It specifically states "increases the maximum number of damage dice". Scorching Ray's damage does not scale with level. More levels add more rays, that is not what is said here. Intensified Spell adds to fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc. because they add dice based on caster level. Scorching Ray adds rays based on caster level. There is a difference.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Alienfreak, please address the issue that Intensified Spell does not work with Scorching Ray. Wraithstrike has pointed this out multiple times.I had assumed you got another scorching ray out of the deal. Same thing with number of magic missiles.
Get more damage dice, they are more rays or missiles.
That might not be correct. Have the developers said differently?
Intensified Spell (Metamagic)
Your spells can go beyond several normal limitations.
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat. An intensified spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Sample spell
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
The feat specially calls out that the damage die cap increases by caster level. The only spells that have a damage dice by caster level are ones like that do the 1d6/level as an example, such as fireball.
As you can see the damage die on fireball goes by a caster level progression, but caps at 10.
Also: You are right this is not a blasting guide, but you can't ignore feats like precise shot when they have a substantial affect on your chanced to hit the target AC. That is like making an archer without such feats, and claiming the DPR will not change. In effect if you use ranged touch the battle plan is the same as the archer. You just get to use touch AC.
In short everything must be accounted for.
We all made new chracters, and I decided that it was time to pull out all the stops and make my specialty, a wizard. Everyone else made characters too, and it seemed like they just gave up trying to survive. We had a sorcerer-blaster with a low Con score, a drunken master/monk, a Ranger with a bow (this was 3.5, where archery wasn't good), and a fighter with sword and board (no twf shield bashing). I came in with a battlefield control wizard.I beg to differ, sir! This is a bit off-topic, but ranger-archers could be ungodly amazing in 3.5, and Demonweb Pits was an ideal situation for them. You KNEW your enemy types! You could customize yourself as an evil-slaying, demon-slaying monstrosity of damage. My now-husband's Living Greyhawk ranger was the most effective demon-slayer I've ever seen: each arrow did just over 50 points of damage, and there were 5 arrows/rd.
Back on topic: I've mostly disagreed with your points about wizards, though I suspect that is because we play with very different parties. Crowd control is wonderful for encounters your party won't murderize in 1-2 rounds or for single target BBEGs with really high AC and/or other defenses but low Fort or Will saves. As you play with non-optimizers, your parties very rarely kill things quickly, and your CC is really useful.
I, and many of the other people who support blasting as an equally powerful option to crowd-control, play with more powerful parties in general. The combat is likely to end in 1-2 rounds anyway, and a blasty wizard can ensure that happens. The more people who have the ability to end a combat rapidly, the more likely one of them will win initiative and have the chance to do so. Casting a fog spell or a wall or something like that just makes the party angry, because is tactically disadvantageous: it takes longer to get to the NPCs who need to die.
Also, please be aware that no one I have read on these boards suggests blasting to the exclusion of all else. Being a blasting wizard...
Archery sucked in 3.5. It could be made to work, but it took a few splats and some optimization to make it happen.
PS:Neither crowd control or blasting works well in a vacumn. His idea is the god wizard as opposed to a blaster, not someone who just spams control spells.
Some did suggest blasting as a primary option which requires different blasting spells and type.
I suspect it all comes down to "in my game we allow _____ type things."
Eh, archery was OK. It certainly wasn't great in 3.5, but you could make it work.
As for the ranger build, it was actually sub-optimal because it was a rebuild from a rogue build. So 14 Int to start, 18 Dex, 8 Wisdom which was bumped and then a +6 Wisdom item to bring to a 16. Also +4 or +6 Dex item, I forget which.
Levels were simple: 11 ranger/4 fighter. The only feat I can think of that wasn't core was Weapon Mastery, taken at 15. Favored enemies were +6 evil outsider, +4 undead, +2 human. Bow was +1 holy sacred bane (evil outsider) longbow (+2 Str). He had a few spells from outside core as well, but spells were a very minor part of what rangers did.
In other words, ranger archers who could focus on killing their favored enemies were really powerful. Demonweb Pits, especially, told you what your favored enemies should be! There's no reason for a ranger-archer to have sucked in it.
As to wizards, I despise summoning. Hate it! That doesn't mean it isn't good or can't be good, because it can. But IMO a full-round casting is just way too vulnerable. It's asking to lose a high level spell and a round to a single archer, because you usually can't walk in fully protected. My archer has, in a single round, disrupted three NPC spellcasters who were trying to summon things. An arrow into each was *just* the thing! That is why I dislike TM's GOD build: to me, it's far too vulnerable to disruption and really, you could just kill things instead.
How was that getting you 50 points an arrow?
A single arrow should not have disrupted a concentration check every time unless the dice rolls were low.
As to wizards, I despise summoning. Hate it! That doesn't mean it isn't good or can't be good, because it can. But IMO a full-round casting is just way too vulnerable. It's asking to lose a high level spell and a round to a single archer, because you usually can't walk in fully protected. My archer has, in a single round, disrupted three NPC spellcasters who were trying to summon things. An arrow into each was *just* the thing! That is why I dislike TM's GOD build: to me, it's far too vulnerable to disruption and really, you could just kill things instead.
Cast Invisibility first? Summoning doesn't break invis. The wizard can cast summons, walls, sleet storms, etc. all from invisibility. At higher levels the archers may have some ability to see invisibility but probably not for some random minion.
I have proven quite a lot already.
I agree, I just don't think you've proven what you think you've proven. That said, I'm perfectly satisfied and will stop publicly questioning your "proof" unless your claim changes or you add anything new to your claim.
