I'm not sure who is saying what, but the 3.5 FAQ broke it out like this:
A Maximized, Empowered fireball would be 60 + floor((10d6)*0.5). The floor((10d6)*0.5) is 17 damage on average, so 77 points of total damage on average. Considering this is an 8th level spell (at 14th level for a wizard), it's considerably better than the 14d6 (avg. 49) damage from an equivalent 8th level horrid wilting -- not factoring the saving throw, spell level, or other important distinctions between the spells.
For an Empowered, Intensified fireball at 15th level, the result would be floor((15d6)*1.5), or 78 points of damage. Thus, an Empowered, Intensified fireball (taking a 6th level spell slot) would be better on average than a Maximized, Empowered fireball (in an 8th level spell slot).
Interesting (:
(PS: I know there has been a ruling by Jason about how Empowered Spell works, but it's completely at odds with the 3.5 version of the feat. Unless errata exists contradicting the 3.5 PH text -- which is different than the 3.5 SRD -- then PF should still use the same system.)
One key difference between the "SR No" conjuration cloud spells (Fog Cloud, Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, Cloudkill, Acid Fog) and many other spells is that none of the cloud spells are dismissible.
The only way to get rid of it is to use a gust o' wind spell, or dispel magic.
When playing a conjuration specialist from level 1-17 I always had some of these spells memorized, but was rarely able to use them without getting in the way of the party. Cloudkill was probably the most useful, but with a minutes/level duration, and a speed of 10' per round, it could really cause some damage if you cast it in the wrong place!
They are still good spells, (OK, solid fog is meh) but they are more situational then some other battlefield control spells, or evocations.
Note: Need a gust of wind or wind wall, but don't have one memorized? Summon Monster 4 gets you an Air or Dust Mephit who can cast those spells once per day.
The rule for metamagic is the same as the rule for saving throws and taking damage...you apply the stuff in the order that would be most beneficial to you. Since they can't delineate feat 1, 2,3, etc, it's up to the player to decide what order his feats apply in.
Ergo, he's going to Intensify the spell, then he's going to apply either Empower or Maximize, then the other one.
So, 5d4 +40 dmg. Every time. This was spelled out in 3.5, and also applied to dmg taken from spells (does the save, energy reduction, or energy absorption come first? In which order? Answer...in whatever order is best for you.)
And yes, the 3.0 ruling on stacking dmg makes more sense to me, too...the only problem there is they didn't have the rules on taking a feat multiple times, so people were also taking Empower x 3 instead of maximize, at all...
==Aelryinth
And yes, the 3.0 ruling on stacking dmg makes more sense to me, too...the only problem there is they didn't have the rules on taking a feat multiple times, so people were also taking Empower x 3 instead of maximize, at all...==Aelryinth
Are you sure on this? I don't have my 3.0 PHB here but I'm pretty sure you couldn't take the same feat more than once unless otherwise noted.
And yes, the 3.0 ruling on stacking dmg makes more sense to me, too...the only problem there is they didn't have the rules on taking a feat multiple times, so people were also taking Empower x 3 instead of maximize, at all...
You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.
Edit: heh, I checked the 3.0 SRD and sure enough you are right. That line above is an addition to 3.5. Well I'll be. . .
|
Which is why you do stinking cloud + web. You can't escape grapples without standard actions (unless your GM is giving every monster greater grapple).I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
Which do you cast first.
Even if you don't make the reflex save, web is pretty easy to get out of, unless you have a very low CMB.
You can't go into the stinking cloud to get the enemy without making a save, and they get full cover from the cloud and partial cover from the web.
So you've used two spells, removed 0 hit points. The enemy is immobile, but has cover from two sources. Stinking cloud goes away (rounds per level) and 1d4 + 1 round later the nausea fades.
Now since the web is flammable, if you had a fireball...
Which do you cast first.Which is why you do stinking cloud + web. You can't escape grapples without standard actions (unless your GM is giving every monster greater grapple).I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
Both are cast in the same round. Either one of them is quickened or the Web is cast from a wand by my Improved Familiar, thanks to all the UMD ranks I have.
