion = lose on blast, but that's "worst case scenario" in the extreme. If everyone's kicking around with rings of evasion, I as GM cry foul and forbid such things outright. It's stomping all over the rogues bit, and just cheap. Even WORSE if the entire NPC line is rocking that for gear - crap move on the GM's end - that's just being a dink about it. The *only* time this would be ok, is if you're looking to raid a thieves guild or something - of COURSE you're going to run into Evasion effects - you're dealing with rogues!!! That said, a caster would/should know that and plan accordingly. Worst case scenario only proves 1 thing to me - a class feature for a different class is actually working (OMG! Imagine that!!!)
The DC's are a more interesting break down, honestly. DC 30 vs. +27 ref save is pretty terrible. Even dropping it by 6 (assume a "bad save" target) and it's still a +21 - odds are not good for that spell.
Hmm ... what if the bonus was levelx2 to determine DC's? Then max save would bump from 30 - 39, yes? That's a 12 or more needed on the D20. Roll average-well and you make the save, Roll low-and you're boned - this is for a best save guy. Worst save guy has a +21, so
he'd need an 18 - and he's hosed UNLESS he rolls his best. I'd think that L.Reflexes would be the worst thing to add to a "best save" type, but pretty good for a low save (best save guy's already looking at it as the "best save" so why bother unless paranoid). So, bump up the 2 more, and it's 16+ for the "bad save" guy to manage it ... I'm kind of ok with that, really (we're talking level 9 spells here). But then layer on the paranoia (because it's a bad save) and you get Improved X to get 2 rolls vs. the spell effect - both need a 16+ assuming no other buffs are in place (bard songs, priest spells, protection from evil spells, etc). Each one of those, with teamwork, improves "bad save guys" chances a lot - and is VERY likely to see use/action/activation in the scenario, so .. yeah. Maybe bumping the spell DC formula would be a good thing for this?
Thesis 1: Wizards are extremely strong due to multiple-target save or sucks like Sleet Storm, Sleep and the like.
Thesis 2: Blasting is inferior to those spells because the damage is so-so and the other spells are far more effective.An idea for a solution for both problems, for those that have the problem: Spell focus adds +1 damage per dice instead of +1 DC. Improved is +2 damage per dice.
I mostly play lower-level campaigns where wizards aren't as overpowered, and I like that wizards are more "manipulative" than they are death machines. It fits my taste of wizards, and my players haven't complained a lot about it. That said, we are quite far from optimizers anyway.
Thesis 3: using spells rather than melee to do damage is horribly inefficient.
I can't help but read all the posts that say, "I play a blaster and he doesn't suck," as "The melee in my party suck, so I can't tell how gimped I really am." =p The fighter and rogue in my party absolutely destroy. Yes, fireball has a huge damage potential when the stars align, but the fighter is regularly doing fireball-damage to multiple targets every turn, all day long. Adding a couple damage per dice (at the cost of two feats) really doesn't solve the problem.
The idea to change damaging spells into a duration based spell that gives the wizard the ability to cast the spell as a standard action multiple times is a really good one, imo, but would take a lot of work to tune.
your fighter does 5d6+5 damage to everything in what, 20 feet, in one turn? I don't think he or she does. You take spec. greater spec. and the likely 20-22 in a main stat for an evoker and that save is a DC 21.
you need a +10 save to reliably take half unless you have evasion.
People always argue about inefficiency when it comes to this, and the honest answer is that it isn't, but the goal isn't always to kill or win the fight outright (show me a 3rd level save or die spell?)
Honestly, if one spell can put an entire group of enemies on the defensive, make them start using their actions to heal instead of fight, or demoralize them then the spell was a success.
There is no wrong way to play this game, not even mechanically. Nothing I've seen presents irrefutable evidence that any spell is or spell casting style is superior in a definitive manner. Normally a blasting spell is going to do SOME damage, but a make-it-or-take-it(tm Nathan Blackmer) spell is still subject to a save and spell resistance all the same, with nothing to show if it fails. I'm surprised that folks haven't started seriously looking at fire/death domain negative channeling clerics as a blaster class.
no those are save or suck (sleep/paralyze) and PRAY they don't make it so you wasted your action, are elves and therefore immune, undead don't sleep, and none of those spells actually, you know, kill you. Not to mention the HD limitations.
It would seem that they, like ALL spells, are only good in a good situation for their use.
no those are save or suck (sleep/paralyze) and PRAY they don't make it so you wasted your action, are elves and therefore immune, undead don't sleep, and none of those spells actually, you know, kill you. Not to mention the HD limitations.
It would seem that they, like ALL spells, are only good in a good situation for their use.
