The power level scaling of spells and my lack of understanding. 2.0 in the right room

[Melcar]

So… after trying to buff the hell out of a Inspire courage of bards, I have posted a homebrew spell identical to inspirational boost, but as a level 6, that gives a +6 bonus.

Now, some said that it is too powerful for a level 6, and some thinks its fine. This leads me to think, that somehow the scaling of spells should be in some way easy to calculate.

First I wanted to rate all spells of each level from 1-100 and then, by doing some linear regression, trying to calculate the scaling, but this seems like an immense and almost impossible task. Not only would it take sooo long time, but I have no way to determine the power of the individual scale of the individual spells except for my own judgment, which might not be consistent or scientific.

I would like to give some examples of the reason for me wanting to have a firm basis of understanding what is possible within the limits of each spell level and how to calculate this.

Mage Armor gives a +4 armor bonus as a level 1 spell.
Greater mage armor gives a +6 armor bonus as a level 3 spell.

This shows me that by increasing the spell level by 2, one can increase the amount of bonus given by 1,5. Meaning that a level 5 version would give a bonus of +9. Following this to level 9 it gives then 20.5 meaning that a level 9 spell is only 5,125 times more powerful than a level 1.

To show another example we have the spell Shield of Faith which gives a +5 deflection bonus to AC at level 1. Meaning that a level 3 version (by following the mage armor spell line) would give +7,5. Following this to level 9 we get: 25,3. Meaning a total of 5,06 times more powerful.
Or shield… same thing as mage armor.

What about Bull strength. It gives +4 strength at level 2. What about a level 4 version of this spell which if following the same patterns would give +6. Or a level 6 giving +9 and a level 8 giving +13.5 strength. Making a level 8 spell only 3,375 times more powerful than a level 2.

(I am by no means a math buff, so please if my calculations are way off, I apologize and hope that you will correct me respectfully without putting me down)

It seems to me, that the potential outcome of a single spell level is greatest at the low level spells and that spell power by level do not scale “the right way.”

I’m not saying that I feel magic is not powerful enough, but something about the way spells scale in power annoys me.

At level 9 you have spells that alter reality, the tide of war, create matter from noting and opens portals to any place. Basically “press enter to win” spells, but if this is the pinnacle of mortal power (not taking epic magic into account) then surely the scaling of things like armor is way off.

So I leave it to you guys to comment on this.

How many times more powerful should a level 9 be compared to a level 1?
Damage spells like magic missile, which is level 1, has a max damage of 25, Moonbow, which is level 5, has a max damage of 180 hence 7,2 times as much as a level 1 spell. If these numbers are in fact right, then why can’t we have a level 5 mage armor giving +28 armor class???? And if we very to following my example of mage armor then a level 5 spell should damage 56,25.

I know I have not taken duration and number of targets into much consideration, I have tried to take only single target spells (except for Moonbow).

Can we find a scaling that fits properly?

In advance, thanks!

[Mikeavelli]

Different numbers scale at different rates. Comparing max damage to AC isn't going to do you much good because the two aren't really comparable.

AC is designed to be very bottom-heavy in D&D. It's relatively easy to get AC 20-25 at level 1-3, virtually guaranteeing you won't get hit by anyone except a dedicated bruiser. But, unless you actively invest in AC, it won't be much higher than that over the course of the entire game! You have to put a lot of resources into even scaling up 1 point of AC every level to keep up with melee classes full BAB, to say nothing of added strength, magic weapons, expertise, etc that they can pile on.

This is, of course, intentional. Everyone is able to use AC to survive combat at low levels before the more interesting things like miss chance, invisibility, or flying away become available. It also ensures melee classes at higher levels are good at what they do (hit things, and power attack to hit things harder!) - and have something to contribute to combat. Making AC scale up at the same rate as damage (which increases very quickly) destroys the balance of the game.

Meanwhile, Damage scales pretty constantly, lagging just behind the constant scaling of hit points. Again, this is to accommodate the increase in options at higher levels. Damage spells are more efficient at lower levels, but you've got more damage spells, and casting save-or-die and save-or-suck spells becomes preferable to just doing damage (which is what the fighters are good at anyways).

[Feint's End]

Also you have the "wrong" scaling for Mage Armor -> it's not multiplicative but additive. Look at Inertial Armor, the psionic version of Mage Armor. For every 2 power points the ac increases by 1. 2 power points roughly equal 1 grade.

Mage Armor is first with +4 to ac (basic) ... Greater Mage Armor is third with +6 to ac (2 increase for 2 grades) ... "Greater Greater Mage Armor" would be fith for example with a +8 to ac (4 increases for 4 grades)

[Melcar]

Also you have the "wrong" scaling for Mage Armor -> it's not multiplicative but additive. Look at Inertial Armor, the psionic version of Mage Armor. For every 2 power points the ac increases by 1. 2 power points roughly equal 1 grade.

