Now compare an empowered lightning bolt to chain lightning at level 11 when you get it.
+ Lightning bolt does 15d6 at -1 DC vs 11d6 for chain lightning. Even accounting 10d6 damage cap and the lower DC, emp chain lightning does 33% more damage.
+ Lightning bolt uses a spell slot one level lower.
- Chain lightning has better targeting
- Empowered lightning bolt requires a featEmpowered lightning bolt is at least as good as chain lightning which is a spell level higher than it.
Few people use regular lightning bolt because it's hard to target more than a couple enemies, empowered lightning bolt doesn't fix this. Unless you are attacking something vulnerable to electricity empowered lightning bolt is almost NEVER going to be the best spell for the job.
You are completely missing the point of chain lightning. Chain lightning is about damaging a bunch of opponents that are mixed with friendlies. You use chain lightning when you can't use fireball or cone of cold.
If you have a big lump of enemies cone of cold or maximized fireball are already better lower level spells. Except for the first two enemies the DC for chain lightning is already lower than fireball.
The thing is when I need a high DC, then it means I am facing an opponent close to my level. Unless you DM likes to kill players, They shouldn't send more than 2 or 3 equal level NPCs. If there are only 2 opponents, emp LB > CL. If you are fighting a lot of lower level opponents, then CL becomes better because of the targeting not because of the DC.
|
Instead of making the DC of a spell equal to the DC of the spell level,
add the casters level.So instead of scaling at Level/2 (current) it scales at level.
So for example
First level wizard, casting a spell DC = 11 +stat mod.
10th level wizard casting a spell DC = 20 + stat mod.
You want a 20th level caster to have a base DC 30 when the Poor base save bonus at 20 is +6?
What about this?
[bigger]Severe Magic [General] (bad name, any suggestions?)
Prerequisite:[b] Intensive Magic
[b]Benefit: For all spells that deal damage, add half the spell's spell level (rounded down) as damage to each damage dice during the first turn of the spells effect. For example, a fireball cast by a 11th-level caster with this feat, deals 10d6+10 damage, and a chain lightning by the same caster deals 11d6+33 damage. You may not add this bonus to spells from your opposed school.
It changes no existing rules, it makes heighten a somewhat more appealing option, it increases the damage spellcasters do - but at a cost. They also still shouldn't outdamage the fighter, unless up against many, many weak enemies (where I think it's okay they outdamage fighter types).
I like that feat chain and cost, honestly. 3 feats to be a better "blaster" sounds perfectly fair to me (and it's just about where I was going with the opening suggestions in the first place). What I like most is the mechanic of applying the damage as a function of the spells level and to each die rolled. It's pretty clean, IMO, and just a neat way to approach it.
Good on you!!!
@Freesword: I'm totally with you and the real problems of spells and want to address them all. I like the above suggestion for a feat-progression to make it a dedication of casters and take up some feats for them. I'm just not 100% on the Skill Focus: spellcraft. {Of course, I'm not really a fan of that skill outright in the first place, so maybe just going Knowledge: Spellcraft would handle it? Or Arcane or whatever the Knowledge skill is called ... can't think of it at the moment}.
Alternatively, it could be tied to Spell Focus as a different pre-req, and then the bonuses are applied only to the spells of the school selected? It would certainly be a bit more limiting than the above suggestions, though.
If you have a big lump of enemies cone of cold or maximized fireball are already better lower level spells. Except for the first two enemies the DC for chain lightning is already lower than fireball.
How do you figure? The DC for Chain Lightning is 16+ stat modifier for the primary target and 14+ stat modifier for ALL secondary targets. Fireball is a flat DC 13+ sta modifier, and is never greater than Chain Lightning's DC's.
Alternatively, it could be tied to Spell Focus as a different pre-req, and then the bonuses are applied only to the spells of the school selected? It would certainly be a bit more limiting than the above suggestions, though.
Yes, but that would most likely mean it's tied to evocation only as the other schools don't have enough blasts to warrant a feat. While this might not be such a bad idea, since it reinforces evocation as the school of blasting, evocation is already a very strong school that doesn't need much more boosting.
Alternatively, it could be tied to Spell Focus as a different pre-req, and then the bonuses are applied only to the spells of the school selected? It would certainly be a bit more limiting than the above suggestions, though.Yes, but that would most likely mean it's tied to evocation only as the other schools don't have enough blasts to warrant a feat. While this might not be such a bad idea, since it reinforces evocation as the school of blasting, evocation is already a very strong school that doesn't need much more boosting.
Oh, I totally agree - just tossing it out as an additional thought, though. A different, more restrictive way of progressing (for those people here abouts that somehow like to bury their heads in the sand and say nothing's wrong w/blasting ... ;-) Takes all kinds I guess.)
The point about d6s being common is that the game is built on original designs that were done pre-internet (when dinosaurs walked the land) and there was a much greater access to d6s vs special game specific polyhedrons. As a result you would have more d6s than anything else. This in turn would lead to that being the first die you would think of for rolling many of them at a time.