As has already been said in this thread, "save or die" and "save or suck" are the same thing. When you're asleep, you're one coup de grace from death. It's just as good as being dead. You're arguing semantics that amounts to nothing but sophistry.
As has already been said in this thread, "save or die" and "save or suck" are the same thing. When you're asleep, you're one coup de grace from death. It's just as good as being dead. You're arguing semantics that amounts to nothing but sophistry.no those are save or suck (sleep/paralyze) and PRAY they don't make it so you wasted your action, are elves and therefore immune, undead don't sleep, and none of those spells actually, you know, kill you. Not to mention the HD limitations.
It would seem that they, like ALL spells, are only good in a good situation for their use.
and you're piggybacking on an established argument that isn't waterproof.
How is pointing out that the effects are commonly ignorable semantic? I can memorize those three spells to make sure that I have one paralytic effect (with the exception of deep slumber, 10 hd I think it said is pretty nice) which may or may not work at all dependent on the type of enemy I'm fighting, or take one fireball spell that will definitely have SOME effect on most of the common low level threats I encounter.
The problem isn't that the spells are or are not useless/inefficient. A spell being useful is based on the circumstances, not the merit of the individual spell... like everything else in this game. Is there a valid counter point for that?
You keep citing fireball, which is particularly amusing because fire resistance/immunity is incredibly common. You also attribute a lot of power to the spell that it doesn't have ("Honestly, if one spell can put an entire group of enemies on the defensive, make them start using their actions to heal instead of fight, or demoralize them then the spell was a success").
You keep citing fireball, which is particularly amusing because fire resistance/immunity is incredibly common. You also attribute a lot of power to the spell that it doesn't have ("Honestly, if one spell can put an entire group of enemies on the defensive, make them start using their actions to heal instead of fight, or demoralize them then the spell was a success").
It most definitely is, and I'd point to that as something to consider. I don't believe in "pure" blasting, or save-or-suck, I advocate a balanced middle ground. There's a time and a place for both types of spell. Deep slumber isn't going to do much good against 30 1 hd enemies(they CAN wake each other up) and is going to be useless against a throng of low level elves, but could be ridiculously effective against the same level of encounter with slightly different variables. Against a horde of lemures, fireball would be similarly weakened.
My group just finished War of the Burning Sky. Lots of times over the course of that campaign we were saved by AoE blast spells, and some targeted ones. There were a LOT of large scale battle scenes, and a fair share of espionage (where the save or suck/ save or die spells really shine) and I just find it bothersome that people can't see the value in both sides of the spellbook.
You keep citing fireball, which is particularly amusing because fire resistance/immunity is incredibly common. You also attribute a lot of power to the spell that it doesn't have ("Honestly, if one spell can put an entire group of enemies on the defensive, make them start using their actions to heal instead of fight, or demoralize them then the spell was a success").
If I were DM'ing, and a large group of weak enemies where hit by a fireball (even cast by a 5th level caster as I'm assuming) many will probably die, make the save or not, and those that do are going to have serious second thoughts about going after the guy that just charbroiled dozens of his friends in a flashy, spectacular manner. Just an assumption that the DM would have people react to an explosion in a somewhat realistic manner.
|
|
If I were DM'ing, and a large group of weak enemies where hit by a fireball (even cast by a 5th level caster as I'm assuming) many will probably die, make the save or not, and those that do are going to have serious second thoughts about going after the guy that just charbroiled dozens of his friends in a flashy, spectacular manner. Just an assumption that the DM would have people react to an explosion in a somewhat realistic manner.
That is something I can agree with. I've done my best to remember to play enemies realistically, even when it isn't optimal tactics gamewise. So far my players have buzzed through fights in a couple rounds, so it's not like the opposition has time to get scared before they die. XD
If I were DM'ing, and a large group of weak enemies where hit by a fireball (even cast by a 5th level caster as I'm assuming) many will probably die, make the save or not, and those that do are going to have serious second thoughts about going after the guy that just charbroiled dozens of his friends in a flashy, spectacular manner. Just an assumption that the DM would have people react to an explosion in a somewhat realistic manner.That is something I can agree with. I've done my best to remember to play enemies realistically, even when it isn't optimal tactics gamewise. So far my players have buzzed through fights in a couple rounds, so it's not like the opposition has time to get scared before they die. XD
Good on you, man. (side note, hey triomega and Zurai, you gonna make it to PaizoCon? As much as we argue on these blasted boards, I'd love to sit in a game with any of you at the Con if you can make it. I'm not a jerk I swear, the internets is a poor medium for communication sometimes.)
