Can someone show me how to combine two odds in which you take the better roll? I can't seem to find any math tutorials on the internet that accounts for the "take better" option.
I want to crunch the numbers myself, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
In your scenario (200 foot range, ballistas or heavy crossbows) a fireball is a very good tactical choice, and a flexible all-around caster with 20% of his spells devoted to damage, will probably have one or two handy. In play, however, I find "They're all too far away!" to be vastly less common than, "Halp! They in ma base killin ma doodz!"I have kind of the same experience, though I often run high-distance encounters too, especially when it comes to groups of weaker enemies. It makes a lot of sense to me - if you're a goblin and ordered to attack a group of heroes mostly known to you through all the friends of the goblin they've killed, you're not going to run into their midst; ambushes and long-distance attacks seems more logical. And are often far more deadly. I'd say it's probably 40/30/30 of close, medium and long distance in fights in games I run.
But it varies greatly with playing style. I mostly play at the lower levels, and use more humanoid opponents than most people I think - we play pretty low-fantasy overall. Also, we tend to use high numbers of opponents more than the average group I think, and more encounters per day. We often have 5 or 6 encounters between resting time, at APL -1 to APL +1; we prefer more easier battles rather than one really dangerous one. It makes the game less swingy, gives a boost to fighter-types and blasters, and forces casters to rely on lower-level spells a lot of the time.
So yeah, the usefulness of blasting varies greatly with playing style. One of their main benefits is high range, so in a game with lots of confined spaces, blasting will have limited use.
If you're starting more combats at range and having more fights against weaker enemies rather than a lot of BBEGs, then a blaster would do better in your game than average.
In computer games, miniatures games, board games, and RPGs, and even irl I've always had a preference for ranged combat over melee. (I shot perfectly on my marksmanship tests in the Army, but was mediocre at HtH skills.) I've found it frustrating that the majority of GMs don't give much distance when starting fights.
Can someone show me how to combine two odds in which you take the better roll? I can't seem to find any math tutorials on the internet that accounts for the "take better" option.
I want to crunch the numbers myself, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
I think this should do it.
http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Mathematical-Probabilities
10 base
12 Charisma modifier
07 spell level (heightened)
04 greater spell focus: transmutation
02 school power: transmutation
35 TOTAL DC (which has to be rolled twice with Persistent Spell)The DC can go up to as much as 37 if she is high off of Elven Absynth.
I assume the character is an arcane bloodline Sorcerer, because Transmuters don't get a +2 to their spell DC. Also, Greater Spell Focus only gives a total of +2 to the DC. I got no idea what Elven Absynth is.
Pst! You in the read cloak with the eyebrows...
C'meer, I got somthing for ya...
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/drugsAndAddiction.html
Elven Absinthe
Type ingested; Addiction moderate, Fortitude DC 16
Price 500 gp
Effects 1 hour; +1d4 Cha
Damage 1d4 Con damage
I assume the character is an arcane bloodline Sorcerer, because Transmuters don't get a +2 to their spell DC. Also, Greater Spell Focus only gives a total of +2 to the DC. I got no idea what Elven Absynth is.10 base
12 Charisma modifier
07 spell level (heightened)
04 greater spell focus: transmutation
02 school power: transmutation
35 TOTAL DC (which has to be rolled twice with Persistent Spell)The DC can go up to as much as 37 if she is high off of Elven Absynth.
Yes, arcane bloodline sorcerer. Greater Spell Focus grants double its normal bonus when combined with Spell Perfection. Elven Absinthe is an addictive drug in the Gamemastery Guide. It has a host of negative side effects, but also grants +1d4 Charisma.
Can someone show me how to combine two odds in which you take the better roll? I can't seem to find any math tutorials on the internet that accounts for the "take better" option.
I want to crunch the numbers myself, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
I think this should do it.
http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Mathematical-Probabilities
Hm... Looks like I crunched the numbers correctly the first time round.
Of course, I was using Yiankun Lee's Flesh to Stone DCs against standard monsters. What's more, I did forget her bloodline arcana ability which ups the DCs by 1 when using metamagic (excepting heighten spell).
Spell Mastery doubles the effect of feats that impact a spell, so his Greater Spell Focus is worth +4.