Mage Armor is first with +4 to ac (basic) ... Greater Mage Armor is third with +6 to ac (2 increase for 2 grades) ... "Greater Greater Mage Armor" would be fith for example with a +8 to ac (4 increases for 4 grades)

So what you are saying that a level 9 version of mage armor can only give +12 AC???? To me that seems WAY low for the power potential for a level 9 spell!!!

The thing I don’t get is, that if a level 1 spell can create +4 armor bonus, then surely a level 5 or level 9 spell should be able to create a much much higher effect. This might give a arbitrary high bonus, but is illogical, that is a level 1 spell can give such a high bonus, if a level 5 or 9 can’t give an equally high bonus, based on level. Is a level 9 spell not supposed to be 9 times more powerful? Also... AC is only so useful. And even though someone had 1000 AC you would still hit this person 5% of the time, it does not save against spells, nor does it convey any immunities. Meaning that a fighter with unlimited armor bonus would still die at the hand of a low to middle level wizard, meaning that AC is not as powerful as one would like.

When fighting epic creatures, a wizard will not care if the prismatic dragon has AC 100 he will be worrying about SR, Saves and immunities. Again AC will never save you at high level. Actually AC is more valuable at low level, and that is why it’s even stranger that a level 1 can give +4. To me, it makes sense that if level 1 can give +4, then a level 9 (being 9 times more powerful) could give 36 armor class. At character level 17-18 +36 AC will never break a game half as much as Gate, Ice assassin, Shapechange and wish. And if a spell were to give AC, and rival those spells I just mentioned, 36 is cutting it short and in no means equal to the other spells in power or potential.

Think about this. Shield, Mage Armor and Shield of Faith can result in + 13 AC. If that is possible with only level 1 spells. The amount of AC possible at higher levels spells should indeed be much higher.
It makes no sense that AC is the most difficult effect for magic to produce, and as I have said many times, if it’s possible for a level 1 to give +4 then surely it’s possible to increase that by many fold when using higher level spells.

[tyckspoon]

So what you are saying that a level 9 version of mage armor can only give +12 AC???? To me that seems WAY low for the power potential for a level 9 spell!!!


Try thinking of it this way.. a chain shirt is pretty good armor for a 1st level character. It gives 4 AC. So a 1st level spell, appropriate to a 1st level character, gives the same AC. Greater Mage Armor? Third level spell, 5th level character. What would a fifth level character wear? +1 Breastplate is pretty good.. oh, hey, that's 6 AC! So the appropriate power for a level 9 Mage Armor spell would be an equivalent bonus to what a level 17 armor wearer would have.. +5 Fullplate. 13 AC.

And yes, that is pretty lame for a 9th level spell, but it's not because the scaling is wrong; providing basic AC just isn't an appropriate function for a spell that high. There's a reason most AC buff spells aren't any higher than third or fourth level.

[Feint's End]

Try thinking of it this way.. a chain shirt is pretty good armor for a 1st level character. It gives 4 AC. So a 1st level spell, appropriate to a 1st level character, gives the same AC. Greater Mage Armor? Third level spell, 5th level character. What would a fifth level character wear? +1 Breastplate is pretty good.. oh, hey, that's 6 AC! So the appropriate power for a level 9 Mage Armor spell would be an equivalent bonus to what a level 17 armor wearer would have.. +5 Fullplate. 13 AC.

And yes, that is pretty lame for a 9th level spell, but it's not because the scaling is wrong; providing basic AC just isn't an appropriate function for a spell that high. There's a reason most AC buff spells aren't any higher than third or fourth level.

that


Also AC isn't a defense you should rely on as a spellcaster anyways.

[Melcar]

Im not trying to change the system, but I think its safe to say that we can all agree that +12 ish armor bonus is totally lame and illogical low for a level 9 spell. Thats why I'm asking, or saying that I think something is wrong in the way some parts of the system is set up. And let me again stress that im not debating whether or not its balanced, but more in the notion of whether or not it makes sense.


A questions, which I hope you guys will play along at: :smallsmile:
If the maximum energy output for a level 1 spell is 10 kilo joule, then what is the maximum energy output of a level 9 spell?


Again thanks and keep the comments comming!

[zionpopsickle]

Im not trying to change the system, but I think its safe to say that we can all agree that +12 ish armor bonus is totally lame and illogical low for a level 9 spell. Thats why I'm asking, or saying that I think something is wrong in the way some parts of the system is set up. And let me again stress that im not debating whether or not its balanced, but more in the notion of whether or not it makes sense.


A questions, which I hope you guys will play along at: :smallsmile:
If the maximum energy output for a level 1 spell is 10 kilo joule, then what is the maximum energy output of a level 9 spell?


Again thanks and keep the comments comming!

I think you are looking at the way spells operate wrong. A first level spell may be generate 10 kilojoules but a 9th level spell is the strong nuclear force now falls off as r^2 instead of r^3. Magic doesn't simply scale. Magic is inherently asymmetrical as it allows one to change the very operating principles of the world.