Even if you don't make the reflex save, web is pretty easy to get out of, unless you have a very low CMB.
Yes, and? If the tactic was flawless and guaranteed to work, it'd be totally broken, considering we're talking about level 2 and 3 spells here.
For a much stronger version of the same tactic, consider Stinking Cloud + Black Tentacles.
You can't go into the stinking cloud to get the enemy without making a save, and they get full cover from the cloud and partial cover from the web.
I can, however, summon a monster that doesn't breathe next round to batter them while the spells hold.
So you've used two spells, removed 0 hit points. The enemy is immobile, but has cover from two sources. Stinking cloud goes away (rounds per level) and 1d4 + 1 round later the nausea fades.
Yes, and that gives my buddies 2 to 5 rounds of hacking at the enemy risk-free, long after they've dealt with whatever threat wasn't caught in the blast radius.
Now since the web is flammable, if you had a fireball...
Right... so I just wasted a second level spell slot to add mighty 2d4 damage to my fireball.
Compared to making a group of enemies literally unable to do anything for (level) rounds and then leaving them hideously debuffed for additional 2-5 rounds, buying my team time to deal with whatever wasn't caught in the blast radius. And then I can set the Web aflame with Alchemist Fire so it doesn't hinder my team making cheap shots at nauseated foes.
I've dealt no damage, true. Instead, I just won the fight.
.
..
...
....
.....
The thing with web that gets me is:
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears.
So if one point is the ground before my caster, does the diametrical constraint require the second point to be above it - say a ceiling - or would another point on the floor by sufficient?
.
..
...
....
.....The thing with web that gets me is:
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears.So if one point is the ground before my caster, does the diametrical constraint require the second point to be above it - say a ceiling - or would another point on the floor by sufficient?
"diametrically opposed" means exactly opposite. So two parallel walls or a floor and ceiling would work fin. A section of floor and another section of floor would NOT work.
"diametrically opposed" means exactly opposite. So two parallel walls or a floor and ceiling would work fin. A section of floor and another section of floor would NOT work..
..
...
....
.....The thing with web that gets me is:
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears.So if one point is the ground before my caster, does the diametrical constraint require the second point to be above it - say a ceiling - or would another point on the floor by sufficient?
Aaah - thank you RD.
Hmm.. tricky.
|
|
Stuff
Point by point,
1. your quickened web is either taking a 6th level spell slot, or you have a very expensive metamagic rod.
If it is the former, you are at least 11th level and so the save on web or stinking cloud isn't going make anyone worry that you would be fighting at that level. If it is the latter, that is a 35k magic item.
Now if it is your improved familiar, which one. UMD is a trained only feat, and using a wand has a 20 DC. And now you have no arcane bonded object, so I hope you like all the spells you memorized and have the right ones memorized more than once. Particularly since you seem to be burning through them this quickly.
2. Black tentacles is a 4th level spell, so you are at least 7th level, and that 2nd level stinking clouds save isn't so hard to make anymore.
As to black tentacles, it was nerfed a lot.
"Every creature within the area of the spell is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round at the beginning of your turn, including the round that black tentacles is cast."
So anything with a decent CMB will be able to move through fairly quickly. If you try to quicken black tentacles, that will be an 8th level slot or a 75,500 magic item.
3. Summon is a full round action, so I hope no one made the save last round as otherwise they will likely interrupt you while casting and you'll have to beat the damage as part of casting the spell.
Also, is what you summoned able to see through fog and move through webs? What exactly are you summoning, so we can see what level you are and if the saves are even viable.