You just keep coming up with additional restriction after restriction to make it seem like I haven't proven anything.
I didn't come up with any restriction. They were all pointed out to you before I made a single comment about your build by Ashiel right HERE.
Feel free to show the world I'm wrong by quoting a single restriction I've "come up with" that wasn't already in that original post. I'll wait with baited breath.
I decided to respond when you kept claiming the same thing even though Ashiel debunked you, by pointing out some of the things mentioned that you seem to treat like they don't apply or something, but you haven't shown why they shouldn't apply.
I've not added a single "restriction", yet your new tactic seems to be rather than deal with the initial criticisms, to claim that I am "coming up with additional" ones, as if you hadn't heard them before.
I also note there have been multiple posts mentioning that intensify spell clearly doesn't work with scorching ray, again, no response.
You are failing peer review.
But standing there saying "I don't prove things" but "You have to and you pretend to" is not working out.
You don't have to prove anything, nor have I told you that you have to. You are making a claim that you have proven something. As long as you make that claim without backing it up (by addressing the criticism initially put against it, after your request by the way), then I'll dispute the claim.
If you wish to back off the claim that you've "proven" anything, and just give your opinion, I might disagree with your opinion, but I can't "prove" your opinion to be less valid than mine.
This is a discussion about wether blasting is viable or not. You are taking the position that it is not.
Could you quote me please? I could swear I never made that claim.
I know your claim wasn't that blasting was "viable". Your claim, and I quote, was, "I posted an example of 356 DMG per round without a save."
Then, (again before I made a single comment towards you)
"Arguing with you is rather useless because you will always find one spell, one monster or one whatever that will negate the thing the other one is proposing"
Even though the criticism included such common things as firing into melee penalties and cover.
So if you have a position in a discussion get some arguments ready which ultimatively aim at the goal of proving your point to be the right one.
I don't need an alternate claim to be correct for yours to be wrong.
Try reading THIS and maybe you'll get where I'm coming from.
This was the round 1 opening strike
It is? So to clarify, you are rescinding the claim, "I posted an example of 356 DMG per round" (emphasis mine)
Or are you changing the goalposts?
Or did you forget what you were claiming?
Or you take two of the remaining free feats and go for precise shot
...and you are going to suggest 2 more feats that only help you with a single non-leveling spell combination. I'll have to give you credit, you don't back down.
Dude. This is no Handbook on "how to play your blaster right". You wanted to see how you can deal that damage. You got the example and now be a good boy and show some gratitude.
I did? I don't remember that request at all. Care to quote me?
4th time now?
Sometimes repetition is the only way a point can be acknowledged. In your case, apparently it didn't work, since you recognized the point was being repeated, but still managed to make a long post without addressing the point itself.
Which is fine by me. I knew your claim was bunk the moment I read it, but when you passed over Ashiel's comment without addressing a single point that was made, I wanted everyone to see that you couldn't address the claims.
I think you've shown that clearly enough. Last word is yours.
As to wizards, I despise summoning. Hate it! That doesn't mean it isn't good or can't be good, because it can. But IMO a full-round casting is just way too vulnerable. It's asking to lose a high level spell and a round to a single archer, because you usually can't walk in fully protected. My archer has, in a single round, disrupted three NPC spellcasters who were trying to summon things. An arrow into each was *just* the thing! That is why I dislike TM's GOD build: to me, it's far too vulnerable to disruption and really, you could just kill things instead.Cast Invisibility first? Summoning doesn't break invis. The wizard can cast summons, walls, sleet storms, etc. all from invisibility. At higher levels the archers may have some ability to see invisibility but probably not for some random minion.At level 12ish, this's what would happen if my usual parties had a GOD wizard and didn't have a bard, summoner, inquisitor, or other buffer:
First round: Invisibility. Archer does ~100 damage, fighter charges and does ~30-40 damage, life oracle casts bless.
Second round: Start summoning. Wiggle fingers and speak loudly. Archer does ~100 damage, fighter does ~120 damage, life oracle channels energy to heal the living excluding enemies who are still alive.
Third round: POP! Creature is here! All targets are dead or dying already.Sleet storm on top of enemies does break Invisibility, but sleet storm to create terrain does not. A ring of invisibility is a GOD-type character's best friend, but I still think it's inadequate. Any AOE will likely still cause the summoning spell to be interrupted, and I know if I was a smart NPC caster I'd target that-empty-space-making-spellcasting-noises for AOE damage even if I didn't really hit anyone else.
You have some good points (if you're team can really kill every enemy within a couple of rounds) but two things need to be clarified.
1) Sleet storm does not break invisibility, ever. It is not a direct attack.
2) Pathfinder merged the spot and listen skills into one (perception) and hide and move silently into one (stealth). That has had some interesting side-effects for invisibility. Invisibility grants a +20 bonus to stealth if the creature moves or a +40 bonus if he stands still. So stand still and cast a spell, even with verbal components, still grants a +40 bonus to stealth. Good luck finding the wizard.
The typical routine would be to cast invisibility then move (so they can't target the last place they saw you) with a +20 bonus. You then have a +40 bonus when you cast Summon Monster X.