Add in the sacred cow factor of spells that have used d(n) since (x)ed. and you get the current trend toward the d6.
Anecdote time.
I don't know if anyone here played the original Deadlands system. The system itself required poker chips, playing cards, and up to 5 (if I recall correctly) of every d(x) up to d12. While I have a solid dice set, this was in many ways an obstruction to playing that particular game, which otherwise had a robust, flavorful system.
I enjoyed playing the game, but when I was downsizing my gaming library, those books were amongst the first to go, because I didn't want to keep around all those extra d12s that I wasn't going to use frequently. I certainly didn't want to keep a dice set for every potential player of the game, if I wanted to GM it.
A stack of d6s is common enough to be a non-issue. A stack of anything but d10s (thanks to Whitewolf and percentile rolls both) is sufficiently uncommon that I would consider it bad system design to rely on it. In fact, more than 2 of any non-d6 or d10 is an obstruction to player adoption.
Back to heighten spell, though. If the concept of a heightened glitterdust does not seem useful, then I suppose trying to continue to sell the value of the metamagic feat will be a problem.
Oh, I totally agree - just tossing it out as an additional thought, though. A different, more restrictive way of progressing (for those people here abouts that somehow like to bury their heads in the sand and say nothing's wrong w/blasting ... ;-) Takes all kinds I guess.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with blasting, just that it's inefficient to do it most of the time. This is the same thing as with single-target SoS's... There's nothing wrong with them, but you can't build a character around only those spells.
What about this?
[bigger]Severe Magic [General] (bad name, any suggestions?)
** spoiler omitted **It changes no existing rules, it makes heighten a somewhat more appealing option, it increases the damage spellcasters do - but at a cost. They also still shouldn't outdamage the fighter, unless up against many, many weak enemies (where I think it's okay they outdamage fighter types).
I like the basic idea, but there are some nasty edge cases like disintegrate. A level 11 casters disintegrate will do 22d6+66 damage. A level 20 disintegrate heightened to level 8 would do 40d6+160 damage.
What about changing heighten spell to add an effect like "All caps are increased by 1 for every level of heightening"
So a magic missle heightened to level 2 would allow you to shoot 6 missles.
A fireball heightened to level 5 would cap at 12d6 damage.
And so on.
Two posts
Then limit it so you can only get a bonus to X dice, where X is your caster level. An 11th-level disintegrate would be 22d6+33.
I don't know about the change to heighten. Caps are quite different between spells, and I think you'll have to go through the spell list to make sure there aren't too many abusable spells. Searing light is already seen as a good spell, being capped at 12d6. A single level increase would cap it out at 16d6 for the same slot as a fireball. It has fewer targets, and shorter range, but no save. Still, 16d6 at level 16 doesn't seem overpowered compared to other things done then. I just don't know.
It feel abusable, though that is more an appeal to emotion.
Two posts
Then limit it so you can only get a bonus to X dice, where X is your caster level. An 11th-level disintegrate would be 22d6+33.
It reads half the spell level added to each dice. That is where I got 40d6 + 160.
I don't know about the change to heighten. Caps are quite different between spells, and I think you'll have to go through the spell list to make sure there aren't too many abusable spells. Searing light is already seen as a good spell, being capped at 12d6. A single level increase would cap it out at 16d6 for the same slot as a fireball. It has fewer targets, and shorter range, but no save. Still, 16d6 at level 16 doesn't seem overpowered compared to other things done then. I just don't know.
It feel abusable, though that is more an appeal to emotion.
Searing light and magic missle are the reasons I like the change. Those are both spells that you would never heighten because the DC of the spell doesn't matter, but with this change, heightening those spells may be a good idea.
It reads half the spell level added to each dice. That is where I got 40d6 + 160.
Yeah, I know, but I suggested a change into "add the damage of up to X dice, where X is your caster level". So it would be 40d6+20*3. It looks ugly in the feat text, but if you're concerned about massive disintegrate damage (which I agree could be a problem, similiar to the 3.0 harm) it might be needed.
Anyway, shouldn't it be 40*3 unless heightened? So 40d6*120. Disintegrate is 6th level.EDIT: Searing light was a typo, I meant Scorching Ray.
It reads half the spell level added to each dice. That is where I got 40d6 + 160.Yeah, I know, but I suggested a change into "add the damage of up to X dice, where X is your caster level". So it would be 40d6+20*3. It looks ugly in the feat text, but if you're concerned about massive disintegrate damage (which I agree could be a problem, similiar to the 3.0 harm) it might be needed.
Anyway, shouldn't it be 40*3 unless heightened? So 40d6*120. Disintegrate is 6th level.EDIT: Searing light was a typo, I meant Scorching Ray.
I was talking about disintegrate heightened to level 8, because that was the worst case scenario.
that sounds a lot more reasonable, and handles edge cases like disintegrate a lot better. Basically add half the spell level times your level or the dice of damage which ever is lower.