4. And how are your buddies moving through the web unimpeded? And remember, web gives cover.
These discussions always seem to degrade into the land of "I memorized all the perfect things and have them all available" land, but to even come close to what you are proposing, the level you are at would mean stinking clouds save would be easy to make by anything you were fighting.
|
|
Stinking Cloud is actually 3rd level. At level 7, it isn't unfeasible to have +6 to your spellcasting stat. This gives it a DC of 19. Monsters at that level have a good save of 10, and a bad of 6, so this works on hardier creatures a little less than 50% of the time, and on not so hardy creatures a little less than 75% of the time. The chances of one creature not being affected (assuming you arrange your cloud accordingly) if there are 3 or more creatures is fairly slim, so even if it works on one, that's one creature you've removed from combat for 2-5 rounds.Conversely, with a fireball at 7, you're doing 7d6 damage, which is an average of 25 damage. Even if all creatures fail their reflex save, that's still 25 damage done to creatures who have on average 85 HP. And they're still well and able to come after you. Using the same resources, you have drastically reduced the amount of damage the party will receive, and make them more likely to succeed over the long run. Same thing goes for summons. If the enemy wastes significant resources going after your summon, than that's a boon for you using significantly less resources than them.
No matter what level you take, there's always a better God Wizard option to make in battle over a blaster option.
Your cloudkill does no damage and as you said half of those you use it against make the save, meaning it has pretty much no effect.
Fireball has 4X the range and will damage everyone. If average hit point is 85, then it will do about 1/4 of the damage needed to completely remove a group of equal CR threats from combat.
So a party of 4...
Both have limitations (fireball isn't good vs fire resistance, cloudkill isn't useful with undead).
Both are effective spells. Which one you want at a given moment is relative to what you need to do at the time.
|
|
Stinking Cloud is actually 3rd level. At level 7, it isn't unfeasible to have +6 to your spellcasting stat. This gives it a DC of 19. Monsters at that level have a good save of 10, and a bad of 6, so this works on hardier creatures a little less than 50% of the time, and on not so hardy creatures a little less than 75% of the time. The chances of one creature not being affected (assuming you arrange your cloud accordingly) if there are 3 or more creatures is fairly slim, so even if it works on one, that's one creature you've removed from combat for 2-5 rounds.Conversely, with a fireball at 7, you're doing 7d6 damage, which is an average of 25 damage. Even if all creatures fail their reflex save, that's still 25 damage done to creatures who have on average 85 HP. And they're still well and able to come after you. Using the same resources, you have drastically reduced the amount of damage the party will receive, and make them more likely to succeed over the long run. Same thing goes for summons. If the enemy wastes significant resources going after your summon, than that's a boon for you using significantly less resources than them.
No matter what level you take, there's always a better God Wizard option to make in battle over a blaster option.
Your cloudkill does no damage and as you said half of those you use it against make the save, meaning it has pretty much no effect.
Fireball has 4X the range and will damage everyone. If average hit point is 85, then it will do about 1/4 of the damage needed to completely remove a group of equal CR threats from combat.
So a party of 4...
Both have limitations (fireball isn't good vs fire resistance, cloudkill isn't useful with undead).
Both are effective spells. Which one you want at a given moment is relative to what you need to do at the time.
EDIT: Also keep in mind the 6 and 10 are averages. Hardier would actually have higher fort saves.
.
..
...
....
.....
The madness - there's me thinking we'd agreed that a sensible caster would use the right tool for the job at hand, neither relying on the player-defined tags of 'I iz blaster/SoS cater1!' but rather realising that spells are tools and knowing how your tools work will help you choose the right tool for the job.
While a caster can limit their tool choice to one type they should realise how such a choice will effect their options and, more importantly, resist complaining when they don't have the right tool for the job.
'Right tool for the job' is not 'the perfect spell' but rather, any tool that gets the job done.
::
Really, this common-sense approach to spell evaluation has been covered and agreed on through the main of the replies to this topic.
'SoS' have their place - so do 'blasting' spells.
Insisting on constraining your tool set to one or the other is fine! Hey, if it makes you happy - go go go for it!
::
To my mind, SoS are great specialist tools - for those specialist situations. Blasting spells are more general tools that have a wide range of applications.
Heeeell, to my mind spells = tools. I can't learn every scenario but I can certainly learn my tools.
