Blasting is viable enough. Maybe too good. If you search some around here you will find blaster builds that turn monsters to shreds in a round or two.
Dealing direct damage should be the part of the martials, imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People need to be smarter with blasting. Often, they blast away, regardless of target.
That group of rogues isn't going to take a lot of fireball damage, and the fire giant won't take any. It's a lot like having a silver weapon for the werewolf, you need to notice that.
Hmm, I haven't really played that much Pathfinder other than the core rulebook, so I didn't know about those traits and feats. Especially Spell Perfection seems to be really powerful.
I guess that's a valid way to make blasting viable, but having to blow most of your feats and traits into one spell does pigeonhole your character a lot. Personally I'm not a fan of that kind of design, so I would have liked to have spells fixed rather than have overpowered feats (but yeah, I probably should have said this during beta rather than now :P). That Spell Perfection looks like it could really break games if you put it on something that isn't direct damage..
Direct damage suck. Metamagically enhanced direct damage is great.
A 1d4 burning hands at level one sucks. But if you have Spell Specialization (burning hand), Varisian Tattoo (evocation) and the Outsider Lore seeker trait, your 5d4 burning hand at level 1 kill everything in the radius of the appropiated CR regarless of Save.
Similarly, 10d6 (average 35) at level 10 isn't that much as a fireball. But 10d6+60 with an intensified empowered maximized (with a rod) fireball is a different matter.
I wonder what you want from your character? If you want to be a good blaster, specialize.
Still, blasting is good enough without specializing.
And I agree with Anonymous Visitor.
I think you're quite alone with your opinion that blasting is not viable and has to be upgraded.
I frequently find that the most damage i can do is to buff the martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what you want from your character? If you want to be a good blaster, specialize.
Still, blasting is good enough without specializing.
And I agree with Anonymous Visitor.I think you're quite alone with your opinion that blasting is not viable and has to be upgraded.
Yeah, specialization seems to work based on examples here. But without specialization it tends to be rather mediocre.
Anyways, I have been hearing for quite a long time that blasting should be left for recreational purposes, such as in Treatmonk's guide. Maybe that's before those traits and feats came around.
EDIT: What I meant with not liking that kind of design is that if they first make feats/traits/whatever that makes blasting good instead of mediocre, then they can't print any blast spells that are decent without breaking the game. I'd rather have less powerful feats and better spells, so that blasting is decent without specialization and good with it instead of it being mediocre or good.
I am currently playing a dedicated blaster-sorcerer at lvl 11. Dealing 105 damage with an intensified, maximized acidball have several times ended APL-equivalent encounters before they started. Additionally a few times a day, they get an extra through familiar spell.
Many character don't need to think about Spell Perfection if the game doesn't take them there.
But when mine does, a full blasting round is going to become:
Quickened, Intensified, empowered Acidball (avg. 101) + Intensified, Empowered, Maximized Acidball (avg. 138) + Familiar Intensified, maximized, Dazing Acidball (105).
Since it depends on saves, dealing 172-344 to single creature might be challenged by a fighter. Dealing that damage to several creatures is very efficient.
Anyways, I have been hearing for quite a long time that blasting should be left for recreational purposes, such as in Treatmonk's guide. Maybe that's before those traits and feats came around.
Or maybe that's just Treatmonk's opinion, and not gospel. ;)
Anyways, I have been hearing for quite a long time that blasting should be left for recreational purposes, such as in Treatmonk's guide. Maybe that's before those traits and feats came around.Or maybe that's just Treatmonk's opinion, and not gospel. ;)
He's not the only one saying so, though. I have been hearing that in forums and IRL for years. :P
He's not the only one saying so, though. I have been hearing that in forums and IRL for years. :PAnyways, I have been hearing for quite a long time that blasting should be left for recreational purposes, such as in Treatmonk's guide. Maybe that's before those traits and feats came around.Or maybe that's just Treatmonk's opinion, and not gospel. ;)
Me too, yet I have rarely seen it... :)
I frequently find that the most damage i can do is to buff the martials.
It depends on what level you are currently playing, and the encounter itself.. As HaraldKlak is saying, I was able to compleatelly clean equal level CR fights in Kingmaker with a Sorcerer at around lvl 10.
