Talos Says New Thread Discussion

[Simossus]

Original thread: http://forgottenkingdoms.org/board/view ... =1&t=22366

Unless we are going to see a marked increase in the number of spells we can memorize or cantrips no longer have to be memorized and dont' need recharging plus are pumped up in damage melee attacks have a big advantage over every other form of damage. Even were ranged damage on bows working properly.

Melee attacks can only be single-targeted. There is a LARGE number of spells that offer utility far beyond that of pure damage in which offers 'value' to you, the caster, and your potential grouplings in combat.

the reason so many people use the killer, or big bang for least cost spells is as Zorinar says, Even my wizard who's been at the top of his game for years now, sporting his 100 or so spells will run out of offensive spells in about 5 minutes if he wanted to keep up with the damage output of a fighter or cleric meleeing. this isn't an endorsement to keep the spells the way they are. I'm just pointing out that in my experience the statement that casters have enough spell slots is woefully overestimating the situation.

5 minutes IRL is 1 hour in-game. That's a good while with slinging spells near constantly. I see no issue if you are firing off damaging spells every round and doing damage every round. That's a viable playstyle for a wide array of dungeons, but not every dungeon.

I'd go so far to say that this very facet of the game goes a logn way to make pure casters whether spell built bards / clerics or wizards much harder to play. I'd estimate that until about level 31 as a wizard, there is just no point in using straight damage spells. You will run out in about 2 minutes then have to spend the next 5 to 10 minutes regaining them.

There are power curves and power spikes in DnD. This is to be expected in FK. Different resources to manage - group play and group composition obviously differs from that of solo venturing.

I will also point out, for the sake of completeness that the skill system in terms of damage spells isn't very useful either. A grand mastered or mastered lightning bolt might be able to kill a howling peak goblin, but for a long time it just doesn't do much than soften a single target. As Zorinar said, why does it take 10 or more more lightning bolts at GM to kill a fighter. Something I'd say is a conservative estimate in my experience. A table level 20 fighter with 20 constitution gets 300 Hp right? At this point he will have something like a +10 to his reflex save, 6 base +1 dex +3 from magical item we'll say.

Level 20 TT fighter w/ 20 CON averages 214 HP. 1d10 HD for 5.5(19)+5(20)+10=214 and change.

A table level 20 wizard with 20 int and only spellfocus evocation, as nobody to my knowledge here has greater spellfocus. He's an evoker so he prob maximizes and I think we're ready for the simulation.

Dc19 on a maxed lightning bolt, 60 damage if fighter fails the save, 30 if he succeeds. this fighter will on average fail a lightning bolt a bit more often than 1 in 3 times

This wizard will kill the fighter in about 8 hits of his lightning bolt. If the fighter just stands there and takes it like a champ of course

Spell DC is 10 base + spell level + caster mod. In this case, we also have +1 via spell focus.
10 + 3 + 5 + 1 = 19 DC vs 10 reflex.

Meeting spell DC beats spell DC for 1/2 save. 55% chance of failure for the fighter to make the save for 1/2 damage.

60/30/60/30=180 damage in 4 rounds at range. Another failed saving throw would put him unconscious while a success would put him at death's door, but still a-swinging.

I'd prefer this not turn into a what if he had this feat or the wizard had that feat, there are too many feats to consider. I was very conservative with both for the purposes of the example which in my experience is roughly correct.

Agreed.

Now against NPCs:
Goblins usually have 5 hp or thereabouts and have a ref save not worth even thinking about, a level 5 caster with lightning bolt can fry them everytime since the lowest roll at that level is 5D6

Now, there are a lot of NPCs here that are stronger or weaker than their table counterparts. Thats actually a good thing, adds variety which I like. But for the purposes of explaining my point. You see that the area spells that are meant to be able to handle large swathes of enemies as the artilary unit in a military board game does, can no longer do so. Evocation is practically a support and debuff school now, it softens enemies a little bit so the fighter can one round the enemy with his 4 hits instead of needing to take 2 rounds. Illusion, conjuration and transmutation have become the artillary school which is odd, but it is what it is.