1) Sleet storm does not break invisibility, ever. It is not a direct attack.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
2) Pathfinder merged the spot and listen skills into one (perception) and hide and move silently into one (stealth). That has had some interesting side-effects for invisibility. Invisibility grants a +20 bonus to stealth if the creature moves or a +40 bonus if he stands still. So stand still and cast a spell, even with verbal components, still grants a +40 bonus to stealth. Good luck finding the wizard.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced,and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable
1) Sleet storm does not break invisibility, ever. It is not a direct attack.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.2) Pathfinder merged the spot and listen skills into one (perception) and hide and move silently into one (stealth). That has had some interesting side-effects for invisibility. Invisibility grants a +20 bonus to stealth if the creature moves or a +40 bonus if he stands still. So stand still and cast a spell, even with verbal components, still grants a +40 bonus to stealth. Good luck finding the wizard.Of course, the subject is not magically silenced,and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable
Just to put in my 2 cents:
1 cent) I don't know if Pathfinder specifically defines an "attack", but I would assume it would be an action that causes or attempts to cause some form of damage to a foe. That's debatable, but that's kind of the point.
2 cent) Even if casting sleet storm broke invisibility, who is going to know? Sleet storm also blocks vision.
You have some good points (if you're team can really kill every enemy within a couple of rounds) but two things need to be clarified.
1) Sleet storm does not break invisibility, ever. It is not a direct attack.
2) Pathfinder merged the spot and listen skills into one (perception) and hide and move silently into one (stealth). That has had some interesting side-effects for invisibility. Invisibility grants a +20 bonus to stealth if the creature moves or a +40 bonus if he stands still. So stand still and cast a spell, even with verbal components, still grants a +40 bonus to stealth. Good luck finding the wizard.
The typical routine would be to cast invisibility then move (so they can't target the last place they saw you) with a +20 bonus. You then have a +40 bonus when you cast Summon Monster X.
1) Direct attacks are not the only thing that break invisibility. It is, in fact, broken on casting any AOE spell that hits an enemy, which is why hitting someone with Sleet Storm would break it. Otherwise, even a Fireball wouldn't because it, too, does not target anything directly. Also, "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/invisibility
2) Read the invisibility spell. "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle)." In this case, invisibility's interactions with Stealth as used to Move Silently are a case of RAW not keeping up with RAI because of how wording changed when the skills were merged. If you run a strict RAW game, you are 100% correct. By common sense and RAI, however, that's ridiculous. In addition, the invisibility special ability, which is what the spell gives, mentions a -20 Perception DC if the invisible target is speaking or in combat in order to pinpoint its square. Finding a general direction, then, would be...
This may be a bit OT, but what does your group consist of and did you use fast progression and which point buy?
Cause I am playing Kingmaker now and I am unsure about its level of "competitiveness" and thus how much I should optimize my character to make it both worthwhile in combat as well as not destroying all targets in 2 rounds (I am a Cleric Archer with the Evangelist Archetype and a Tiger Animal Companion (and Boon Companion ofc) and not a blaster mage... just in case anyone gets this wrong and wants to "diss" me for playing blasters).
I of course read the invisibility spell. You didn't quote all of the relevant sections:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
Sleet storm causes no direct harm. It has no attack, save or spell resistance. In fact, it is more innocent than having a monster attack or cutting a rope bridge. In contrast, fireball most assuredly causes harm. It involves a save and imposes HP damage.
As for the sound of casting and invisibility, the rules are at war with themselves. These are unforeseen consequences of merging the detection and stealth skills together. They are so screwed up that Paizo is in the process of play-testing a new stealth system.
The current invisibility spell gives you a +20 to stealth if you move. Moving involves making sound. It used to fall under "move silently" skill. So right there it gives the precedent of invisibility giving you a bonus on being quiet.
Next, it contradicts itself saying that sound can cancel it. A conservative middle ground is to grant a +20 to stealth for standing still casting a spell (instead of the +40). Even with only a +20 that wizard will be hard to find.
2 cent) Even if casting sleet storm broke invisibility, who is going to know? Sleet storm also blocks vision.
The other guys who are probably not in its AoE? ^^. Or the ones who are walking/flying out of it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I of course read the invisibility spell. You didn't quote all of the relevant sections:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.Sleet storm causes no direct harm. It has no attack, save or spell resistance. In fact, it is more innocent than having a monster attack or cutting a rope bridge. In contrast, fireball most assuredly causes harm. It involves a save and imposes HP damage.
As for the sound of casting and invisibility, the rules are at war with themselves. These are unforeseen consequences of merging the detection and stealth skills together. They are so screwed up that Paizo is in the process of play-testing a new stealth system.
The current invisibility spell gives you a +20 to stealth if you move. Moving involves making sound. It used to fall under "move silently" skill. So right there it gives the precedent of invisibility giving you a bonus on being quiet.
Next, it contradicts itself saying that sound can cancel it. A conservative middle ground is to grant a +20 to stealth for standing still casting a spell (instead of the +40). Even with only a +20 that wizard will be hard to find.
here is the important part:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Especially not the bless example which implies that for example prayer would end invisibility because it affects foes.
Sleet Storm affects foes and thus invisibility will get canceled.And it doesn't have to deal damage or anything because it is especially written out that "an attack includes ANY spell targeting a foe or whose are of effect includes a foe". Sleet Storm is a spell (thats for sure), it affects an AoE (thats for sure, too) and as soon as anyone enters your spell (or was there from the beginning) the condition that the AoE includes a foe (and the spell affects him) is also given then. So it is considered to be an attack (at least regarding this spell).
@Cibulan: Sleet storm doesn't cause harm at all, but that's not why it breaks Invisibility. Invis says "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." Even a non-damaging spell whose area includes enemies, such as Prayer or Sleet Storm cast on top of foes, will break Invisibility.