Yes, Arcane Bloodline, if you look at the character sheet. Also mentions the Bloodline Arcana, which doesn't stack with Heighten, for another +1.
============
Raving, what you do is you take the failure rate of the save and multiply them together. Since it has to MAKE both saves, it has a problem.
Take the odds of saving = 40%. It has a 40% chance on the first one and 40% chance on the second one. Combined, it has a .4 x .4 = 16% chance of success. That's -24%, which is much better then the 10% of Heighten/2.
the Math was already done above, but it should be logical. if you have a 1/4 chance of making the first, and 1/4 chance of making the second, you have a 1/16 chance of making both of them. Convert to decimal = 25% goes down to 6.7%.
Unless they have almost no chance whatsoever (need 18+) or will make it almost no matter what (succeed on a 3+) then Persistent is better.
Since you're applying Persistent for free and then bouncing it if the somehow DO make it, they have to play the game THREE times. They are almost bound to lose even if it favors them. An 80% success rate, done three times, reduces down to just about 50%. A 75% success rate reduces down to about 3/8ths, and it just gets rapidly worse from there.
===Aelryinth
Part of the argument against blaster casters that I haven't seen covered here has a lot more to do with the limited number of spell slots per day and actions per round than it does with the outright effectiveness of tossing a direct damage spell vs. a different type of spell. The biggest problem with blasting is that the higher the level of the game, then the higher the level of the spell slots being burned up, and the higher level blasting spells (even considering metamagic) are just flat out inferior to other uses of your spell slots and actions.
Sure, if you just love the 15 minute adventuring day, load up on direct damage spells and burn up slot after spell slot blasting away in the first encounter you stumble upon.
Or, toss out a battlefield control spell to hinder movement and line of sight so that your party tank is taking 10-15% of the damage he might normally take and your cleric can save his channels and spells. Toss a buff or two that last minutes per level and will be useful through multiple encounters if you hurry (and if you did your homework and used a little divination in preparation this assault should be over in an hour or two) and also ultimately equate to more HP damage done via the people you buffed than a blast spell of the same level. Toss out a debuff or two to nullify the BBEG while your minio- I mean fellow teammates try to get things in hand or get into position. Or spend a spell or two to put them into perfect position.
All in all these things can be accomplished using a minimum of spell slots before your serva- excuse me your party members should have things well on their way to being over. At this point, if you want to pretend to be a blaster and have some fun rolling handfuls of dice and doing some HP damage, feel free to pull the blaster cast- I mean wands from your belt and toss off a charge a round for the duration of mop-up time.
Can someone show me how to combine two odds in which you take the better roll? I can't seem to find any math tutorials on the internet that accounts for the "take better" option.
I want to crunch the numbers myself, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
Here is a google spreadsheet I made for my character with fortunes friend.
The top row is the avrages of all the thousand numbers bellow.
The blue columns are random 1-20.
The green column is the highest of the two roles.
The pink column is the lowest of the two roles
And the yellow column is the difference between the two rolls.
I ran the numbers again, using Yiankum Lee and standard Bestiary monsters.
I did it exactly as you guys said, and exactly as I thought I had done it before. However, I'm coming up with completely different results.
This leads me to believe that I did, in actuality, do it wrong the first time, though I have no idea what I was doing wrong.
Yea right, that was it (Clothing, +2d6 on Eldritch).
Its been a while since that adventure ;-)
Thank you again ;)
OT: One thing more we should consider: rod of dazing spell. This could change things a lot.
Yea right, that was it (Clothing, +2d6 on Eldritch).
Its been a while since that adventure ;-)There also were gloves with daily charges for additional nova blasting capability. All in all it was an extreme fun and effective character to play, who kept steadily nuking/AEing, when the sorcerers spell slots had already been looong soaked dry to the very last cantrip.
What also proved EXTREMELY useful, was one of his invocations, that cast a dimension door at-will(unlimited use per day), and leave an illusion behind.
A bit shorter, than the original dimension door, but nonetheless an extremely good transportation method in the underground, often more useful than the regular dimension door because of the illusion.Also, the warlock is probably the best class on Lvl 1 in whole 3.5:
at-will ranged-touch damage, at-will detect magic, at-will effect that duplicate 2nd Level spells...(Invisibility at level 1, at will !)
