I don't think *all* damage dealing spells need this -- however I fully agree that the higher the level of the spell the more it needs a damage boost.
I would suggest (just a small part of the magic system rebuild I'm currently working on):
level 1: 1d4
level 2: 1d6
level 3: 1d8
level 4: 2d6
level 5: caster level x2+1d6 per caster level
level 6: 2d8
level 7: 2d10
level 8: caster level x3 + 1d8 per caster level
level 9: 2d12 + caster level
As generic defaults, or simply a 'default damage' option for such spells (which I am honestly okay).
I was thinking of balancing blast spells by somehow implementing primary casting modifier into spell damage. In a similar way a melee character uses a strength modifier just halved initially, and multiplied by spell level. It's a simple semi solution and worth a shot I think. Damage over time would gain half the modifier.
For example a sorcerer with 18 charisma.
1st level: Magic Missile 1d4 + 2 (average 4.5)
2nd level: Burning Hands 2d4 + 4 (average 9)
3rd level: Fireball 5d6 + 6 (average 23.5)
5th level: Cone of Cold 9d6 + 10 (40 average)
6th level: Chain lighting 11d6 + 12
8th level: Horrid Wilting 15d6 + 16
A sorcerer with 26 charisma
1st level: Magic Missile 1d4 + 4 (average 6.5)
2nd level: Burning Hands 2d4 + 8 (average 13)
3rd level: Fireball 5d6 + 12 (average 29.5)
5th level: Cone of Cold 9d6 + 20 (50 average)
6th level: Chain lighting 11d6 + 24
8th level: Horrid Wilting 15d6 + 32
...One of the best explanations I've seen for it is that while Hit Points were drastically increased from AD&D 2e to D&D 3e (and again in Pathfinder where d4 HD was increased to d6 and d6 HD to d8 as well as favored class HP bonuses), blast damage remained the same.
While it is true that fireball has stayed the same since AD&D, the wizard casting it is FAR superior to the magic-user of yore.
AD&D Magic-user casts fireball, and he is out of 3rd level spells. 17.5 damage.
Pathfinder wizard casts fireball. 17.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for high intelligence.
35 damage
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for being an evocation specialist.
52.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for having a bonded object, and he is out of 3rd level spells.
70 damage.
And that doesn't include any other class abilities, feats, etc. Also, an AD&D M-U had to be 11th level before they could scribe a scroll.
I think it might be more accurate to say that direct damage spells of 4th level and above are a little lackluster - polar ray, I'm looking at you!
While it is true that fireball has stayed the same since AD&D, the wizard casting it is FAR superior to the magic-user of yore.AD&D Magic-user casts fireball, and he is out of 3rd level spells. 17.5 damage.
Pathfinder wizard casts fireball. 17.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for high intelligence.
35 damage
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for being an evocation specialist.
52.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for having a bonded object, and he is out of 3rd level spells.
70 damage.
While i partially agree with you i am right now looking at the great wyrm White Dragon from A&D 2nd edition.
AD&D Great Wyrm White hit points: 19d8
Pathfinder Great Wyrm White Hit points: 25d12 + 200
AD&D Fireball: 1d6/level max 10d6
Pathfinder Fireball: 1d6/level max 10d6
And we didn't even start talking about round economy. It is much better to deal relatively same amount of damage in round than it is in 2 rounds.
numbers...
It was late and I screwed up my copy paste job somehow -- I'll get back to you on it once the weekend is over.
Therefore, I propose a simple fix to make blasting a more attractive option
Create illusions that make your battlefield control spells look like illustrious blasts? :P
Just kidding, I need humor when my group has spent the last hour trying to convince the obstinate paladin to conduct an investigation on behalf of a sentient neutral flesh golem. . .I'd have already fragged him :P
I've always liked blasting, in spite of its reduced efficacy vs. monsters with so many more hp than they had in 2e. It just looks cool.
Some sort of better scaling for evokers would make the spells a better option for casters who want it.
+1 damage/ 2 levels and + 1 damage/ 2 ability score points above 10, maybe?
6th level evoker with 20 int: Normal damage + 3 + 5. Seems a little much. He'd cast lots of low-level damage spells, and save the 3rd level slots for better things.
Then again, what's wrong with that? 3 magic missiles, 2 at 1d4+1, and the first at 1d4+9. Avg. 18.5, instead of 10.5.
Too much? Maybe just allowing him his int. bonus to damage would be enough, or maybe make it a feat.
Just thinking on the internets. I don't know nuffin'!
It's useless compare with AD&D in a vacuum.
In AD&D other spells made you get older or had similar drawbacks. Do you see drawbacks in PF casting?
Feat: Elevated Evocation
Your evocation spells do more damage.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus: evocation
When you cast an evocation spell that does damage, you may add your relevant casting ability modifier to the damage done by the spell. This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This damage is of the same type as the spell.
It's useless compare with AD&D in a vacuum.
In AD&D other spells made you get older or had similar drawbacks. Do you see drawbacks in PF casting?
Yeah I agree mostly. I still remember old Haste that used to age all affected for 1 year. :) It was funny how humans were affected more adversely than elves for example.
On the other hand Evocations are the only spells that can be compared to what they used to be as there were no negative effects to most of them and they largely remained the same.