What you have to realize, is that AoE and evocations may be the board-clearing specialization in tabletop, but here in FK there is no way to miss a room full of targets beyond that of them making saving throws. You do not have to manage friendly fire(heh) against allies when they're in melee range of the target. Your ray spells split around allies to strike at the target right behind them. AoE is, in my opinion, scaled well into FK.

Conjuration does have a number of ranged AoE and single-target spells, but no conjurer may cast an evocation. Transmutation has one AoE spell in the form of 'earth reaver', but lacks any other ranged options while being barred from abjuration and necromancy. Illusion holds two save-or-die spells, both ranged while one is single-target and the other AoE. Illusion contains no true 'damaging' spells and is barred access to necromancy. Evocation contains one spell for each level above 2nd that is AoE, while barred from enchantment and conjuration. Artillery is exactly how I would describe the evocation sphere in TT and FK.

I do want to highlight a piece in the quote where you mention enabling a fighter to finish off an enemy in one round instead of two. THAT. That right there is value embodied. And if you have 4 other enemies within the health range that your partied fighter can combo down in one round? You've done your job, now let the 2-handed, or otherwise, DPR fighter do his.

And of course in my experience it isn't normal to GM a spell, I still have no GM spells. The activity of grinding skills is too repetetive for me but I understand there are those who enjoy it? Though its hard to fathem how for me.

Of course it's not normal. You have one casting class on FK that benefits more than anyone else for having a high INT, though. Think about that. One out of five. Better yet, wizards have the largest selection of die-rolling damaging spells to get the most use out of it.

The current HP level far favors melee. The point at which we would get enough memorized spells to balance out would be too many an may cause other problems though.

Melee PCs, because that's what we're talking about, right? Have only two resources to manage - health and stamina. Casters manage both with the addition, unsurprisingly, of mana/magic. The damage of melee-focused PCs has not deviated from that of SRD. They get into the action right away because distance is taken very literal here on FK. Anything in the room you are in is within your distance to move and swing on. Wizards can, and have, taken advantage of this with ranged spells and the enlarge spell feat to great effect. You're the wizard, be intelligent and get the most value out of your spell.

In the end, this isn't really about how much damage a spell does. The numbers are just the packaging. One school of magic or a category of spells were originally calculated to have defined and sure effects to the original game. A lightning bolt will always reduce a stock goblin to 0. thus the DM can feel free to throw 15 goblins at a party of levle 5 characters plus a big bad, and some other things and know that in one stroke the wizard could if he/she is is so inclined, decimate the field. To the players it looks cool and feels satisfying.

You can only get a fraction of this effect with evocation damage spells if you GM each and every single one. And even then, well. As explained above they tend to still fall a little flat.

In summary:
the HP increase changes the entire planescape in dealing damage with spells. Damage is just the pretty packaging, offensive damage spells are supposed to be a tool to use to remove some kinds of enemies off the board and leave other kinds still able to fight via the mechanic of lower or high HP.

I would be disappointed in my DM if he were to send 15 gobos in a cluster anywhere, because that's the only "one stroke" way to wipe the board of the many, albeit, small pronged threats. You would be lucky to get just over half that number of goblins in the 20ft radius of a fireball, your one and only 3rd level spell, but that's your role in the party. One action/spell that gives the best value and the best avenue to success.

You can still draw a worthy number of enemies in FK from surrounding rooms if you are brave and calculating enough. No grandmastery required, I promise you that. From my experience, 'lighting bolt' on FK hits harder than a 10d6 roll. I'm perfectly fine with that and I would even suggest to allow other single-target spells be likewise tweaked if they are not already.

[Yemin]

My point Sim, in short was that you can't really say that the health increase here disadvantages both melee and spell damage equally. The resources both are based on are not comparable in scope. My max level fighter could clear most straight forward mid to high level dungeons without a break with minimal harm and dropping to about 80 percent stamina. And he wasn't particularly strong or min maxed. Nor had the best gear by any means.

My table wizard could do the same, but my FK wizard cannot.

The fact that you don't have to account for friendly fire or cover bonuses to AC etc is incidental of the platform and not a calculable advantage. I personally don't have difficulties with these things when playing on table. But then I tend to be better at the forethought aspect of table wizards than most I've observed.