Sadly, Invisibility is not a Least invocation. You have to wait till 6th level for Lessers (choose from flying, invisibility, Charm Monster, etc).
See invisibility is a Least invocation though.
Yes, arcane bloodline sorcerer. Greater Spell Focus grants double its normal bonus when combined with Spell Perfection. Elven Absinthe is an addictive drug in the Gamemastery Guide. It has a host of negative side effects, but also grants +1d4 Charisma.I assume the character is an arcane bloodline Sorcerer, because Transmuters don't get a +2 to their spell DC. Also, Greater Spell Focus only gives a total of +2 to the DC. I got no idea what Elven Absynth is.10 base
12 Charisma modifier
07 spell level (heightened)
04 greater spell focus: transmutation
02 school power: transmutation
35 TOTAL DC (which has to be rolled twice with Persistent Spell)The DC can go up to as much as 37 if she is high off of Elven Absynth.
Thanks, that was quite illuminating. Doubly so about Spell Perfection, because I found out something important which a player of mine had done wrong when he took it last week ( i.e. going over level nine spells with the metamagicking ).
|
I did it exactly as you guys said, and exactly as I thought I had done it before. However, I'm coming up with completely different results.
This leads me to believe that I did, in actuality, do it wrong the first time, though I have no idea what I was doing wrong.
The one rule of probability that I find most helpful when you're trying to think something through instead of plugging into a formula is this:
*The chance of something not occuring = 1 - (the chance it does occur)Combine this with the rule for having something happen twice in a row:
*Probability of twice in a row = (Probability of happening once)x (probability of happening once)
So let's take a spell that has the enemy needs a 16 to save against (25% save chance). The probability of them saving twice due to a persistent spell is:
.25 x .25 = .0625
So the chance of them not saving against the persistent spell is
1 - .0625 = .9375 = 93.75%
For a heightened spell they need to roll an 18 (15% save chance) so the chance of them not saving is (1-.15)=.85 = 85%.
There is a table with the results for all possible saving throws earlier in the thread. I just hope that writing it out in plain language helps make it clearer.
|
|
So back to the original question:
After a PFS game last night my friend and I had a hour long car drive home and we were just talking about the game.
At one point he raised the issue of "why do people think blasters suck?"
I started to say, "On every forum I've ever read over the last decade they've always said they suck."
I then gave him some broad explanations of what theorycraft has said... that it has to do with action economy, that damage progression is outstripped by the system, that min-maxed DCs outstrip saves, etc.
The reason there's no great theorycraft answer is that there is a huge variety in encounters and situations (deliberately so). All you can do is pick a level, an enemy, and an alternate class and run the numbers against it. Just for an example, let's take level 11, an adult black dragon, and a fighter specializing in the bow. Everybody gets every feat they would have if this was their primary setup. (I'm just making most of this up as I go and my math may be a little off.)
First the fighter:
Dex Mod = +4
+3 Composite Longbow
Deadly Aim
Manyshot
Rapidshot
Weapon Focus (Longbow)
Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow)
Weapon Specialization (Longbow)
Weapon Training (Longbow) +2
BAB+Dex+Weap Mod+Focus+Training-Deadly Aim-Rapidshot
=(11/11/11/6/1) +4+3+2+2-3-2 = 17/17/17/12/7
vs AC 28
=50%/50%/50%/25%/5%
Average damage per successful shot =
Weap+Str+Weap Mod+Deadly Aim+Special+Training
=4.5+5+3+6+2+2=22.5
Damage per round =
11.25+11.25+5.625+1.125=40.5
(And yes I ignored critical, I'll ignore it for the sorcerer too)
And now for the sorcerer:
Dex Mod = +2
Weapon Focus (Ray)
Spell Penetration
Greater Spell Penetration
Empower Spell
BAB+Dex Mod+Weap Focus
=5+2+1=8
vs Touch AC 10, SR 22 (3 rays)
.9*.65/.9*.65/.9*.65 = .585/.585/.585
Average damage per successful empowered ray=
4D6+2D6
=21
Damage per round =
12.285+12.285+12.285=36.855
There, I just proved that a blaster sorcerer is within 10% of an archer fighter, without having any special bloodline or racial powers or even using a Metamagic Rod or any kind or a quickened spell. Oh, wait, I proved it at level 11. Against an adult black dragon. If I'd picked a stone golem that would have worked out differently. And I can't run to the store to pick up more spell slots like the fighter can with arrows.