Stop stealing my thoughts... will ya!?
Prayer was my example :(
I of course read the invisibility spell. You didn't quote all of the relevant sections:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.Sleet storm causes no direct harm. It has no attack, save or spell resistance. In fact, it is more innocent than having a monster attack or cutting a rope bridge. In contrast, fireball most assuredly causes harm. It involves a save and imposes HP damage.
As for the sound of casting and invisibility, the rules are at war with themselves. These are unforeseen consequences of merging the detection and stealth skills together. They are so screwed up that Paizo is in the process of play-testing a new stealth system.
The current invisibility spell gives you a +20 to stealth if you move. Moving involves making sound. It used to fall under "move silently" skill. So right there it gives the precedent of invisibility giving you a bonus on being quiet.
Next, it contradicts itself saying that sound can cancel it. A conservative middle ground is to grant a +20 to stealth for standing still casting a spell (instead of the +40). Even with only a +20 that wizard will be hard to find.
That's an amazing amount of mental gymnastics.
You are casting a spell that is targeting and effecting a foe. For invisibility that is an attack, per the whole "an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe".
And arguing that you get a +40 to hear someone speaking clearly is like saying it's only +5 to a check to see though a door.
@Cibulan: Sleet storm doesn't cause harm at all, but that's not why it breaks Invisibility. Invis says "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." Even a non-damaging spell whose area includes enemies, such as Prayer or Sleet Storm cast on top of foes, will break Invisibility.Stop stealing my thoughts... will ya!?
Prayer was my example :(
Great minds think alike, eh? :P
As to invisibility, I have got to start going over things with a fine-toothed comb more often. "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check." So within 30 feet, it's not terribly difficult to find any invisible creature's general vicinity/spine tingling something's there feeling. Note that general vicinity does NOT mean 5 food square, but rather it's over to the right sort of thing.
Beyond 30 feet, things get more interesting. Presumably you'd apply the penalties of -1/10 ft for perception checks and keep the same rules, but that's not for sure. Spellcasting is speaking loudly, or a DC 0 to hear it. Directional sound isn't modeled very well in game, but a DC 10-15 seems reasonable for "it's coming from over there" sort of directions. Invisibility in no way masks any sound you make, that's clear in the spell description as well as the special ability description. So while pinpointing someone beyond 30 feet is nigh impossible (DC 40ish), figuring out that the invisible, active spellcaster is at about 3 o'clock and casting an AoE in that direction isn't that hard.
This is something where most RPG Systems, surprisingly as I think, are rather weak:
The visbility/audibility of spellcasting. Or: how to notice if someone is casting.
If there is an enemy in the other room the rogue just spotted through the keyhole can the mage cast a mage armour while keeping his voice really low or is it the usual talking + door DC which every decent creature will succeed against?
That's an amazing amount of mental gymnastics.
Kind of like jumping during a charge? ;-)
Invisibility in no way masks any sound you make, that's clear in the spell description as well as the special ability description.
Then how come it gives a +20 stealth when you move? Movement causes sound yes? In 3.5 movement required a "move silently" check. The name of that skill even implies that normally movement IS NOT silent, otherwise, why have the skill? Invisibility in Pathfinder DOES effect sound. It's screwy as hell but the rules state so.
I'm not going to argue about the indivisibility spell/stealth rules anymore. They're f**ked and open to interpretation. For example, what does "indirect harm" mean? Everyone is going to have a different interpretation (see the Jack stealing a chicken thread).
It's all moot. Paizo knows the invisibility/stealth rules are messed up, they're working to fix them and we can argue about it then. As of right now, you can do some pretty wonky stuff RAW.
EDIT: "@Cibulan: Sleet storm doesn't cause harm at all, but that's not why it breaks Invisibility. Invis says "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe." Even a non-damaging spell whose area includes enemies, such as Prayer or Sleet Storm cast on top of foes, will break Invisibility."
I understand that area of effect clause as the basis for Sleet Storm breaking, but I think it is another symptom of the messed up invisibility rules. I think it was a lazy clause thrown in to prevent stuff like staying invisible using a fireball or black tentacles. For example, a player could say "I'm throwing the fireball next to the enemy" to try to weasel out of the direct harm thing. So they put on this blanket AOE clause even though it conflicts with the indirect harm clause.
It is a very messy spell, that's why it can be exploited.
That's an amazing amount of mental gymnastics.Kind of like jumping during a charge? ;-)
Or only taking a +10 to the dc to see someone through a wall.
here is the important part:The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to...
Hmmmm...after reading the entire quote in context, I agree with you, If the enemy is in the AOE of the Sleet Storm, then it fits the "attack" definition in the spell. Good call.
Andy Ferguson wrote:
That's an amazing amount of mental gymnastics.
I'm not sure if I agree, it depends what you think is "mental gymnastics", there are all kinds of spells that deal indirect damage that clearly don't fit the "attack" definition. Haste for example will deal indirect damage. So I don't think that qualifying indirect damage as a non-attack is incorrect.
In this case however, I would say having the enemy in the AOE isn't indirect, it's direct. Calling something like Sleet Storm "indirect", now if that's what you meant by "mental gymnastics", then I agree.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check." So within 30 feet, it's not terribly difficult to find any invisible creature's general vicinity/spine tingling something's there feeling. Note that general vicinity does NOT mean 5 food square, but rather it's over to the right sort of thing.
I'm not sure that description even suggests you get a direction, only that you sense someone or something invisible is near.