Know. Your. Tools.
::
-.o Don't make me eat you..
|
|
Your cloudkill does no damage and as you said half of those you use it against make the save, meaning it has pretty much no effect.Fireball has 4X the range and will damage everyone. If average hit point is 85, then it will do about 1/4 of the damage needed to completely remove a group of equal CR threats from combat.
So a party of 4...
Both have limitations (fireball isn't good vs fire resistance, cloudkill isn't useful with undead).
Both are effective spells. Which one you want at a given moment is relative to what you need to do at the time.
EDIT: Also keep in mind the 6 and 10 are averages. Hardier would actually have higher fort saves.
And less hardy would have lower fort saves. Same could be said of reflex saves. The best you can do is 1/4 the damage to remove a group, if everyone fails your save. If everyone fails the save on a stinking cloud, then none of them can do anything, for 2-5 rounds. To disable an entire group for at least 2 rounds is phenomenally better than just damaging them all, even if it's for a quarter of their health.
Range difference from medium to long is almost practically negligible. You have to be able to see the creature out at that distance. DC 40 or 50 perception checks are not easily made by a level 7 party. Even if you can, your time is better spent buffing the party and preparing the landscape for your battle. Make everyone invisible or hasted, funnel them down a specific path using sleet storm and create pit spells, or with a flaming sphere/pyrotechnic combo, or if they're undead Halt Undead to split them up.
Like I said, there's tons better options than just blasting them. And this just continues as you go up. Black Tentacles, Acid Pit, Fear, and Rainbow Pattern at 4. Cloudkill, Hungry Pit, Wall of Stone, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, Mind Fog, Magic Jar, Suffocation, Waves of Fatigue at 5. Not to say the out of combat spells you need as well. But these are all better choices to have memorized than any blasting spell.
When you look in the bestiary at CR 7 creatures fort saves and immunities.
Lillend +7 (immune to poison), Greater Barghast +9, Dire Bear +12, Black Pudding (immune to poison), Bulette + 11, Chimera +9, Chuul +7 (immune to poison), Shadow Demon +5 (Immune to poison), Succubus +7 (immune to poison), Elasmosaurus + 14, Stegosaurus + 13, Young Black Dragon +9, Young Brass Dragon +9, Drider +7, Huge Air Elemental +11 (immune to poison), Huge Earth Elemental (immune to poison), Huge Fire Elemental (immune to poison), Huge Water Elemental (immune to poison), Elephant +13, Shaitan +10, Ghost +7 (Immune undead), Hill Giant +11, Flesh Golem +3 (immune to poison), Drackolisk + 12, Invisable stalker +13 (immune to poison), Medusa +6, Nymph +13, Remorhaz +11, Specter +4 (immune undead).
So 29 CR 7's
10 are over 10 Fort
10 are immune to poison.
2 are immune because they are undead.
Acid pit and hungry pit I will give you (the pit spells are close to broken IMHO) but Black Tentacles is overrated. Fear is a 30 ft cone, meaning you have to clear a 30 ft space in front of you, and if it fails they have a direct line to your caster. Rainbow pattern requires concentration, and they get a second save if attacked (dangerous area), Wall of stone is great, but it is a wall. Keeps them away, keeps you away from them. Feeblemind is single target, and they can still attack you. Hold monster is single target with a save every round, Mind fog needs a follow up spell since it only lowers saves, Magic jar leaves your lifeless body vulnerable at medium range from the jar. Suffocation has multiple saves and is close range, Waves of fatigue is a 30 ft cone so you are now completely exposed to people less than 30 ft away who have a few -2's.
SoS spells are over-rated, I suspect by people who play with DM's who don't realize all the spell limitations. Not saying they are bad, just saying they aren't as amazing as people like to describe them, and many of them are all win or all fail, as if they make the save or play it smart, you are completely exposed.
Blaster spells also scale better, since the level save is always the level save. As I said, it is all situational.