I personally discount all the arguments about how a "save or lose" caster is better than a blaster. If you make that argument, you can keep going down that path and say that a SoL is better than a fighter, ranger, rogue, etc. If SoL>blaster and blaster~=noncaster, then SoL>everything else. The logical conclusion of that reasoning is that you shouldn't play anything but a SoL caster. It's just playstyle. Can a SoL caster negate a single threat better than a blaster? Absolutely a lot of the time. But even the most straightforward blaster is going to have a few utility spells around that a fighter doesn't have access to. Variety is what makes thing interesting.
The simple answer is that with judicious use of metamagic - especially quicken spell - and equipment - especially rods - a blaster can keep up with dpsers in a lot of situations and be better in a few. They just can't keep it up as long.
Heighten spell is still better if you want to up the spell 3+ levels though, correct?
Heighten spell is still better if you want to up the spell 3+ levels though, correct?
If you only have it, it's better, but if you have both, it's better to persistance it and also use heighten. Heighten is more flexible, and as has been noted has a few other uses that persistance doesn't have (a heightened Light spell to 3rd level can dispel Darkness for example).
But for saves, persistance is better than heighten +2 in nearly all cases, better than heighten +3 in a lot of cases, and better than +4 in cases where base chance of success is 40-60%.
EDIT: This is "better" regardless of the slot adjustment. So if a persistance was a +3 mod, it would still be better than heighten +3 in a lot of cases.
Heighten spell is still better if you want to up the spell 3+ levels though, correct?If you only have it, it's better, but if you have both, it's better to persistance it and also use heighten. Heighten is more flexible, and as has been noted has a few other uses that persistance doesn't have (a heightened Light spell to 3rd level can dispel Darkness for example).
But for saves, persistance is better than heighten +2 in nearly all cases, better than heighten +3 in a lot of cases, and better than +4 in cases where base chance of success is 40-60%.
Wow. No wonder it upsets people as much as Reach/Enlarge.
|
|
Heighten spell is still better if you want to up the spell 3+ levels though, correct?
Again, it comes down to the math. In my example above
So let's take a spell that has the enemy needs a 16 to save against (25% save chance). The probability of them saving twice due to a persistent spell is:
.25 x .25 = .0625
So the chance of them not saving against the persistent spell is
1 - .0625 = .9375 = 93.75%
For a heightened spell they need to roll an 18 (15% save chance) so the chance of them not saving is (1-.15)=.85 = 85%.
If you heightened it 3 levels they would need to roll a 19 (10% save chance) so the the chance of them not saving is (1-.1)=.9 = 90%.
For this particular example the persistent spell is 3.75% more likely to hit.Also bear in mind that a persistent spell only takes up a slot two levels higher.
Again Heighten is weak enough to be removed as a feat and made an option for any caster.-James
I don't agree, I find heighten perfectly balanced (though it's more suited for spontaneous casters). It's a metamagic feat that's useful for SoL effects and we don't need to boost SoL's more, so giving it for free might be a bad idea. It's very useful for spontaneous casters that can't know all kinds of spells they need.
The problem is that persistance is too good. It shouldn't have been printed, period. As a level +4 it would probably be balanced, as it would be better than heighten in a subset of the percentage (40-60%) as well as a few other strong points (against improved iron will, or when you've taken Int damage down to 13 and can't cast a 5th level heightened charm person but can still cast a persistant 1st level charm person that takes a 5th level slot).
|
|
But for saves, persistance is better than heighten +2 in nearly all cases, better than heighten +3 in a lot of cases, and better than +4 in cases where base chance of success is 40-60%.