When the description say's, "something's there", I don't think "there" is referring to a direction (or it would say "over there" or some other descriptor noting direction), but instead merely presence, like if you asked on a radio "is anyone there?"
Presumably you'd apply the penalties of -1/10 ft for perception checks and keep the same rules, but that's not for sure.
I would assume so unless they say otherwise somewhere.
Spellcasting is speaking loudly, or a DC 0 to hear it.
Specifically, the verbal component of casting is speaking strongly, which I agree would be DC 0, assuming of course you are casting a spell with a verbal component, and not using a silence rod or anything like that.
Directional sound isn't modeled very well in game
It's not at all. Generally the perception check is to hear, but not get direction I think. That said, assuming you have 2 ears that both work, there should be some way to determine a general direction.
but a DC 10-15 seems reasonable for "it's coming from over there" sort of directions.
Here we are really getting into guesswork. For my part, I would say your DC's sound reasonable, but it is really opinion since this is outside what the rules give us.
That said, I should qualify what I would consider "general" direction. I would probably have 4 90 degree angles going out from the character's square, and tell them which one the sound came from.
I think that's pretty reasonable. I can tell if a sound that I heard clearly and am concentrating on is coming from in front of me, behind me, to the right or to the left. Technically, I can be even more accurate if the sound is coming from in front, but that's maybe getting too complex (since suddenly ear shape becomes a factor)
If the perception check was really high, I could see narrowing them to 45 degree angles (by halving the 90 degree angles). Then the character could have specifics like "behind me, slightly to the left", or "to the left and slightly back"
Invisibility in no way masks any sound you make, that's clear in the spell description as well as the special ability description. So while pinpointing someone beyond 30 feet is nigh impossible (DC 40ish), figuring out that the invisible, active spellcaster is at about 3 o'clock and casting an AoE in that direction isn't that hard.
Ah..., yep, you and I would consider "general direction" differently. You are talking about 30 degree angles. That seems pretty specific to me for a 10-15 DC check. I'm listening to my wife's Sims 3 game right now, and I can determine a general direction by sound alone, but not to that level of specifics, unless I cheat and look. Also, mechanically that would be more difficult to implement.
Again, the rules don't really differentiate, so your GM would have to make a judgement call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After all of this, it seems the conclusion is that to make a great blaster, you need to misinterpret a lot of rules.
After all of this, it seems the conclusion is that to make a great blaster, you need to misinterpret a lot of rules.
Uhm... right... thanks for pointing that one out... I guess...
After all of this, it seems the conclusion is that to make a great blaster, you need to misinterpret a lot of rules.Um, no, that wasn't the conclusion at all. Any caster who can drop over 90 points of damage a turn in an AoE, at a DC of 25+, is doing good ...
You mean 90 damage inflicted upon the HP total (after saves and stuff) or just damage dealt?
Because 90 damage as a basis doesn't sound really all that scary... to me ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean average damage of 95 per person, before saves (but of course, we assume a full round attack hits when determining fighter damage, so assume failed saves).
Actually, when determining the DRP of martial characters, you never assume the attacks hit. Instead, you determine the statistical chances of hitting with each attack, and then you go from there. You will virtually never have a DRP that is even close to every attack hitting 100%.
Example
You hit for 100 damage per hit.
You have 5 attacks, with a 95%/95%/70%/45/20% chance to hit.
Your DPR is 95/95/70/45/20 or 325, NOT 500.
So if on a failed save you deal 200 damage, but your foe has a 40% chance to save, then your average damage per round is actually only about 120. Now, other things have to be factored in as well. For example, energy resistance 10 will reduce the average damage pretty directly. In the case of things like Scorching Ray, it applies to every ray fired.
So if we have 4 scorching rays per round at +10 to hit versus touch AC 10, and energy resistance 10, all of these things can affect our damage. For sake of argument, let's do one with the scorching ray with and without the Maximize feat.
Without Maximize you have a 95% chance to hit and deal 4d6 (14 damage per it on average). So our average damage is about 13.3 * 4 or 53.2 damage. Of course, when we add energy resistance 10 into the mix, suddenly our average damage drops to an abysmal 3.3 per shot or 13.2 damage.
With Maximize, the math is about the same, but we have bigger numbers. About 91.2 damage, or 51.2 damage after resistances. Much better, but for the cost of a 5th level spell-slot that's somewhat disheartening.
Worse yet, as your chances to hit your foe decline, so too does your average damage. For example, if your Fighter is protecting you and you have to aim through his space, that's a -4 to hit. If your target has cover (even just an overturned table) that's a -4 to hit (+4 to his AC technically but either way it's harder). If there is someone currently in melee with him, that's another -4 to hit. Each one reduces your chance to hit by about 20%, which in turn reduces your average damage. This is also before factoring in things such as concealment which caps your maximum chance to hit at about 70% or 50%, which also horribly hurts your average damage.
I noted why even if you misinterpreted the rules and allowed Intensify to affect scorching ray that it was still less than incredibly impressive. The 2nd level spell resist energy can block up to 30 fire damage per ray at 11th level (a level prior to his "trick" becoming available), which would completely negate any and all damage done from the attack (even maximized, 24-30 = < 0), intensify be damned. :P
Then there's also spell resistance, which is essentially a % chance you will "miss" with your spell every time you cast it. Spell resistance drastically lowers your damage per round in the same way armor class lowers damage per round with weapons.