Acid pit and hungry pit I will give you (the pit spells are close to broken IMHO) but Black Tentacles is overrated. Fear is a 30 ft cone, meaning you have to clear a 30 ft space in front of you, and if it fails they have a direct line to your caster. Rainbow pattern requires concentration, and they get a second save if attacked (dangerous area), Wall of stone is great, but it is a wall. Keeps them away, keeps you away from them. Feeblemind is single target, and they can still attack you. Hold monster is single target with a save every round, Mind fog needs a follow up spell since it only lowers saves, Magic jar leaves your lifeless body vulnerable at medium range from the jar. Suffocation has multiple saves and is close range, Waves of fatigue is a 30 ft cone so you are now completely exposed to people less than 30 ft away who have a few -2's.SoS spells are over-rated, I suspect by people who play with DM's who don't realize all the spell limitations. Not saying they are bad, just saying they aren't as amazing as people like to describe them, and many of them are all win or all fail, as if they make the save or play it smart, you are completely exposed.
But you, too, are assuming that the party does nothing to work around those limitations or turn them into a strength.
For example:
- You don't typically cast feeblemind on something that can meaningfully attack after failing a save. That level 12 wizard? Sure, he can come at you with his quarterstaff. Nobody cares.
- The party gets around the recurring save on Hold spells by dropping a coup de grace on the held target immediately.
- Poison immunity for the whole party makes several poison-based spells look a lot different.
- You don't have to be totally exposed to cast Fear (if you care) if you can cast it from behind an ally who is immune to fear. (Paladin? Undead horde? You decide!)
|
|
Acid pit and hungry pit I will give you (the pit spells are close to broken IMHO) but Black Tentacles is overrated. Fear is a 30 ft cone, meaning you have to clear a 30 ft space in front of you, and if it fails they have a direct line to your caster. Rainbow pattern requires concentration, and they get a second save if attacked (dangerous area), Wall of stone is great, but it is a wall. Keeps them away, keeps you away from them. Feeblemind is single target, and they can still attack you. Hold monster is single target with a save every round, Mind fog needs a follow up spell since it only lowers saves, Magic jar leaves your lifeless body vulnerable at medium range from the jar. Suffocation has multiple saves and is close range, Waves of fatigue is a 30 ft cone so you are now completely exposed to people less than 30 ft away who have a few -2's.SoS spells are over-rated, I suspect by people who play with DM's who don't realize all the spell limitations. Not saying they are bad, just saying they aren't as amazing as people like to describe them, and many of them are all win or all fail, as if they make the save or play it smart, you are completely exposed.
But you, too, are assuming that the party does nothing to work around those limitations or turn them into a strength.
For example:
- You don't typically cast feeblemind on something that can meaningfully attack after failing a save. That level 12 wizard? Sure, he can come at you with his quarterstaff. Nobody cares.
- The party gets around the recurring save on Hold spells by dropping a coup de grace on the held target immediately.
- Poison immunity for the whole party makes several poison-based spells look a lot different.
- You don't have to be totally exposed to cast Fear (if you care) if you can cast it from behind an ally who is immune to fear. (Paladin? Undead horde? You decide!)
Feeblemind is a will save, so good save vs spell is a high chance for a wasted spell.
I agree 100 percent the spells are situational awesome, but they are often dependent on circumstances being ideal, and if a spell requires a lot of things to go your way to be effective, how often do you have it memorized?
An 4o4 caster is great in the right party. It will also frequently fail and need the party to bail it out. When it works, they are a god, when it fails they are a kitten.
Stuff
Now if it is your improved familiar, which one. UMD is a trained only feat, and using a wand has a 20 DC. And now you have no arcane bonded object, so I hope you like all the spells you memorized and have the right ones memorized more than once. Particularly since you seem to be burning through them this quickly.
In pathfinder
Familiars have the same ranks in skills as their masters, but they use their own stats and they don't get the +3 bump for it being a class skill(probably). So you don't actually need improved familiar though it may help if that improved familiar has a better cha than the base familiars.