As a blaster (say, admixture wizard) you can kill every Bone Devil in 20' radious with a ~105 point damage shockball. You could kill every night hag in 20' radious too. You can kill 20' radious of Nessian Warhounds with cold-balls. You are almost guaranteed to kill 20' of Fire Giants with a coldball too.
I don't know which kind of buff you can do that is the equivalent of killing half a dozen CR 10 creatures at level 10, but it's hard to see a buff that does the equivalent of 900 damage in one round.
If you build a focused blaster, you can do tons of damage. It takes some system mastery. I'm glad it does. I prefer specialization rather than general casting ability. A focused blaster is nearly on par with other classes for direct damage save for the lack of crits.
Blasting works just fine because of the one factor that no other spells share: it *stacks* with melee and ranged combat. However, if you're in a group of just casters, and you're the only damage dealer, it won't work nearly as well.
at lvl 11. Dealing 105 damage with an intensified, maximized acidball
I'm guessing this is with a bunch of bonuses? A standard one would only deal 60 +d6 points (or 66 if the DM lets the maximize affect the intensified portion).
It really depends on the GM / adventure path. A blasting spell that does 'only' 30 damage, dropped upon a dozen enemies standing in a group, will do 360 damage in a single action. There aren't many martial characters who can do that.
I frequently find that the most damage i can do is to buff the martials.
Haha, ahh, like I'd help my slaves. That doesn't do any damage compared to a direct damage spell. May as well throw out an AoE save or die so you they don't steal your kills.(Kidding, of course)
Anyways, what changes would be needed to make blasting viable? Maybe make some Improved Fireball with D8s for damage, slightly higher dice cap, and maybe a bit larger area of effect at 4th level? Or should plain old Fireball and other benchmark spells just be upgraded?
Best way to make it viable is to throw static damage on it. +1 or 2 per damage dice adds up, especially against multiple targets. Several ways to do this already. Additionally direct damage isn't always the best, but what makes evocation/conjuration powerful isn't the direct damage, but the control such as adding entangling effects to a spell. Those debuffs do some real damage, and some of them are very much save or die or save or suck.
Your blasting likely won't keep up with martials, but that's fine. You can do a whole lot worse than they can.
it is not under powered, but also consider that perhaps the blasting is supposed to be less effective than the melee brutes and archery marksmen.
It might be less effective in damage vs 1 target, but it is not in mob-clearing
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not the only one saying so, though. I have been hearing that in forums and IRL for years. :PAnyways, I have been hearing for quite a long time that blasting should be left for recreational purposes, such as in Treatmonk's guide. Maybe that's before those traits and feats came around.Or maybe that's just Treatmonk's opinion, and not gospel. ;)
Treatmonk is outdated, his guides are really for 3.5.
Yeah, in the last years of 3.5 a few things were found that were counter intuitive. Such as that Casters should do boosting and battlefield control, not direct damage. In-combat healing was a bad idea, etc. These were surprising but folks were able to show the numbers.
But PF has made them again outdated- most of the really broken stuff from 3.5 was nerfed. Oh sure, boosting and battlefield control are still important and usually a better option in the first couple of rounds of combat- but that was always true. "Topping off" in-combat healing is usually a waste of actions- but making sure your tank doesn’t drop from the next hit is a better choice than just about anything else- becuase it's a sure thing.
Still, we have a lot of people fixated on how things were in 3.5, so they continue to proclaim these outdated memes.
Take a peek at this guide to blasting.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The memes aren't a problem. Treantmonk's guides and others like them aren't a problem. The problem is as it's always been, players and GM's that refuse to learn the art of thinking on their feet. Situations modify cases, they make hash out of prethought strategies. Guides are tools, just like other things the key is learning how to pull out the right tool for the occasion.
Indeed.
I don't know the last time my now 9th-level cleric healed HP damage during combat; he's always had something more worthwhile to do. (And I say this as someone who never played 3.5 and was always told among Pathfinder groups that you DO want an in-combat healer, so DrDeth's claim that "don't heal in combat" is a 3.5 leftover sounds like an excuse not to analyze the claim, to me.)