Just an assumption that the DM would have people react to an explosion in a somewhat realistic manner.
I think far too many forget this in game (I always keep it foremost in mind), in favor of "going for the kill" or needing some direct YOU DIE!! Kind of marker for declaring "victory" or "xp earned" or something.
On the GM side, that's just ridiculous to forget that everything has a sense of mortality. If you push it, they will run.
On the player-side, the "kill to get xp" mentality needs to be reasonably side-lined for the PC's to get that sense from the GM that things will happen "realistically" and that would mean that they do NOT always need to run screaming like maniacs through the forest to get EVERY SINGLE LAST DROP of xp for the encounter.
Now, that aside, there really are some mechanical issues with blasting. The relative ease of increasing save values, for instance, just about forces blast-type spells to be looked down upon with derision (the clear sentiment in most posts that talk about how "useless" it is). I'm closer to you in that "all things are circumstantial" but it's also hard to ignore the #'s when laid bare.
Blasting, overall, has several odd things happening with it and just saying "all things are circumstantial" really can't address the underlying strange factors. For instance, the universal 1d6/level formula of nearly every damage-types spell ... regardless of the spell's level. How's that make ANY sense? I mean, just look at melee - it's been differentiated from the 1d2's up in into 3d6 and more for big weapons and unarmed strikes. Why does a level 9 spell do a d6 when level 3's do d6's, too? That's just ... begging to be made fun of (as many have already done so).
For me, I'd rather make it mechanically more sound and work from there. It's not like there are THAT many blast-spells to begin with, so I don't think it'll take all that long to adjust spells first generally (like the feat effects that have been suggested), and then specifically by looking at the variables of those "blast" spells (spell level, range, type of spell, secondary effects, etc, etc, etc).
|
If I were DM'ing, and a large group of weak enemies where hit by a fireball (even cast by a 5th level caster as I'm assuming) many will probably die, make the save or not, and those that do are going to have serious second thoughts about going after the guy that just charbroiled dozens of his friends in a flashy, spectacular manner. Just an assumption that the DM would have people react to an explosion in a somewhat realistic manner.
This is probably what would happen in the real world. Few people watch their buddies get splattered by a grenade and think, "I'll charge the dude throwing them!" (And we tend to call these people heroes and award them posthumous medals of honor.)
But the DM is not terribly invested in the survival of these Orcs, and, mechanically, he knows that even at 1 hp each, they are every bit as tough as they were at 15 hp. He knows that if they run, they *can't run out of fireball range* and will die anyway, if the wizard cares to kill them. He knows that if they charge the wizard, the wizard becomes both less likely to be able to cast another spell, being within attack-of-opportunity range of X number of smokey-barbecued Orcs who wish to introduce him to his chitlins, and that it's entirely possible that a few good solid hits from the Orcs will take him down.
It's in the Orcs best interest to charge and kill the dude throwing the fireballs, and not run away and get blowed up while running. The Orcs, who probably don't have balls of steel, any idea how spellcasting works on a practical level, nor a shred of tactical acumen, won't know this, but if they are doing the 'Orc Rage!' thing, it's also just as likely that they will continue running screaming at the wizard anyway, quite 'realistically.'
Pathfinder Goblins? Sure, total disorganized rout. Some run away shrieking. Some run at the caster shrieking. Some laugh at their buddies who just got roasted and are running around on fire shrieking. One decides that if he holds really still with his hands over his eyes, the wizard can't see him.
Gnolls also seem quite likely to break and run if the opposition seems tougher than expected. Ditto human bandits.
But Orcs, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, etc. will have different reactions, and might not find the loss of a few comrades quite as demoralizing as the wizard was counting on...
There are a lot of GM's that still want to make it easy for them and involve only 1 to 3 opponents in a single encounter, all of the tough as nails.
If that is the case and roleplaying is also a bit on the short side in between encounters, Wizards can feel weak at low and especially at low level. Almost everything you do depends on an opponent failing a save and BBEG usually pass their saves.
So I think Pathfinder could have used one mechanic that I really like from 4th, and that is Minions!
Minions, if used well, bring a lot to the encounter. They make Wizards strong, they make encounters feel realistic (finally the BBEG has a hoard of Minions and you don't need to take the weekend off in order toplay the encounter through).
So in my version of Pathfinder there is a Minion Template that reduces a creatures HP to 1 and gives it immunity to all damage when it saves (aka improved evasion).
Standard Evasion, you mean.