Now when you're dealing with spells that are vulnerable to spell resistance, must hit their target, must deal with energy resistance, and must be used from relatively close range (short range = 25 ft + 5ft/2 levels or 75 ft maximum distance without more metamagic), which you're using a 5th level or higher spell slot on (or rod), then it should indeed be pretty darn awesome if all your ducks fall in a row. That's why I said "Seriously, it really should die" in my post where I was pointing out small issues.
The sad part is that it's really not even all that godly for the level we're discussing. I mean, you have enemies who have HP in the triple digits easily, even 200+ HP, so unless you can make it stick 100% power most of the time, then it's really kind of disappointing.
That's also not before considering that it is useless vs golems or anything with spell immunity (which many of the god-wizard spells are not subject to), energy immunity, and so forth.
There was also nothing that was addressing the fact that against the low-Hp enemies such as spellcasters it is surprisingly easy to make yourself outright immune to it. For example, the 4th level spell lesser globe of invulnerability makes you completely immune to it, resist energy greatly diminishes or negates it, spell turning reflects it, spell immunity removes it, blur, displacement, and entropic shield reduce its effectiveness by 20-50%, mirror image nerfs it hard, having a meatshield hits it for a -20% accuracy, line of effect detroys it, LoS reduces you to hoping you're shooting in the right direction with a 50% reduction in hits, and that's just getting warmed up!
But here is the coup de grace...
It's only good for one thing. That means it's a poor choice in most cases for a spellcaster to take. A wizard would usually do better to prepare something more versatile, and a sorcerer needs versatile spells with their limited spells known. Sleet Storm, for example, can be used to deny vision to enemy archers, force flying creatures out of the air, prevent people from charging, hold an onrushing mob (as in the army of mooks kind) at bay, or used to cover the party's tactical escape.
Stinking cloud? See above.
Even tiny hut can be used to provide total concealment from enemies while allowing your party to fire from inside with no issues, while also doubling as a nice campfire retreat, or snazzy abode for the wizard or sorcerer who finds themselves in a romantic situation on the edge of a beautiful lake with the party's frisky barbarian.
Mraor!
*makes many good and very valid points*
The problem with that, Ashiel, is that those numbers change with every creature you come up against. That makes it nearly impossible to create a standard with which to compare one character to the next.
If you picked a single AC value, and then stuck with it for all fighter builds, then you would be able to gauge one fighter to the next very easily. However, that rarely happens in these mathematical exercises I find.
People almost always end up picking arbitrary numbers that support their respective arguments at the time.
For example, someone says their blaster can deal 250+ damage in a single round and shows a bit of mathematical support in how that can happen. However, another person shows more mathematical support showing how the same blaster would actually do far less.
In short, the goal posts keep moving, and everyone is at fault.
|
my stance on the invisible thing - Invisibility only adds to your stealth roll. If you are acasting a spell, it is considered loud. You can't roll stealth of your being deliberatley loud.
I give my players a 20DC perception to spot the square that a caster is in if they are casting invisible. DC goes up by distance as per the perception rules for hearing sound. I haven't had a situation where they were standing still and casting for any length of time, but I guess to keep it consistant I'd have to make it a DC 40
I do the same if the caster is moving and casting or not moving stealthily. In essence, I just treat the bonus as the DC if they are not trying anything stealthy.
We modify from that depending on circumstance or character actions to detect the caster/creature.
That's how we run it my home games at least. It works for us and stops this silliness of casting invisible and not being seen.
Also, I have to say the situation in my games are similar to what Melissa Litwin is seeing here. Most combats in our games are over in 3 or 4 rounds. Sometimes longer depending on waves of reinforcements etc. However, if casters run the gammut of protect themselves, cast summon etc, combats are already over. However, there are other fast casting control spells that don't need this time constraint.
I think a balance between control and blast covers everything well.
*makes many good and very valid points*The problem with that, Ashiel, is that those numbers change with every creature you come up against. That makes it nearly impossible to create a standard with which to compare one character to the next.
If you picked a single AC value, and then stuck with it for all fighter builds, then you would be able to gauge one fighter to the next very easily. However, that rarely happens in these mathematical exercises I find.
Far from it. They do it in DPR olymics all the time. Also, we can judge based relativity or estimation of chances that our tactics will have issues. For example, as poison immunity becomes more prominent, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill become less effective (but we might still prepare them because they have other benefits).
Even if we take the base statistics for monsters found in the Monster Creation section of the rules (which I think are actually weaker than many of the core monsters) we can at least get a ballpark estimation.
If a CR 12 creature's "weak save" is about +11, that means he has a 30% chance to save versus a spell with a DC 25. So say his poor save is Reflex, then you got a -30% DPR for your blasty spell. Simple enough so far. We can also see that at least 160 hp is expected, so to successfully 1-shot the creature you have to deal 160 damage strait-away. Unfortunately, even with a touch AC that is 95% hit-able, with so much as energy resistance 10, you're going to cap at about 50 damage (as noted in my previous post), with a maximized ray of awesome. Without resistances, you could deal upwards to about 96 damage with your maximized rays of awesome, but that's assuming perfect scenario (no spell resistance, in close range, hit with every ray at 95%, etc).
We can even determine DPR vs different monsters! Watch!