I'm horribly late to the party, but I figured I'd post what I've done to make blasters (and physical damage in general) more effective.
Pain Saves. At 1/2 health, Fort Save DC 10+HD. Save, no effect. Fail, take a -2 pain penalty on all d20 rolls (have debated applying this to damage and DCs as well, but that could get nasty for player characters).
At 1/4 health, again, Fort Save DC 15+HD. Same effects, the effects do stack. Any creature realistically immune to pain is immune to these penalties (undead and constructs, mostly).
Any healing that brings a creature above one of these thresholds also removes the penalty. Any effect that reasonably "lessens pain" can also remove the penalty, like Lesser Restoration.
My group uses the fumble and crit deck, with a "confirmation" roll for fumbles. A confirmed fumble on a pain save doubles the penalty. Conversely, I allow a "confirmation" on a Nat 20 Pain Save to provide a +1 morale bonus to all rolls.
This tends to work very well, and it also makes PCs worry about their HP more. Can get awkward with a regenerating/fast healing creature constantly bouncing back and forth over a threshold. As mentioned earlier, still very much considering adding the penalty to damage rolls and save DCs. Oh, and I was doing this long before 4th eds "bloodied" came around. For what its worth. Hope this is of some use to someone.
More reasonable is the proposal someone suggested in another conversation:
Empower and maximize metamagic automatically heighten the spell to it's new spell level.It makes these feats much more appealing without launching save DCs into the stratosphere. I wouldn't include all metamagic but those two it makes a lot of sense with.
I don't see a reason not to extend it to all metamagic feats, and in fact to simply using a higher level slot to cast a spell.
Compare thus 'hieghtened' spells to those of that level and they do seem reasonable,
James
I like the idea of heighten spell making the spell equal to the spell slot used a little better. That way if you heighten a quickened level 1 spell, it becomes a level 5 spell. Same effect, but this way it requires 2 feats.
(New)Heighten Spell
This is prone to nova-ing, though that might be avoided with the right DM'ing skills. But I think the DM's work is hard enough balancing encounters vs. spellcasters, so I'd avoid it.
|
How do you figure? The DC for Chain Lightning is 16+ stat modifier for the primary target and 14+ stat modifier for ALL secondary targets. Fireball is a flat DC 13+ sta modifier, and is never greater than Chain Lightning's DC's.If you have a big lump of enemies cone of cold or maximized fireball are already better lower level spells. Except for the first two enemies the DC for chain lightning is already lower than fireball.
Ha! So you are right. I could have sworn it reduced at each target not just once.
/me ups his valuation of chain lightning a tad.
How do you figure? The DC for Chain Lightning is 16+ stat modifier for the primary target and 14+ stat modifier for ALL secondary targets. Fireball is a flat DC 13+ sta modifier, and is never greater than Chain Lightning's DC's.If you have a big lump of enemies cone of cold or maximized fireball are already better lower level spells. Except for the first two enemies the DC for chain lightning is already lower than fireball.
Ha! So you are right. I could have sworn it reduced at each target not just once.
/me ups his valuation of chain lightning a tad.
Still if you are facing 6 or more targets, then odds are they are lower level than you and thus have even weaker saves. At that point raw damage is more important that the actual DC.
That is the thing DC on damage spells are generally not that important.
Spell Focus(evocation) adds 2.5% to your fireball. It adds 5% if the target has evasion.
Spell Focus(Transmutation) adds 4.375% to the average damage of a disintegrate.
This is prone to nova-ing, though that might be avoided with the right DM'ing skills. But I think the DM's work is hard enough balancing encounters vs. spellcasters, so I'd avoid it.
(New)Heighten Spell
No more so than the current system. Casters "nova-ing" with this feat would most likely be doing so anyway. By the time you are using this feat, you are pretty much calling it a day when you are down to your first level spells. This just means that at higher levels those low level spell slots get used instead of gathering dust. At the lower levels, the gain is barely worth the spell slot, as your 1st level spells are still relevant. The feat doesn't really give you much until you have a spread of high level spells (good for level appropriate challenges), mid level spells (barely keeping up with level appropriate challenges), and low level spells (might work on level appropriate challenges if you are lucky).
I have yet to hear tell of a wizard who said -
"Well, I'm out of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (highest he currently has) level spells, but I still have my unlimited catnrips, so I'm good to go. Let's press on."Edit: Actually, you do have a point about novaing if the use of low level spells were expanded with additional feats to giving other increases to spells. Just upping the DC alone shouldn't be a problem but stacking multiple effects could burn through spells really quick.
At this point, you are one step away from a spell point system, might as well just switch to that.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Buried in the stream of time
is where your power grows.
In thy great name,
I pledge myself to conquer,
all the foes who stand,
before the mighty gift
bestowed in my unworthy hands.
Let the fools who stand before me be destroyed,
by the power you and I possess:
Dragon Slave!