Hm. A similar effect could be gained via dumping CON, I think. ´
For an example, an Ogre has 4HD, CON 15 and avg 30 HP, with an attack and AC of +7 and 17, respectively.So... we take away the Toughness feat, resulting in avg 26 HP, then we dump CON to 7, up AC and attack to 19/+9, while we lose 16 HP, leaving us with a CR 3 ogre with 10 HP ( easy to track, ), effective +2 to hit, AC and reflex saves, and +2 to +3 on damage.
Now, as minions of certain CR, they should probably only be used against opponents at least 2 levels higher, or preferrably 4. This way, the increased abilities won't be overwhelm, while they retain the disadvantage of low HP.
Looking at the stats-by-CR table, it would seem that they would, with, say, Weapon Focus in their weapon, be effectively low-attack CR 6 opponents with a pitiful amount of HP, or a bit more efficient high attack CR 4 opponents with, still, a pitiful amount of HP.
Hm. Dumping the CON by 2 more, would drop HP to 6, and up STR to +3 bonus, in which case it could work as low attack CR 7 or high attack CR 6, and be very likely one-hit-killable by anything who has any business in melee.
Templating-wise, dropping HP to 10 (or one-hit, if you like.) while increasing attack and AC to average-AC, low attack appropriate for it's CR would probably work on CRs lower than 10. I like Evasion here, too.
Of course, the base monster should be something around or at least 4 levels lower than the PCS to be a suitable minion creature.
Not quite, standard evasion only protects you against reflex saves. This is an advance version of evasion that works against fort and will save attack as well.
Minions greatly simplify the book keeping for the DM. Minion saves, no damage, minion fails a save, remove them from the table. The only other thing is that I make my minions unable to use full attack actions, otherwise archer minions can get really nasty.
Discussion of converting 4e minions to PF is here.
Minions are one of the better idea from 4th ed, they allow you to have larger encounters where individual attackers are actually a threat to the PC, but the PCs don't have to spend hours carving through 10+ enemies with gobs of health and the DM avoids the headache of trying to keep track of which enemy took how much damage.
stuffYou're over thinking it. There's really no need to mess with stats or worry about lowering the CR of the minions. Chose appropriate CR baddy for the encounter, turn it into a minion, and drop 4 or 5 for every one you would have used with actual hps (or like my 4e gm would do, waves and waves of them lol) on the PCs. It may sound like it will overwhelm the players (and it can if they have terrible tactics/allow themselves to get surrounded, in which case they deserve to be overwhelmed) but really it's not much different, danger-wise, than fighting a few normal opponents. Since the minions all get one-shot, they typically have about the same 'time on player' as normal enemies who require several hits to kill. In fact, in PF it will be less dangerous since they lose full attacks as they move into position. This is assuming, of course, that your enemy of choice aren't archers and you don't line them up in a firing line and mow down the PCs lol. That could get pretty ugly... ;)
Hence the restriction of full attacks. A minion in melee isn't going to last long, but an archer minion can survive quite a while, and with 4 minions per normal attacker, that is a whole lot of archers. I would rather the archer minions be playing hit and run with the PC.
I always found blasters to be too clumsy and random.
*snerk*
/thread :)
I have never thought of blasting as a terrible thing to do, but I do think it is a poor primary thing to do.
A few people on this thread have mentioned making blast spells dual-threat (as add in a debuff or battlefield control with the initial spell)
A lightning bolt might dazzle the opponent, a cone of cold might slow them for a round, doesn't have to be much.
I always thought the "explosive spell" metamagic in 3.5 didn't get enough love. The idea of a fireball actually exploding (and those hit with it actually behaving like they were caught in an explosion) isn't just cool - it has tactical possibilities.
Another thing I would want to see before considering a primary blaster as an optimized choice is more AOE blast spells that target different saves. Horrid Wilting is a good example, but it's a late in the game addition. The blaster needs options for when fighting those with evasion.
I have one blaster build that works well, but it's psionic: the Wilder. The wild surge allows them to punch above their weight and the energy powers allow changing between energy types easily. Further, you can use alternative types of attack against foes with evasion (energy powers that focus on cold have a fortitude rather than a reflex save). The only disadvantage is that wilders get precious few powers, and those they do have are limited with regard to area of effect, necessitation taking the Expanded Knowledge feat a few times if you really want to hurt a large area of effect.
I think this discussion is the central focus of how balance has been better achieved in PF over 3.5. If a wizard is no longer a sexy choice for damage output, that's progress. Maybe the wizard shouldn't be the king of all classes in all things?
If you're 400+ feet from the enemy (advantage over melee), hit possibly many enemies at once (advantage over most melee) over a large area (advantage over most melee), ignore damage reduction (advantage over melee) and can pick the spell to give you the damage type you need (advantage over melee most of the time) -- you're going to be considered overpowered if you do simply more damage than melee classes.