Scorching Ray Damage Burst
To Hit: +10 (+6 BAB, +4 Dex)
Damage Per Shot: 14 average
If Maximized: 24 average
Elder Earth Elemental (CR 11)
HP: 168
Touch AC: 7 (95%)
Average Damage: 53.2
Maximized Damage: 91.2
Elder Fire Elemental (CR 11)
Hp: 152
Touch AC: 18 (60%)
Average Damage: 0 (immune)
Maximized Damage: 0 (immune)
Barbed Devil (CR 11)
HP: 138
Touch AC: 16 (70%)
Average Damage: 0 (immune)
Maximized Damage: 0 (immune)
Nightmare, Cauchemar (CR 11)
HP: 147
Touch AC: 10 (95%)
Average Damage: 53.2
Maximized Damage: 91.2
Demon, Hezrou (CR 11)
HP: 145
Touch AC: 9 (95%)
Average Damage: 13.2 (-40 resistance)
Maximized Damage: 51.2 (-40 resistance)
Stone Golem (CR 11)
HP: 107
Touch AC: 9 (95%)
Average Damage: 0 (immune)
Maximized Damage: 0 (immune)
Adult Black Dragon (CR 11)
HP: 161
Touch AC: 10 (95%)
Average Damage: 53.2 (26.6 w/ obscuring mist)
Maximized Damage: 91.2 (45.6 w/ obscuring mist)
People almost always end up picking arbitrary numbers that support their respective arguments at the time.
Part of the reason I favor not-blasting is because I don't have to rely on numbers so much. Do I give a crap if all the archers in my stinking cloud fail their save? It's a plus, but their LoS is still gone so I hurt their attacks badly. Go-me! Does Sleet Storm get worse with a monster's save DCs going up? Er, no. Does Haste require me to have the best terrain or surprise my foe to be a useful option? Not likely.
For example, someone says their blaster can deal 250+ damage in a single round and shows a bit of mathematical support in how that can happen. However, another person shows more mathematical support showing how the same blaster would actually do far less.
I just expect them to answer for common issues, and not go with the perfect example. If I said my fighter would hit every-single-time, my DPR would be stupid high. Hell, no reason to ever not power attack, since my DRP would just climb like crazy (even though in actual DPR comparisons accuracy matters).
For example, I think that asking about resist energy is more than fair. I mean, even ADEPTs get that spell and it can be cast on anyone and it lasts a nice long time (10 min / level IIRC). At 7th level it shaves 20 points of damage off every ray, and negates it at 11th level. If you spend a 5th level slot (maximized scorching ray) and it is negated by a common buff at the levels you'd ask for it, that's worth considering for anyone who cares. There's also the issue of being able to see your foe (invisibility/concealment), wards such as spell turning, lesser globe of invulnerability, protection from energy (most dragons have this one at higher levels, and even an old-ish white dragon is going to be sporting a resist-energy), and other common problems. Ignoring them shows that you've not actually thought this through, and displays ignorance.
Similarly, I might ask what a Fighter plans to do with his +1 flaming frost shocking acidic longsword when many foes CR 8 and above are immune to half or more of the weapon's bonus damage (since vs someone with no resistances it would add an average of +14 damage, or +9 more than a +5 weapon would, but is widely useless in many situations and fails to pierce damage reductions).
In short, the goal posts keep moving, and everyone is at fault.
I have no beef with this illusory goalpost. The goalpost is just that, an illusion. Put on your gem of true seeing and realize that a single goal post is a sham. We must be able to aim across the board. If you prepare or (god forbid) learn a spell that is only viable in highly specific circumstances, then you may have issues.
Ok, so let's ask a few questions here.
1) Do I care about resistance? No.
2) Do I care about immunity (such as to poison)? Maybe, but it just means my spell is half-effective.
3) Do I find myself without options vs magic immunity? No, as a cloud can still blind a golem.
4) Do I find uses for the spell outside of this narrow specialization? Yes.
5) Do I find issues with concealment? No, a general idea of their location is enough.
6) Do I find myself greatly diminished versus multiple or single foes? No.
Now let's ask how this combos with teamwork.
With damage spells, your primary strategy for teamwork is keep hitting it with more damage. Fighter deals damage, rogue deals damage, cleric deals damage, wizard deals damage, enemy should go down. Enemy fights the whole time at full power until HP < 1.
This means if your allies do anything but damage then you are not synergizing. However, for a god-wizard, encouraging teamwork is ideal. For example, cleric casts death ward, fighter grabs a life-drinker, rogue tumbles into place. Fighter whacks enemy with life-drinker twice and inflicts -4 to all saves. You cast hold person. Rogue coup de grace.
I beg to differ, sir! This is a bit off-topic, but ranger-archers could be ungodly amazing in 3.5, and Demonweb Pits was an ideal situation for them. You KNEW your enemy types! You could customize yourself as an evil-slaying, demon-slaying monstrosity of damage. My now-husband's Living Greyhawk ranger was the most effective demon-slayer I've ever seen: each arrow did just over 50 points of damage, and there were 5 arrows/rd.
Respectfully, among the local Living Greyhawk power-players (which I do not / did not count myself among) back in the day under 3.5 and LG rules, that wouldn't be considered very much damage at the levels at which 5 attacks per round were possible. The low-base-physical-stats no-combat-feats clerics were roughly doubling that damage per round.
LG wasn't even really the wild west of wide-open 3.5, either.
So, yeah, I would agree with the assertion that, relative to other options, archers weren't big damage factories in 3.5.
Ashiel, that makes sense, but using scorching ray as a basis for all blasters is a bad idea I think as it has a definite cap and effects few targets, unlike other blasting spells.
Feel free to run the DPR numbers on one of my blaster sorcerers against a CR-appropriate creature's stats (as provided by the create a monster rules). I'm curious to see how they will stack up.
Then run them again with an dazing, empowered, intensified, maximized, fireball and a empowered, intensified, maximized, quickened fireball (or lightning bolt or similar spell) from two evokers (one with intense spells and another with versatile evocation).