At risk of sounding like a bragidocio. I would say at the height of my play I was one of the most experimental wizards online. At least, I spent a lot of time thinking about my build and application

I went through many different configurations and strats. I passed them on to my apprentice and when she grew I looked at her performance closely. I learnt from her and other wizards as how they do things. I spoke with older wizards who had GMed damage spells to see if perhaps there lay a road to a different experience. Conclusively, there is not.

the 5 mins being an hour argument is deceptive because I was speaking directly of the OOC experience of playing the class. Something which to be clear and perhaps a bit repetitive, fighter's don't have to deal with.

I'm not supporting the argument that wizard should not have a limited capacity to do damage over the course of a dungeon. But when the most famously bang flash set of spells,, evocation,,, can't kill or change the landscape of a battle the way they were designed to. There is a problem.

Its not that they don't have any effect, but in the scenario you quoted. Its actually far more efficient just to illusory pit or mass hold those creatures than to hit them with a fireball. That is the crux of the issue. These days I just sit there and beat things to death with my staff rather than actually use evocation.

[Simossus]

My point Sim, in short was that you can't really say that the health increase here disadvantages both melee and spell damage equally. The resources both are based on are not comparable in scope.

What I need to impart foremost is that melee/ranged attacks target AC and that spells target saving throws - two differentiating systems that impact a target's health. An increase or decrease in a target's saves or AC will curve out it's effective health pool, but the raw inflation of HP does not innately favor either wizard nor warrior. In the same vein, DMs add hit die (HD) to a monster to increase the challenge will often result in the increase of the monster's size and AC via natural armor but it will rarely increase saving throws.

My max level fighter could clear most straight forward mid to high level dungeons without a break with minimal harm and dropping to about 80 percent stamina. And he wasn't particularly strong or min maxed. Nor had the best gear by any means.

My table wizard could do the same, but my FK wizard cannot.

Warriors and other melee oriented characters are single-target focused, and as such, may excel in that regard. That is their only option. They either attack A or B or C, but never more than one. Wizards are single or multiple-target able, and as such, may excel in those regards.

You gave some detail for the unassuming warrior but lacked any detail whatsoever for your wizard. Evokers have repeatedly been the model you've called up so let's stick with tradition and try to tackle the ever present problem of 'overkill'. Overkill is just as it sounds and is brought into existence by wasted action/attack on an already dead target. Hitting that now-dying goblin with only 2 of your X attacks doesn't sound all that bad, but it could have come one round sooner and had given you the chance to take less damage. That's efficient, isn't it? Practical.

Wizards are the undisputed kings of overkill in the forms of mitigating it and ignoring it altogether! You have actual numbered levels of how powerful a spell will be and should be able to plan accordingly. No need to waste another 6th Level Chain Lightning when the majority of those targets are in critical condition. Your main target should have been and was, indeed, the strongest of the group while the lesser and secondary damage hit the weaker targets. Use a lower level Fireball (Level 3) to clear the area. This is basic. This is what is taught in the School of Wonder. Metamagic feats like Maximise Spell make this all the easier to display because the damage is static - it will either be 120 or 60 with a save.

Warriors are incredibly two dimensional in their ability to manage their overkill potential because that they do have to account for individual attack rolls. There is a chance that all attack rolls will miss. While, albeit, a small chance, everyone on FK that has a warrior has experienced it. That is the nature of attack rolls with natural 1's and 20's and while that is, there is no critical success or fail when rolling a saving throw - it is all based on DC. The warrior does have the choice to pick up the general Cleave Feat, which if you deal enough damage to kill a creature, you get an immediate melee attack against another creature you're already fighting against. This can be used multiple times per round and is a fine way to deal more damage while managing overkill. The feat does have a prerequisite of the general Power Attack feat, but they unsurprisingly synergize well.

The fact that you don't have to account for friendly fire or cover bonuses to AC etc is incidental of the platform and not a calculable advantage. I personally don't have difficulties with these things when playing on table. But then I tend to be better at the forethought aspect of table wizards than most I've observed.