The basic rule of thumb from the earlier table is that the most "cost-effective" use of heighten is when the opponent needs either a 2 or 3 (or better) to save. With your arcane sorcerer that becomes only a 2 (or better) since using persistent spell also raises the DC by one while heighten does not. (Although if it's that low to start with you might want to consider an alternative plan to casting in the first place.)
|
|
The problem is that persistance is too good. It shouldn't have been printed, period. As a level +4 it would probably be balanced, as it would be better than heighten in a subset of the percentage (40-60%) as well as a few other strong points (against improved iron will, or when you've taken Int damage down to 13 and can't cast a 5th level heightened charm person but can still cast a persistant 1st level charm person that takes a 5th level slot).
I think the problem is that persistent was meant to address the blasters "arggh, another save against my fireball" complaints (legitimately I think, to get back to the thread topic) and the SoL side wasn't really closely considered.
I think the problem is that persistent was meant to address the blasters "arggh, another save against my fireball" complaints (legitimately I think, to get back to the thread topic) and the SoL side wasn't really closely considered.
The problem is that persistance is too good. It shouldn't have been printed, period. As a level +4 it would probably be balanced, as it would be better than heighten in a subset of the percentage (40-60%) as well as a few other strong points (against improved iron will, or when you've taken Int damage down to 13 and can't cast a 5th level heightened charm person but can still cast a persistant 1st level charm person that takes a 5th level slot).
Fixed the quotation. Erroneous quotation is seen as very rude by many on these boards, it seems, even if it's just a mistake.
That could probably be the case, but it should really have been made in a different way, for example, "evasion doesn't work against this spell, +1 level slot" or "ignore energy resistance, +2 level slot".
Might as well complain how powerful weapon finesse is now that it's not tied to a specific weapon imho.-James
Wait, what does that have to do with anything? If dex-based warriors was the most common melee type and the one deemed most powerful, and threads were started on a regular basis about how dex-based fighters were the go-to for offensive output in all kinds of games I'd be against giving weapon finesse for free to everyone, even if it makes RL sense, because it's of more use to that sub-type that already has the most power.
Heighten spell is a feat that some people will find worth and others will not, much like enlarge, silent and the like. They are circumstantially useful and not all casters will want it, and that's fine by me. I have a much larger issue with a feat such as persistant that all casters capable of casting 4rd level spells will want (and anyone will want a wand of - though I guess that is the case of Silent Spell too).
Think of it this way, if someone researched a 5th level spell that already existed as a 3rd level spell on their spell list, would you think that was too powerful?Or would you think that the spell was perhaps, underpowered?
-James
I don't think heighten is a worse metamagic than enlarge, widen, or maximize. Of the core metamagics, I only think extend and quicken are better than heightened. Silent, still, heighten, and empower are about equally good, but silent and still are better to just get on a rod. Widen, enlarge and maximize I think are worse than heighten.
And of course that would be underpowered, for a spell taking weeks or months to research. The reason heighten is balanced is that it can be applied more or less as a move action (spontaneous casters go from standard to full action, so they lose their move). If it took a week to use it, it would have been kind of useless.
I think someone researching a "cold ball" spell that's 4th level should get more than just a cold version of fireball, yet I think elemental spell is a well-balanced feat.
I think someone researching a spell that sleeps the target but doesn't have any components as a 3rd level spell should get something better than just the Sleep spell without somatic/silent, but I think those feats are fine.
Empower is definitely good for blasting spells. Its one of the few metamagic feats that does more damage than as a higher level spell.
Empower is definitely good for blasting spells. Its one of the few metamagic feats that does more damage than as a higher level spell.
Yeah, empower isn't a bad metamagic feat. I'm not saying it is. Though in many circumstances, the actual increase in damage may not be that much higher, due to lower save DC and smaller area/worse other effects. It might edge out a little bit on damage in some cases, but it's main benefit is more freedom in shape, damage type and so on from a limited number of blasts.
EDIT: And of course, with feats like spell mastery or the trait that lowers cost of metamagic, and with metamagic rods, empower is an excellent way to increase the damage output of blasts.I think empower is a good, well-balanced metamagic feat, but so do I think about heighten, silent and still (though the last two are better as rods).
Heighten could use a small boost, such as increase max damage dice by 1 level per level increase (a weaker Intensify spell effect), but on the whole, I like it as it is and I see it taken now and then by players who aren't stupid - which seems to be proof enough that it isn't a bad feat.