Yes, there are exceptions and "what about this" arguments -- but those are corner cases. Most melee builds don't include Whirlwind Attack. Many DMs will pull out the metagaming card if you just happen to pull out the right weapon to use against the right DR (without a massive knowledge check). But the bottom line is that wizards needed a nerf. They got one by not getting significantly buffed.
Well I go away for just a day and lookit all this wonderful, thoughtful, and most importantly CIVIL conversation! +1 to all of ya!
I think it's also worth noting that mechanically, fireball isn't meant to gank the BBEG. Its meant to sweep an area of weak enemies and I think it does that relatively well.
I remember back in 2nd edition a lot of blasting spells had vastly differing damage dice. I think Horrid Wilting did d8's or d12's with some sort of lingering effect.
I'm inclined to agree with meabolex on the "Mage's shouldn't outdamage everything else all the time" idea. I also agree with Treantmonk in regards to the fact that overspecializing in blasting is probably not the BEST decision. I think maybe a tweaked Fire/Death Cleric built around channeling negative energy (scaled AoE will save, need to find some reliable ways to crank the DC...but post 6th level it heals you too)would be a pretty snazy way to go for blasting. I do hope that the APG has a feat that allows for energy substitution, always thought it was fun and flavorful.
Well I go away for just a day and lookit all this wonderful, thoughtful, and most importantly CIVIL conversation! +1 to all of ya!
I think it's also worth noting that mechanically, fireball isn't meant to gank the BBEG. Its meant to sweep an area of weak enemies and I think it does that relatively well.
I remember back in 2nd edition a lot of blasting spells had vastly differing damage dice. I think Horrid Wilting did d8's or d12's with some sort of lingering effect.
Funny you mention it, because having jumped from 3.0 directly to pathfinder, I just noticed Horrid Wilting doesn't do d8 damage anymore because of this thread. The max was also lowered, from 25d8 to 20d6. Was horrid wilting that awesome as a d8 or something?
|
|
Funny you mention it, because having jumped from 3.0 directly to pathfinder, I just noticed Horrid Wilting doesn't do d8 damage anymore because of this thread. The max was also lowered, from 25d8 to 20d6. Was horrid wilting that awesome as a d8 or something?
Horrid Wilting never did a d8 except to plants in 3.5. Was it just d8s all around in 3.0?
Well I go away for just a day and lookit all this wonderful, thoughtful, and most importantly CIVIL conversation! +1 to all of ya!
I think it's also worth noting that mechanically, fireball isn't meant to gank the BBEG. Its meant to sweep an area of weak enemies and I think it does that relatively well.
I remember back in 2nd edition a lot of blasting spells had vastly differing damage dice. I think Horrid Wilting did d8's or d12's with some sort of lingering effect.
Funny you mention it, because having jumped from 3.0 directly to pathfinder, I just noticed Horrid Wilting doesn't do d8 damage anymore because of this thread. The max was also lowered, from 25d8 to 20d6. Was horrid wilting that awesome as a d8 or something?
I think is was more of a standardization thing. Try finding 15+ d8s to roll at once.
Horrid Wilting never did a d8 except to plants in 3.5. Was it just d8s all around in 3.0?
Yes. Plants and water elementals had a -2 penalty on their save.
I think is was more of a standardization thing. Try finding 15+ d8s to roll at once.Well I go away for just a day and lookit all this wonderful, thoughtful, and most importantly CIVIL conversation! +1 to all of ya!
I think it's also worth noting that mechanically, fireball isn't meant to gank the BBEG. Its meant to sweep an area of weak enemies and I think it does that relatively well.
I remember back in 2nd edition a lot of blasting spells had vastly differing damage dice. I think Horrid Wilting did d8's or d12's with some sort of lingering effect.
Funny you mention it, because having jumped from 3.0 directly to pathfinder, I just noticed Horrid Wilting doesn't do d8 damage anymore because of this thread. The max was also lowered, from 25d8 to 20d6. Was horrid wilting that awesome as a d8 or something?
That makes sense I suppose. I missed the whole 3.5 thing...I played years and years of AD&D 2nd ed. then a bunch of 3.0, took a couple years off to go out into the wide world of other systems and came back to Pathfinder. There were some rules changes that really caught me off gaurd, but I can see it from a rules design standpoint.
one though i was having on the power race between spells and saves is that heighten spell seems like a weak metamagic. Why heighten a fireball to level 5 when I could just cast a cone of cold?
I was thinking about a change to heighten spell. Add +2 to the DC of a spell, this uses a slot 1 higher than normal.
Then bring in an improved heighten spell with a +4 for 2 slots higher.