On the other hand, particularly at low levels, there have been times where the best thing to do was for a couple of PCs to stand behind the frontliners with CLW wands and keep tapping them round after round until the take down the baddie, because those back-rank PCs' offensive abilities had little or no effectiveness against said baddie.
Tactics are always situational.
Blasting is viable... but you pigeonhole yourself if that is ALL you do. Even just a smattering of utility spells makes you incredibly effective, and that is the strength of a caster... options.
A fighter will probably throw out more damage than even a focused blaster build, but that is pretty much ALL that the fighter can do. A full caster has access to tons of utility and case-specific spells that make them incredibly powerful.
Casters can shut fights down like no one else and have the most effective means of battlefield control. If a full caster could deal damage as well as a full martial, then the system would be pretty messed up... that said, in combats with many opponents AoE damage can be incredibly effective.
If the question is: is it better to blast than to control... I would say no. Even early spells like Stone Call can rapidly tilt the action economy in your favor.
Sure you can cast a maximized Spell-Perfected Spell Spec'd Chain lightning with the draconic bloodline arcana, add spell focus, G. spell focus, elem focus, g. elem focus. At 17th you will be casting this 18 times per day (3 round combats, 4 combats/day so pretty much every round)
with a 28 Cha (easily had by 17th) that is a DC 33 reflex save spell that deals 152 damage (or 76 if they make the save) to multiple targets
This isn't a useless or underpowered ability even at that level, but the fact is that you still have tons of other spell slots and utility available.
Sure you can cast a maximized Spell-Perfected Spell Spec'd Chain lightning with the draconic bloodline arcana, add spell focus, G. spell focus, elem focus, g. elem focus. At 17th you will be casting this 18 times per day (3 round combats, 4 combats/day so pretty much every round)
with a 28 Cha (easily had by 17th) that is a DC 33 reflex save spell that deals 152 damage (or 76 if they make the save) to multiple targets
This isn't a useless or underpowered ability even at that level, but the fact is that you still have tons of other spell slots and utility available.
by that level ypu could be doing twice that much.
If you aren't doing 330+ damage by that level in one round, you aren't really blasting.Sure, blasters are Novas. They can do this only 4-5 times per day. If your combat day is a grindfest, you'll have to "skip" a couple of the easy combats and cast a solid fog or haste or wall of stone here and there. But for 4 combats a day? Yes, you can deal 300 to 350 damage in one round to 17 targets, half damage in a save (DC can be as high as 35-39).
Having half the mosters trapped in a black tentacles nice. Having them dead is way better
2. vulnerable to the enemy getting close in on you (especially rogues!)
Blurr kill rogues. Cloak of minor displacement gives you cpnstant blurr.
I woud like to know how much the las tFAQ about metamagic-rods affects this kind of assertions.
If you aren't doing 330+ damage by that level in one round, you aren't really blasting.
It makes them slightly more expensive on WBL as you'll need a Metamagic Rod of X,rather than the Lesser variant. Of course people could just do what I do and use a Staff of the Master (Necromancy).
You use Quicken as your Spell Perfection metamagic (see Brewer's Guide to the Blockbuster Wizard for details) not a rod, so it is slightly. And if you want to save on regular metamagic rod costs, Staff of the Master (Necromancy) is only 30,000 gp AND does not increase the spells level (Hence why it's my preferred option).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I woud like to know how much the las tFAQ about metamagic-rods affects this kind of assertions.
If you aren't doing 330+ damage by that level in one round, you aren't really blasting.
I wouldn't use Chain Lightning to start with, but as that's what was using the poster I was answering to:
Spell Specialization Chaing Lightning +2 CL
Varisian Tattoo Evocation +1 CL
Spell Focus Evocation +1 DC
Greater Spell Focus Evocation +1 DC
Spell Perfection (double all above)
Outlander trait +1 CL +1 DC to Chain lightnings
Magic Lineage trait for Chain Lightning (-1 level to metamagic)
Intensify Spell
Empower Spell
Quicken Spell
Ioun Stone +1 CL
Maximize Spell Rod (6th level)
That's +8 Caster level, so 25d6 (with Intensify Spell). You empower it for free with Spell Perfection. It's still a 6th level spell, so you maximize it with the rod.