Ever since Paizo designers ruled that Empower works differently than it did in v3.5 (that is claiming that the 5d4 in 5d4+5 is the variable, rather than seeing 10-25 as the variable), I think it absolutely sucks in terms of balance.
I just don't see ANY use for heighten. If the spell is save or die, there's guaranteed to be a better save or die spell at X levels higher.
I just don't see ANY use for heighten. If the spell is save or die, there's guaranteed to be a better save or die spell at X levels higher.
Take an 8th level sorcerer. He knows one 4th level and two 3rd level spells. Pretty solid choices for these would be for example confusion, haste, and stinking cloud. Some people might pick other spells, but I'll use these for example as they are good spells that people might take. But there are circumstances when they aren't optimal:
When you're up against an enemy you shouldn't kill but rather get information from or something like that, a heightened Charm Person might be a far better choice than the others.If you encounter undead creatures, a Heightened Grease might be the best available choice.
When you're up against an enemy you shouldn't kill but rather get information from or something like that, a heightened Charm Person might be a far better choice than the others.
If you encounter undead creatures, a Heightened Grease might be the best available choice.And a non-heightened spell of each would likely be great as well. It would cost a lower level slot, you'd still have a move action (either towards or away) and you'd have a feat free to have as still spell or the like.
It's too high of a cost.
And its even worse for a wizard.
-James
A non-heightened version has a save DC 3 points lower, which is very relevant, especially in the case of a single target spell such as Charm Person. Now, I'd pick Persistant over heighten any day, but as said I consider persistant to be too good.
I'd probably never pick silent spell as a feat in a campaign where I could get a rod; they're dirt cheap for the lesser version (which would cover anything I can cast with the feat at that point).
If you're up against a humanoid, the difference between a 4th level charm person and the 4th level spell charm monster isn't that huge (yeah, duration can be a biggie in some circumstances, but it's rare that an 8 hour duration isn't enough).
Heighten Spell can be better than Persistent Spell in a couple of obvious cases. . .
Versus (Greater) Spell Immunity, globes of invulnerability, spell turning, etc.
In a long-term campaign, a wizard well-known for casting flesh to stone will eventually find that many of his intelligent villains will be protected by greater spell immunity again and again. . .
Ever since Paizo designers ruled that Empower works differently than it did in v3.5 (that is claiming that the 5d4 in 5d4+5 is the variable, rather than seeing 10-25 as the variable), I think it absolutely sucks in terms of balance.
That "ruling" was a guess -- the actual 3.5 books clearly show you how Empower Spell works. The key text is absent from the SRD. I don't think the designers really meant to completely change how Empower Spell works.
|
|
Wow - heavy posting since last night!
Quote:
Yes. Blasting is dependent on a lot of weak enemies and isn't useful at all before level 5, basically. At 5th level, if you're up against say 12 orcs at medium to long range (as an APL +1 encounter), fireball is the best choice, probably.
Hmmm...
Level 1 pyromaniac gnome draconic (red, brass, or gold) bloodline sorcerer with Gifted Adept trait (Burning Hands)... 3d4+3 damage to a 15ft cone (plus setting stuff alight), 4x per day..? Seems pretty helpful to have around... but maybe that's just me... :)
And yes, that's pretty useful and can kill some stuff - but it's still only 10.5 damage with a reflex save for half, so yeah, if you're up against a bunch of enemies in a small area it works - but that's exactly the time you can have color spray work nearly as well without any investment at all. And I REALLY wouldn't waste a trait on something that isn't viable at all after, say, level 3.
Colour Spray, whilst an excellent spell, tends to be overrated by a lot of people. Mostly 'cos it relies on you not facing Constructs, Oozes, Plants, Undead, or Vermin... and at least two of those monster types are fairly common in most low-level games in my experience... Oh, and sightless creatures too, but that's less likely to be an issue...
Colour Spray also illustrates the double-edged sword that is the Save or Suck spell - if they do save, then the spell sucks... Granted, casters which rely on those tactics often go out of their way to boost their casting Ability Score and overall save DC as high as possible... but once in a while things make their saves, and the spell is nothing but a wasted action.