Feel free to further break the numbers down to show how CR-appropriate SR and energy resistance might effect the outcome.
I'm very curious to see all this, but am terrible at math (else I would do it myself).
Eh, archery was OK. It certainly wasn't great in 3.5, but you could make it work.
As for the ranger build, it was actually sub-optimal because it was a rebuild from a rogue build. So 14 Int to start, 18 Dex, 8 Wisdom which was bumped and then a +6 Wisdom item to bring to a 16. Also +4 or +6 Dex item, I forget which.
Levels were simple: 11 ranger/4 fighter. The only feat I can think of that wasn't core was Weapon Mastery, taken at 15. Favored enemies were +6 evil outsider, +4 undead, +2 human. Bow was +1 holy sacred bane (evil outsider) longbow (+2 Str). He had a few spells from outside core as well, but spells were a very minor part of what rangers did.
In other words, ranger archers who could focus on killing their favored enemies were really powerful. Demonweb Pits, especially, told you what your favored enemies should be! There's no reason for a ranger-archer to have sucked in it.
As to wizards, I despise summoning. Hate it! That doesn't mean it isn't good or can't be good, because it can. But IMO a full-round casting is just way too vulnerable. It's asking to lose a high level spell and a round to a single archer, because you usually can't walk in fully protected. My archer has, in a single round, disrupted three NPC spellcasters who were trying to summon things. An arrow into each was *just* the thing! That is why I dislike TM's GOD build: to me, it's far too vulnerable to disruption and really, you could just kill things instead.
How was that getting you 50 points an arrow?
A single arrow should not have disrupted a concentration check every time unless the dice rolls were low.Sorry, I should have been more clear. Two different characters were being discussed. One, a 3.5 ranger/fighter with favored enemy (Minions of Iuz) who was level 15 and did 50 points of damage an arrow against evil outsiders.
The other, my Pathfinder ranger/archer who has been known to toss arrows at casters to interrupt summoning...
How was it doing 50 points of damage an arrow using only one non-core feat?
Ashiel, that makes sense, but using scorching ray as a basis for all blasters is a bad idea I think as it has a definite cap and effects few targets, unlike other blasting spells.
Feel free to run the DPR numbers on one of my blaster sorcerers against a CR-appropriate creature's stats (as provided by the create a monster rules). I'm curious to see how they will stack up.
Then run them again with an dazing, empowered, intensified, maximized, fireball and a empowered, intensified, maximized, quickened fireball (or lightning bolt or similar spell) from two evokers (one with intense spells and another with versatile evocation).
Feel free to further break the numbers down to show how CR-appropriate SR and energy resistance might effect the outcome.
I'm very curious to see all this, but am terrible at math (else I would do it myself).
Absolutely. Will do. Also, please forgive me, but I forgot to include spell resistance for the devil and demon. ^.^"
I'll post an estimate soonish.
And to be fair, DPR calcs for fighters always assume full round attacks, which is the optimal condition? That is done to create an apples to apples comparison. Why don't people do the same for spells?
This is a good question. DPR is a measure of how much a fighter can do. From what I understand the number being promoted was how much a blaster will do. The DPR thread also have a single attack number for the rounds before the fighter can get in full attack damage. Both numbers are usually posted. The DPR numbers also account for misses, crits, and so on. The blasting numbers seem to want to ignore things. Examples are ignoring SR, saves, and precise shot for certain spells. The fighters never did that. If so they would just post the amount of damage a fighter could do assuming he hit every time, but that is not the case.
On top of that some GM's have their bad guys adjust things to a certain extent(within reason) so once a few fire based spells have roasted a few bad guys fire resistance may pop up later.
*makes many good and very valid points*The problem with that, Ashiel, is that those numbers change with every creature you come up against. That makes it nearly impossible to create a standard with which to compare one character to the next.
If you picked a single AC value, and then stuck with it for all fighter builds, then you would be able to gauge one fighter to the next very easily. However, that rarely happens in these mathematical exercises I find.
People almost always end up picking arbitrary numbers that support their respective arguments at the time.
For example, someone says their blaster can deal 250+ damage in a single round and shows a bit of mathematical support in how that can happen. However, another person shows more mathematical support showing how the same blaster would actually do far less.
In short, the goal posts keep moving, and everyone is at fault.
Pick 5 monster of the appropriate CR, and five random NPC's with from AP's, or 5 NPC's used in real games with and without energy resistance.
Ask what the blasters do before and after the monsters close with the party since this will determine which spells are cast. All of these will happen in a game, and they show what blasters can do in optimal and suboptimal conditions.
Ashiel, that makes sense, but using scorching ray as a basis for all blasters is a bad idea I think as it has a definite cap and effects few targets, unlike other blasting spells.
Feel free to run the DPR numbers on one of my blaster sorcerers against a CR-appropriate creature's stats (as provided by the create a monster rules). I'm curious to see how they will stack up.
Then run them again with an dazing, empowered, intensified, maximized, fireball and a empowered, intensified, maximized, quickened fireball (or lightning bolt or similar spell) from two evokers (one with intense spells and another with versatile evocation).
Feel free to further break the numbers down to show how CR-appropriate SR and energy resistance might effect the outcome.
I'm very curious to see all this, but am terrible at math (else I would do it myself).
I know you have a lot of your characters on mediafire. Give me a link to one, and will do it, but you should use one that is not going above 20 pb. Some will even complain about that, and is within WBL limits.