At risk of sounding like a bragidocio. I would say at the height of my play I was one of the most experimental wizards online. At least, I spent a lot of time thinking about my build and application.

I went through many different configurations and strats. I passed them on to my apprentice and when she grew I looked at her performance closely. I learnt from her and other wizards as how they do things.

Everyone in this game experiments. If you put the time and effort in, I certainly hope you would glean something useful.

I spoke with older wizards who had GMed damage spells to see if perhaps there lay a road to a different experience. Conclusively, there is not.

There is only one road to GMing a spell and you seem fixated on that aspect for never having GMed a spell by your own admission.

the 5 mins being an hour argument is deceptive because I was speaking directly of the OOC experience of playing the class. Something which to be clear and perhaps a bit repetitive, fighter's don't have to deal with.

You've mentioned having some 100+ spell slots, right? Let's say 20 of those are defensive spells and the remaining are damage focused spells. Each round is 3 seconds and you'd have 80 spells for every round. That's 4 minutes of pure combat casting right there. That would strain any character of any class. I don't know what more you want.

This is something to entertain. Wizards meditate to regain mana/spell slots while warriors sleep. I'd say that warriors have ever been more concerned with where they rest than wizards by the nature of those mechanics. I'd like to suggest that perhaps wizards and wizards alone enter a secondary meditation stance where their mana regen is.. 1XX% and only able to engage when <30% mana. In such a stance, though, the wizard would be susceptible to a coup de grace. I do agree that the necessity of meditating for some 20 minutes between repops can impede roleplay and is a mental block for others.

I'm not supporting the argument that wizard should not have a limited capacity to do damage over the course of a dungeon. But when the most famously bang flash set of spells,, evocation,,, can't kill or change the landscape of a battle the way they were designed to. There is a problem.

Its not that they don't have any effect, but in the scenario you quoted. Its actually far more efficient just to illusory pit or mass hold those creatures than to hit them with a fireball. That is the crux of the issue. These days I just sit there and beat things to death with my staff rather than actually use evocation.

You see, there's a downside to spells like Illusory Pit or Hold spells - they don't do any damage! It's almost like spells can have more than one effect than direct damage. You're the wizard, be intelligent and get the most value out of your spell. Illusory Pit has not and is not acting in accordance with SRD. I look forward to it's revisal.

[Althasizor]

You're both right. Evocation sucks really hard, and that's not a problem. Yes the 2.5x HP scaling favours fighters as they had the larger hit die to begin with. No it doesn't mean it's not your fault for dying to these scrubs, you have tons of other options besides damage. I've never felt disadvantaged playing my evoker into high-level dungeons, even solo. And if we're talking a fighter v mage PVP scenario, then don't engage where they can hit you back.

[Levine]

No it doesn't mean it's not your fault for dying to these scrubs, you have tons of other options besides damage.

^ I generally like to work within the existing boundaries. Seeing as it is quite unlikely imho that any suggestions in this particular discussion would actually be implemented, I highly recommend exploring options for spell conservation instead.

Sure, if my focus is how much damage I can keep doing to keep up, I'd have blown my load in 5 minutes. However, with a combination of foresight, clever damage maximisation (don't AoE with just one target in the room if you can help it), and group/situation exploitation strategies, Levine can go on for long enough, and still give more love where that came from. In group situations, being clear on what the journey might entail, and the roles of each person in any given party is key. That's group dynamics, which should probably be for a different discussion, like the one Stigr just ran.

Arcane virility is multi-faceted. There's always room for more creativity.

[Yemin]

This was never really a complaint that I was having trouble playing a wizard Sim. It was a statement of opinion that the HP increase disadvantages wizards more than it does fighters based on how expendable their killing resources are. There is no real question, in my mind at least that it changed the way wizards are played and made some previous options wizards had no longer viable. I use evocation school as that is the school meant to focus on dealing damage and so was the focus of my argument.

I by no means want to effect rudeness. But when I can get from X to Y faster by stunning everything, or just beating it with a stick rather than setting them on fire, there is kind of a problem with the setting on fire method that by original intent of the class should not exist.