For our little gnome pyro, 10.5 average damage to a roomfull of bad guys at level 1 is able to one-hit many CR appropriate encounters. Even if saves are made they take some damage - which is one of the general advantages common to most area blasting spells. Generally, with blasting spells like Burning Hands, your spells will, at least, be doing something.
As to 'wasting' a trait... well, with Intensified Spell (which every blaster mage will be picking up sooner or later) the Gifted Adept trait with Burning Hands doesn't 'max out' until you hit level 9 (at which point you're doing the 10 dice maximum with just the pyromaniac CL boost). One die extra of damage tends to have more overall effect at lower levels than at higher levels (essentially, the lower the Hit Points of your targets the bigger percentage chunk of them a die's worth of damage represents), and your contention was that blasting 'isn't useful at all before level 5'. Personally I'd think that 8 or 9 levels of doing that extra damage is reward enough for a simple trait... but I guess it depends on if you play from level 1 up, or design characters at higher levels. Obviously, it's not an option you'd take if starting with level 10 characters!
Anyway, at the end of the day, with blasting you get to blow $#!T up! What more incentive do you need? ;)
[qipte]Colour Spray, whilst an excellent spell, tends to be overrated by a lot of people. Mostly 'cos it relies on you not facing Constructs, Oozes, Plants, Undead, or Vermin... and at least two of those monster types are fairly common in most low-level games in my experience... Oh, and sightless creatures too, but that's less likely to be an issue...
Well you don't memorize it 5 times. But your chances of NOT being able to use it during a day are pretty rare.
Colour Spray also illustrates the double-edged sword that is the Save or Suck spell - if they do save, then the spell sucks... Granted, casters which rely on those tactics often go out of their way to boost their casting Ability Score and overall save DC as high as possible... but once in a while things make their saves, and the spell is nothing but a wasted action.
But save DC's start to out pace saves as you go higher and higher, making this less and less of a problem.
For our little gnome pyro, 10.5 average damage to a roomfull of bad guys at level 1 is able to one-hit many CR appropriate encounters. Even if saves are made they take some damage - which is one of the general advantages common to most area blasting spells. Generally, with blasting spells like...
unless its fire resistant.. even FR 5 will take a lot of the sting out of it, has evasion, is just plain immune etc.
I do like blasters. They are fun, and the dm telling you "he turns to stone" isn't nearly as fun as picking up a pint of d 6's, rolling them, and seeing a bunch of 5/s and sixes staring up at you with nary a 1 to be seen.
|
The problem with Blast Spells is this:
Magic Missile caps at 10th lvl 5d4+5 damage.
Burning Hands caps at 10th lvl 5d4 damage
Fireball Caps at 10th lvl 10d6 damage.
Meteor Swarm does 6d6 possibly 24d6 if you overlap the damage.
Shocking Grasp caps at 5th for 5d6 points of damage.
Power Word Kill works only on 100 hp or less creatures.
How many creatures at that level have 100 hp?
There is no Spell Specialization +2 damage feat or Power Spell -X save for +X damage.
There is no + Casting stat to damage.
Our damage is largely random halved by saves with severe level caps.
A Fighter can fight for 1 million rounds in a row and consistantly do
1d8+X damage the X damage won't change while a caster will run out of spells long before then and a vast majority of thier damage is based entirely on random chance.
Blasting has been smacked around with the nerf bat to the point where a Caster is better off plinking things with a crossbow and letting the fighters do all the work until there is a major encounter.
The biggest problem people have is the random chance which is why SoL spells are more popular.
Trust me its not fun to toss a fireball roll 36 damage on 10d6 then watch it get cut to 18 and the fighter next to just did 60-70 points to the same 5 different people at lvl 20.
Colour Spray, whilst an excellent spell, tends to be overrated by a lot of people. Mostly 'cos it relies on you not facing Constructs, Oozes, Plants, Undead, or Vermin... and at least two of those monster types are fairly common in most low-level games in my experience...
I agree that it's overrated, but mostly because of short range and being a cone, problems that burning hands share. Not affecting undead or vermin are definately issues, and vermin are one of the places where low-level blasts are useful (swarms in particular), but you give up a LOT to get that 10.5 average area damage 4 times per day - it might be a viable way to get by level 1 if you really want to blast, but from level 2 or 3 it's not useful anymore, while color spray is.