You have 20d6 maximized, plus 10d6 from empower and 5d6 from intensify. That's 15x3.5 + 120 = 172-173 damage on average.
Now you cast a quickened Chain Lightning for free with Spell Perfection, and empower it with your rod (assuming you don't have a second rod with maximize, which you could). That's 20d6, or 120 damage.
So we have 293 damage, and we haven't added the class bonus yet. If he is a Wizard, he adds half his level twice (so +16) for 309 damage, and the ability to swap the damage to whatever he choses, which might mean 50% damage against vulnerables. If he is a Sorcerer, we have +1 per die (for +55 total damage), or +2 per die if he is a crossblooded orc/draconic sorcerer (or +110 damage).
So you can do around 310 damage, choosing your element as a wizard, or 400 damage if you focus into electric damage as a sorcerer. To 25 targets (you are CL 25), and a caster level vs Spell Resistance of 1d20+33. The DC might vary, depending on build, from DC 30, to DC 36, depending how much feats you want to spend into Elemental Focus and things like that.
And that's without doing things like 1 level dips, UMD for Beads of Karma, etc.
I know there are several weapon-user builds who can do much more than 400 in one round. But I don't know any who could do 300 to 400 to 25 targets in one round, at 1400' range. That's like 4200 to 5600 damage, assuming everybody but the first 3 make their saves, depending on the build.
I do not know if "slightly" is a good word for it. Specially for the ever important rods of quicken.
Depends how you build it. You should be using either Empower Rods, and Maximize feat, or Maximize rods, and empower feat.
If you are using Chain Lightning as your blast, as the person I was answering did, then you have to pay around 62.000 to 108.000 gold, for a pair of them (to be able to maximize/empower 6 times per day).
At level 17th, that's quite doable. That's what your party Monk has spent in either his +4 amulet of Mighty fist, or his +5 amulet of mighty fist. With Craft Rod (which I think it's one of the best feats for blasters), that's 31.000 or 54.000. Which is what your fellow fighter spent in his +4 or +5 weapon.
And there are counters to that which negate blur and so we could go on.
2. vulnerable to the enemy getting close in on you (especially rogues!)Blurr kill rogues. Cloak of minor displacement gives you cpnstant blurr.
Sure. Waste a feat on it, I'll use some of the other gazillion things that counter a rogue. Like having a dog with scent, that cost like 5gp.
Well the dog knows there is a rogue there but it doesn't let the caster target the rogue and barring other spells or abilities the dog can't communicate it to the caster all it can do is bark. And unless the rogue is standing beside the dog it still doesn't know the rogues square. If the rogue is really concerned about scent there are wands to cover this as well so we are back to the fact that it comes down to there are counters for everything. Which applies to blasting perfectly, as long as it isn't countered blasting is fine same with control, buffing, and save or suck/die.
And thus the arms race goes on as one pc must develop the ability to train and handle animals.
Not really, you can buy them trained. Or just have a familiar with scent, that also work. Or use Elemental Body III and become inmune to sneak attacks.
Like I said each game has its context and to be good at dealing damage solely with most DM's will get you no-where.
Who said that? The example wizard two or three posts above this is able to dish like 300 points damage to each of 25 targets, completelly killing everything in the encounter, and still have Greater Invisibility, Teleport, Summon Monster VIII, Scry, Visions, See invisibility, Glitterdust, Protection from Evil, Greater Dispel Magic and any other utility spell you think it's important.
The only difference is that, instead of casting Haste, cast a metamagic'ed fireball that clean the board and do a huge amount of HP damage, finishing most combats right in his Initiative Moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gleefully point out that we know have another "blasters are underpowered" thread to compliment the many "blaster are overpowered and outshine fighters" threads, thus proving my long standing opinion that the game is actually quite well balanced unless you are playing:
A wizard, in which case you think the game is imbalanced against spellcasters;
or
A fighter, in which case you think the game is imbalanced towards spellcasters.