If you have a monkey (I like them because they have thumbs but technically any familar would do) they have a -3 modifier to charisma. So assuming a caster took one rank (max) of UMD per level at level 3 a monkey familiar could use a wand if they rolled a natural 20 on their UMD roll. At 5th level a monkey would have to roll an 18-20.
So it's possible, but difficult to have a wand using familiar. It can be modified by items and spells, but you can do that math yourself.
Another condiseration is the combatant/non-combatant status of familiars. In my game familiars are basically ignored unless they or the master choosed to get them involved. In other words a baddie is unlikely to care about the monkey under a wizards shirt, but if that same monkey stands on the masters shoulders and starts firing lightining bolts he's just become a target. Correction, He's just become a very squishy target that will severely hurt the master if he dies.
Another condiseration is the combatant/non-combatant status of familiars. In my game familiars are basically ignored unless they or the master choosed to get them involved. In other words a baddie is unlikely to care about the monkey under a wizards shirt, but if that same monkey stands on the masters shoulders and starts firing lightining bolts he's just become a target. Correction, He's just become a very squishy target that will severely hurt the master if he dies.
Whats gonna severely hurt the wizard from losing that familiar? All that happens is he needs to spend some gold to get another... Familiars are very much a no risk option for the wizard.
faerie dragon gets UMD as a class skill and so do psuedodragons becuase they are dragon type creatures. The +2 initiative bonus of the scorpion familiar is helpful and that tremorsense can really help oh there is an invisible person nearby. Also familiars are bad agianst negative energy channeling becuase they have half wizard hit points it still hurts them even if they make the will save.
While I don't like the term "theorycraft" caster, I can say this: My favorite Wizard guide aside from Treantmonk was LogicNinja's Guide to Being Batman. If you set aside the benefits and number crunching, you can do what the Big Stupid Fighter and Glass Cannon are doing *as well as* disabling the competition. Your spellbook should be your utility belt, so preparing one or two "nukes" or keeping scrolls around is another gadget on the utility belt. You might not use it all the time, but you'll be glad you have it when the time arises when you really need it.
Having played a "theorycraft" caster, I can tell you that it pans out well and ended up being fun for the entire party we had. I used 1-2 spells per encounter and allowed our Fighter to Power Attack to his heart's content, our rogue to get full TWF Sneak Attack full-attack actions without a flanker, and our cleric didn't need to worry about healing as much.
Also, if you want to go Blaster Caster, Warlock from Complete Arcane is a better option in most regards.
Casters get a -4 to their save against feeblemind, so it's specifically there to completely disable a caster.
Also, Summons never fail. They are consistently awesome. As are most conjuration spells.
what if the enemy has protection from good?
Casters get a -4 to their save against feeblemind, so it's specifically there to completely disable a caster.
Also, Summons never fail. They are consistently awesome. As are most conjuration spells.
Meh, summons have a 1 round casting time and typically aren't particularly tough vs CR equivalent opposition.
Being stationary for a round + a mediocre offensive option is often a sub-optimal solution. If you have time to cast a summon prior to battle it can be worthwhile but often summons have extremely limited life spans unless they are one of the utility summons (lantern archon, etc).
I'm not saying that an additional meat shield isn't sometimes valuable and summons can help alter the action economy in the favor of the party but I'm always reluctant to condone summons as the primary offensive strategy for any caster.
.
..
...
....
.....
So yes..
Your 'optimal' spell choice will depend on circumstance..
..and circumstances can and do change. Often.
::
So..
um..
...like..
er..
..no really, where is this going now? >_<
Poster 1: X spell is good for Y situation as long as Z is present and allowing for A!
Poster 2: Aaah! But what if Z is not present?! Then X spell is no good for Y! You didn't account for B! I propose that G is better!
Poster 1: AAAAAAaaaaaah! But what if B is actually M? Huh! Then then..
Poster 2: No no you see but really actually maybe!
Poster 1: Yes but no! It's..