Granted, the casting was a more dangerous business if DM wanted to put a pressure on you but the defensive spells were much more powerful than they are in pathfinder. Remember stoneskin that blocked all physical damage ? Or Invisibility that lasted for 24 h?
Don't forget that in earlier editions anything other than blasting/buffing was a bad choice, as at higher levels saves were all but assured.
That was the big learning curve in the 2E to 3.x transition. In 2E, past a certain level the targets save number was invariably in the 2-4 range. Back then you buffed and blasted, because anything with a save to negate was futile. In 3.x, it's blasts that have suffered between lack of scaling corollary to health, evasion, improved evasion et al.
So in AD&D Blasting not only was good, it was your only effective option.Now, with 3.0/3.5/PF, we have the exact opposite. Not only are SoS/SoD spells good, they are your only effective option.
Evocation needs serious help. It's atrocious. At low levels it's okay, but by level 6/7, it starts to really fall off.
I think that sods are overrated. In fact, I would call them almost as atrocious as evocations and I am talking about traditional sods like Finger of Death. Suffocation could be considered a sod but it's strength is in the secondary effect mostly.
Typical sods are easy for most monsters to ignore it's not even worth memorizing them and they are generally available at high level.
What is a chance of cr 13+ monster to be affected by Finger of Death for example ?
A 13th level wizard with an int of 25 and greater spell focus necromancy would have a dc of 26 if I am not wrong. At that point monsters have spell resistance and fort saves approaching 20s. Even if you can affect it through those defenses you still need to kill the thing with hit point damage in most cases and your spell damage will most likely not kill it. That would be your used high level ability you can cast a few times per day. Not a good tradeof.
Compared to that you can use your area save or suck which affects will save and will save is when it comes to most monsters much lower than fortitude save or you can use your single target spell that disables a monster even if it succeeds on it's save if it allows a save at all.
Save or suck and buffing is the bread and butter of casters I think, not save or die.
I recall reading early on when Pathfinder was new that they essentially got rid of SoDs. From looking thru the list, they are more or less Hit Point damage spells now, just very high hitpoint damage. That's if you take the literal approach to Save or Death though. At low levels, I'd classify Color Spray as Save or Die, as I would Sleep.
Changing the Spell Mastery feat to pick one spell of every spell level you can cast and have it decrease the cost of a metamagic feat (chosen when the spell is cast) used with any of your chosen spells by 1 level. This is a feat available to any caster and can be taken multiple times, every time you take this feat you can pick another spell per spell level to benefit from this feat, specialist wizards can only select spells from their specialty school with this feat.
This would increase the usefulness of metamagic feats and allow an invoker to select several blast spells to empower with only 1 level increase or intensified with no increase at all, making blasters more viable as well.
Therefore, I propose a simple fix to make blasting a more attractive option and give evokers new purpose. Any damaging spell from the Evocation school has its damage dice increased by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8), which effectively increases the average damage of a spell by 1/die. Thus, a 5th-level wizard's fireball goes from 17.5 average damage to 22.5, with a range of 5-40 damage.
This has already been done with the draconic and now elemental bloodlines (via UM). Adding one point of damage per die is the same as moving from d4 -> d6, d6 -> d8, etc. It's only one type of energy, but that should be good enough in most situations. There's also the favored race bonus for half-orcs for fire spells (half the draconic/elemental damage, but as good as the evoker bonus), but most of the time I like the gnome pyromaniac bonus better. . .
With wizards, you have less wiggle room. . . the evocation school's bonus hits all energy types, but it's only half as good. If you want, you can splash one level of sorcerer to get the benefit to wizard spells.
|
Feat: Elevated Evocation
Your evocation spells do more damage.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus: evocation
When you cast an evocation spell that does damage, you may add your relevant casting ability modifier to the damage done by the spell. This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This damage is of the same type as the spell.
I think I would rather have a feat that allows you to add your casting ability modifier to the damage of touch attacks (and ranged touch attacks) and/or feats similar to Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike (which all explicitely do not apply to touch attacks), but for touch attacks only (1 feat for melee and 1 for range is okay, similar to Weapon Focus for touch and ranged touch attacks). Maybe also allow Weapon Specialization for these attacks without needing Fighter levels.
Humm, that last idea makes me wonder about a ranged-based archetype for the Magus.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Hm. Maybe casting ability score modifier x spell level.
1st level caster, 18 Int, magic missile: 1d4+1 + 4.
3rd level caster, 18 Int, scorching ray: 4d6 + 8.
5th level caster, 20 Int, fireball: 5d6 + 15.
On second thought, might be excessive at lower levels.
How about the following:
1st level: 1d4 x caster level(to cap 5)
2nd level: 2d3 x caster level(to cap 7)
3rd level: 2d4 x caster level(to cap 10)
4th level: 2d6 x caster level(to cap 12)
5th level: 2d8 x caster level(to cap 15)
6th level: 3d6 x caster level(to cap 20)
7th level: 3d8 x caster level
8th level: 3d10 x caster level
9th level: 3d12 x caster level
As default spell damages. I understand wanting to roll a lot of dice, but honestly it gets to be more of a hassle that it is worth to me. I would suggest specific spells (scorching ray, acid arrow, vampiric touch for example) should still be set different.