Nothing like a little confirmation bias to get our weekend started!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Wizard that thinks the game is unbalanced in favor of martials probably does not have sufficient system mastery to understand why that line of thinking is false.
A Fighter who thinks the game is unbalanced in the favor of casters, has sufficient system mastery to see that this is in fact the case and deeply regrets that Pathfinder nerfed Mindblank and Protection from X killing their only protection against mind control cast by a neutral caster.
Direct damage is not underpowered. It's viable for virtually all casters. I do not traditionally advise specializing in direct damage as a spellcaster because there are more efficient ways to produce sustained DPS (typically martial PCs and/or cohorts).
Pros of Direct Damage Spells
- Direct damage spells are very useful for interrupting other spellcasters even without specialization (a maximized lightning bolt is going to hit for 60 damage, and even on a successful save with a 10 point energy resistance will net a DC 30+ Concentration check vs spell interruption).
- Direct damage spells can often strike multiple opponents for moderate amounts of damage, allowing you to clear lots of trash mobs quickly.
- Don't need to specialize into blasting spells for them to be useful for what they do. Plus there's a lot of fairly cheap items that allow you to push the envelope with blasting (Book of Harms, Lesser Metamagic Rods, etc).
- Spells ignore damage reduction and can at least partially affect incorporeal foes, which can be a plus in many situations.
Cons of Direct Damage Spells
- Inefficient source of damage vs cost to achieve compared to other methods (including feats, class features, resources, sustainability, etc).
- There are many defenses against most forms of damage spells (saves, energy resistances, spell resistance).
- The area of effect blasting spells tend to destroy everything in the area that is unattended. That means when you drop a fireball in a room it's likely going to destroy the chest of treasure (and the treasure), the magic scrolls on the shelves, the note giving a hint about the BBEG's weakness on the desk, etc).
- Related to the above, collateral damage can make using them a pain. You don't want to accidentally toast a forest or slaughter lots of commoners or liquify public or private property in a civilized area.
Direct damage spells are IMHO one of the better options for wands and the like. Hazing enemy spellcasters with readied action casts can drive your enemies up the walls.
Most of the listed Con are debatable at the very least.
You can use non-aoe blasts (burning arx, ball lightning, fire snake, contahious flame, chain lightning) to cover last two points, you have admixture eizard to cover point two, and point one is just a matter of prefference between eficiency and efficacy. Killing 25 mobs in one round eith a chain lightning might not be the most eficient thing to do in terms of resource management, but I'm pretty confident it is effective
I gleefully point out that we know have another "blasters are underpowered" thread to compliment the many "blaster are overpowered and outshine fighters" threads,...
Hm... wait. Until now, there is only one person who thinks blasters are underpowered - the OP.
And it seems he does not defend his position anymore.
So this is actually a thread demonstrating how "blaster are not underpowered".
A Wizard that thinks the game is unbalanced in favor of martials probably does not have sufficient system mastery to understand why that line of thinking is false.
A Fighter who thinks the game is unbalanced in the favor of casters, has sufficient system mastery to see that this is in fact the case and deeply regrets that Pathfinder nerfed Mindblank and Protection from X killing their only protection against mind control cast by a neutral caster.
I'll play a druid and have one of each!
Blasting damage is almost always AoE, which multiplies the actual damage dealt. A 10d6 fireball does on average 35 points of damage - we'll say 45 to account for bonuses like Bloodlines or Evokers, and that's not taking into account boosts from metamagic. But that 45 damage is theoretically dealt to at least 3 but more likely 4-5 foes at once, potentially many more.
Honestly, the only problem I see is I feel like Wizards & Sorcerers need an at-will means of dealing damage so that spells can be saved for utilities, control or nukes. In our game we've allowed an alternative to Arcane Bond where a Wizard gains the ability, as a 30' ranged touch attack, to deal fire, cold, electricty or acid damage (chosen at 1st level) to a single target. The damage is equal to 1d6/level of the highest level spell the Wizard has prepared, meaning that as he uses up all his spells the potency of his 'Wizard's Fire' (or whatever) wanes as well.
Its worked out superbly. The damage is far from overpowering and gives casters something magical they can do every round even at low levels. We have even created a host of feats to compliment the ability.