::
O_o Ya'll be right - in the right situation the right spell sure is useful.
::
|
|
First of all, when would you ever stand out way in the open when enemies are within one round of charging as a spellcaster? This is really just asking for it. If they're close, then you stand behind something (or someone). If they're far enough, then you have enough time to cast, and move behind cover.
Also, if you're a summoner, his sp-like ability makes them a standard action, so then it isn't even a problem for them. They also last minutes/level, as opposed to rounds/level. After summon monster 5 or 6, they start to really ramp up in quality as well.
And again, it's how you use it. If you can place something large (or bigger) and within reach of the caster (preferably within reach as well), then the creature can just gnaw on the caster, and force them to make concentration checks every turn, without having you as the caster waste any of your actions.
And yes, protection from good does bone any enchantment spells, pretty much. And from attacks from summoned creatures that are good. So just make sure you summon animals or opposite aligned creatures.
And nothing stops pit spells (well, except maybe flight of some sort).
And all of these caveats are why I think that the balance is generally fine, and SoS casters are a dependent as any other class and not "Gods".
They need situations to be ideal as much as the next person.
TreantMonk's coining of the "god wizard" didn't really have anything to do with strength or balance -- it's an unfortunate choice of words, because no one ever takes it the way he explains that he means it.
|
|
TreantMonk's coining of the "god wizard" didn't really have anything to do with strength or balance -- it's an unfortunate choice of words, because no one ever takes it the way he explains that he means it.I always thought God Wizard referred to doing battlefield control, as opposed to getting directly involved in the battle itself. Like a God from legend, that would only give heroes the power they need to defeat whatever they were facing. That's the way I always interpreted it, but it's been awhile since I've read his guide.
I agree about the intent and content. Others seem to think it means something else.
A battlefield controller is one of the best things you can have imn a party. But it still requires the rest of the party to fill roles.
Reading all of this has got me to thinking about making a couple of house rules to help out blasters. I am thinking about changing haste back to how it functioned in 3.0. I am also thinking about changing the meta-magic rules to allow multiple empowers to stack on the same spell. I may also allow the spells from the Diablo II: Diablerie book for 3.0 D&D. This should make blasting a very viable path to take.
With these modifications a 5th levels wizard is going to be casting two spells a round. Later this will move to 3 spells a round with the quicken meta-magic feat. With proper use of Heighten spell to up save DC's, Elemental Spell (Cold), and the Rime spell feat blasters should become pretty useful to the party.
Any thoughts about this?
I am thinking about changing haste back to how it functioned in 3.0.
Keep in mind that this doesn't just help blasters; it's helpful to casters period across the board. Honestly, I don't think they need the help.
I am thinking about changing haste back to how it functioned in 3.0.Keep in mind that this doesn't just help blasters; it's helpful to casters period across the board. Honestly, I don't think they need the help.
I thought about that after I wrote it. 3.0 haste may be overkill. How about this instead. All direct damage type spells have their dice per level doubled. So fireball will do 2d6 damage per caster level. Or I could have blaster spells add the characters main casting stat as damage bonus. Or maybe both.
Thoughts on these ideas?
Edit: Or how about a metamagic feat that doubles the elemental damage dice of a spell with an elemental damage descriptor. Say for +1 spell slot. Same effect as a fireball that does 2d6 damage per caster level. And it keeps people from trying to double up on other more dangerous kinds of damage like inflicting negative levels.
2cnd edit: I guess the feat would have to apply only to area affect spells since otherwise it makes shocking grasp way to strong for the magus.
I am thinking about changing haste back to how it functioned in 3.0.Keep in mind that this doesn't just help blasters; it's helpful to casters period across the board. Honestly, I don't think they need the help.I thought about that after I wrote it. 3.0 haste may be overkill. How about this instead. All direct damage type spells have their dice per level doubled. So fireball will do 2d6 damage per caster level. Or I could have blaster spells add the characters main casting stat as damage bonus. Or maybe both.
Thoughts on these ideas?