And yes, occacionly opponents save against SoS's, but they do against blasts too, and half of 10.5 damage is a really low number. Yes, against a lot of low-CR opponents it can be useful - but as said, it's a big investment for something that loses value by level 2 or 3 or so. And that is only 4 times per day.
Oh, and for actual average damage, a 1st level pyro with 18 casting stat using it against CR 1/2 creatures with good reflex is 8.1, and against those with bad reflex save is 8.9 damage, and they should have an average of 10 hit points. So yeah, you'll drop some while some are left standing. Probably you'll drop more than if you'd cast color spray. Note however, that this is with heavy focus and investment in the spell, and that if you compare the average damage at level 2 against CR 1 creatures, color spray would probably do better.
I'm not saying it's useless, just that it takes a LOT of investment to get blasting up to the effectiveness that SoL has with just a small investment.
Trust me its not fun to toss a fireball roll 36 damage on 10d6 then watch it get cut to 18 and the fighter next to just did 60-70 points to the same 5 different people at lvl 20.
Well, at 20th level you shouldn't use a fireball. At the absolute very least, it should be an intensified, empowered fireball with metamagic rod maximize followed by and intensified, quickened fireball with metamagic maximize, for a total of 90+(15d6/2) + 90 damage. If I did that math correctly, since I don't play at those levels I might very well have made something wrong.
|
|
Well Burning Hands caps at 5th level for 5d4 by that calculation... plus Intensified Spell adds another 5 dice (and related levels) to each of those 'caps'... plus you can chuck in Empowered spells as well... I don't think anyone suggested that you'd play a blaster-type mage without Metamagic - after all, it's what a lot of the Metamagic Feats are for...
Oh...
... and at the end of the day, with blasting you get to blow $#!T up! ;)
|
|
... but you give up a LOT to get that 10.5 average area damage 4 times per day - it might be a viable way to get by level 1 if you really want to blast, but from level 2 or 3 it's not useful anymore, while color spray is...
By 'give up' I guess we're...
Swapping one choice of racial ability for another choice of racial ability (which is viable at every spell level).
Picking a Sorcerer Bloodline.
Spending a single trait.
I'm not sure exactly what the big sacrifice is... any more than any other caster choosing a style to go with.
As for Colour Spray retaining it's usefullness... it's one of (if not the) fastest usefulness-drop-off spells in the game, with it's 'limited by hit dice, even if they don't save' mechanics... and usually gets swapped out as soon as possible (it's done it's job, time to put it away). Burning Hands does damage... damage is damage is damage... it never goes out of fashion! Granted, you'll not pull it out against the fire-immune crowd, but then you'll not pull out the Colour Spray against Zatoichi either, right? ;)
And yes, occacionly opponents save against SoS's, but they do against blasts too, and half of 10.5 damage is a really low number. Yes, against a lot of low-CR opponents it can be useful - but as said, it's a big investment for something that loses value by level 2 or 3 or so. And that is only 4 times per day.
An average of 5 damage per (lucky) opponent at level 1 isn't too shabby by anyone's count. 4d4+4 at caster level 2, 5d4+5 at caster level 3... all not too shabbly for a mere first level spell, one would think.
I'm not saying it's useless, just that it takes a LOT of investment to get blasting up to the effectiveness that SoL has with just a small investment.
Glad to hear that low-level blasting's not useless! ;)
As for a 'lot' of investment...I'm not sure - it's more like a little investment and choosing a theme for the character, but I guess opinions can vary on that. It's not like the guy couldn't do anything else... He's not even spent any Feats yet...
Besides...
... with blasting you get to blow $#!T up! ;)
The problem with Blast Spells is this:
Magic Missile caps at 10th lvl 5d4+5 damage.
Burning Hands caps at 10th lvl 5d4 damage
Fireball Caps at 10th lvl 10d6 damage.
Meteor Swarm does 6d6 possibly 24d6 if you overlap the damage.
Shocking Grasp caps at 5th for 5d6 points of damage.
Power Word Kill works only on 100 hp or less creatures.
How many creatures at that level have 100 hp?
Intensify spell helps a LOT of those spells stay competitive. Your post is just another example of someone who doesn't know how to build a good blaster.