Edit: Or how about a metamagic feat that doubles the elemental damage dice of a spell with an elemental damage descriptor. Say for +1 spell slot. Same effect as a fireball that does 2d6 damage per caster level. And it keeps people from trying to double up on other more dangerous kinds of damage like inflicting negative levels.
2cnd edit: I guess the feat would have to apply only to area affect spells since otherwise it makes shocking grasp way to strong for the magus.
The thing is this. You can build powerful blasters in PF, but it takes more work. If I wanted a super blaster in your game and I also got the benefit of your doubling dice rule then I could end every combat. BBEG's would even fall. Damage dealing is not bad. It just is not optimal, and there will always be an inferior choice in the game when it comes to character building.
Inferior does not equal useless.
So UM gave blasters another little boost, if it helps at all.
Before UM: sorcerer 6 gnome pyromaniac draconic fireball -> 7d6 + 7 (31.5 avg.)
After UM: sorcerer 6 gnome pyromaniac crossblooded draconic/elemental (primal) + Spell Specialization fireball -> 9d6 + 18 (49.5 avg.)Yeah, 57% more damage is a "little boost".
So UM gave blasters another little boost, if it helps at all.Before UM: sorcerer 6 gnome pyromaniac draconic fireball -> 7d6 + 7 (31.5 avg.)
After UM: sorcerer 6 gnome pyromaniac crossblooded draconic/elemental (primal) + Spell Specialization fireball -> 9d6 + 18 (49.5 avg.)Yeah, 57% more damage is a "little boost".
Unfortunately, a crossblooded sorcerer doesn't get 3rd level spells before 7th level. I'm not convinced that those 57% are a boost at all.
With a high enough UMD, a ring of revelations (Burning Magic) and the Burning Spell metamagic, you'll be doing 3x the spell level damage on the next turn, and then the spell level's damage for 1d4 rounds.
So a level 6 Half-Orc Draconic/Primal with Fire will be doing... 4d6+11 damage with a scorching ray (3 from favored class, 8 from dice times 2), and then on the next round 6 more damage. That's not amazing, but isn't so bad. That's 31 damage at least. That's...not absolutely horrible.
Oh wait, Burning Spell is +2 spell slots. Yea, that's horrible.
Unfortunately, a crossblooded sorcerer doesn't get 3rd level spells before 7th level. I'm not convinced that those 57% are a boost at all.
Oh.
Before UM: sorcerer 7 gnome pyromaniac draconic fireball -> 8d6 + 8 (36 avg.)
After UM: sorcerer 7 gnome pyromaniac crossblooded draconic/elemental (primal) + Spell Specialization fireball -> 10d6 + 20 (55 avg.)
Yeah, 52.78% more damage is a "little boost".
Burning spell is best used on spells that deal damage several times over such as fire shield or wall of fire. +3 damage may not be much on a fireball, but trap someone in a spherical wall of flame for 10 rounds and suddenly burning spell has caused and extra +50 damage.
A 10-headed hydra bites you with burning spell fire shield and that hydra is likely dead.
Burning spell is best used on spells that deal damage several times over such as fire shield or wall of fire. +3 damage may not be much on a fireball, but trap someone in a spherical wall of flame for 10 rounds and suddenly burning spell has caused and extra +50 damage.
A 10-headed hydra bites you with burning spell fire shield and that hydra is likely dead.
That's assuming you get adjacent to it, and are able to both cast the spell and not be squishy enough to take 10 hits.
That's assuming you get adjacent to it, and are able to both cast the spell and not be squishy enough to take 10 hits.Burning spell is best used on spells that deal damage several times over such as fire shield or wall of fire. +3 damage may not be much on a fireball, but trap someone in a spherical wall of flame for 10 rounds and suddenly burning spell has caused and extra +50 damage.
A 10-headed hydra bites you with burning spell fire shield and that hydra is likely dead.
You can cast the spell prior to it becoming adjacent to you, you know. Though taking 10 attacks as a spellcaster still sucks regardless.