[ericgrau]

You can't convert back and forth between numbers and spells. The numbers are already plenty big. The issue is the number of things spells can do. In low op it's fine as-is and you'll only break the system with bigger numbers. In high op you need more versatility not more boom and the bigger numbers will be useless.

As a rule of thumb you can add a flat, non-scaling +1 or +2 (or scaling up to a limit of +2) to most things to encourage them a bit without wrecking anything. It still won't fix high op like I said. Too far beyond that is rocket tag territory, where something is either way too much or it misses entirely and gets completely useless. Either way it isn't fun for long.

[NichG]

Let me also suggest that many things in the game do not have simple scaling when it comes to their effectiveness. Lets look at DR for example. If I take a particular monster with an attack sequence and look how its total damage output against a character with DR will scale, its not going to be a simple linear curve. Instead, its going to have a lot of sharp cliffs when the DR exceeds the average amount of damage done by particular attack modes (since then the damage from that particular attack will fall off like exp(-x^2) beyond that point).

A similar thing is true of AC. While each point of AC is a -5% chance to be hit, the ratio of your chance to be hit after a buff and before a buff becomes very large when you're nearly unhittable. If, say, the average enemy hits your character with an 11 on the die, then the proportional effect of getting a +4 to AC is 6/10 - you take 60% of the damage you normally would. A +8 to AC however has a proportional effect of 2/10, so you take 20% of the damage you normally would. Rather than a +8 being twice as good as a +4, in this particular case its actually three times as good. A +9 be four times as good as a +4, and after that, additional AC would be irrelevant.

So in general not only is the balance of bonuses like this not linear, but it also depends on the statistics of the 'average enemy' you can expect to face at a given level. If the variance in enemies becomes large, then you have to switch over to thinking in terms of 'what fraction of situations can this effect solve?' and things like that. So simply saying '6 is twice 3, so a 6th level spell should give twice the bonus of a 3rd level spell' or something like that doesn't really work, balance-wise. Also stacking can be an issue here.

Personally, I prefer to think of spells as all having the same intensity (set by caster level), but higher level spells allow you to modify a wider and wider set of things with that fixed intensity. This is somewhat supported by the fact that most damage spells are of the (CL)d6 or (CL)d8 or whatever type of formula, regardless of the spell level. Higher level spells have higher caps, but they don't automatically scale the damage output.

So concretely, maybe you can buff AC with a low level spell, add miss chance with a mid level spell, and cause the weapon of your enemy to disintegrate half the time when they attack you with a high level spell - all three give roughly the same 50% reduction in melee damage, but the mid-level spell extends that to many other sources and the high level spell strikes back. The effects you can achieve are broader with the higher level spells, not 'bigger numbers'.

[Just to Browse]

Cross-posting.

There are, unfortunately, too many changing factors that increase differently as you level. Some examples off the top of my head:
Long buffs scale slowly: Mage armor and its greater version are 1hr/lvl spells. You will have them up before combat and for a long time after. As such, they don't provide huge benefits to the players. Spells like divine power happen for 1r/lvl and grant enormous benefits like changing your BAB and increasing your size, which makes sense because your in-combat buffs should be worth spending an entire turn on.
Immunities are irregular: At level 1, force damage is barely any different from fire damage, because your most exotic enemies are probably large rats or angry orcs. But at level 10, force damage is wayyyyyyy more useful than fire, because your enemies include ghosts, demons, and fire elementals. There's basically nothing with fire immunity at CR 1, but half the worthwhile CR 10 enemies boast it. In contrast, immunity to death effects is almost worthless at level 1, but it becomes a huge deal when bodaks and wraiths enter play.
Stats have irregular values: To-hit is a big offender in the 3.x world. At level 1, a +2 bonus is a big deal because it makes you hit 10% more often (so you deal 10% more damage). But at level 15, a +2 to hit is just something you burn for more power attack damage, so it'll be more like a 2% increase. On the other hand, +4 Intelligence is sort of meh for a fighter (and becomes less useful as you gain levels), but retains a high value for wizards of all levels.


There are a lot more quirks in D&D by-level scaling, but I think those are he big offenders. They're not at all obvious, and most of them occur simply because of the way the Monster Manual was written, but they strongly characterize game balance as we know it, and their semi-organic nature makes writing algorithms for usefulness very hard.

___________________________

If you wanted to make a 9th-level version of mage armor, you would absolutely have to distribute the power between multiple defenses. +15 AC is probably the max, and even that's pushing it. A 9th-level mage armor would grant something like +10 AC and impede select attack modes (maneuvers, power attack, multi-attacks, rays, pick a few). It would look basically nothing like a normal mage armor, which makes sense.

[Melcar]

I totally understand the whole thing from a balanca perspective. And yes one would indeed be very hard to hit with a +28 or 36 bonus to armorclass, but since its possible within the rules to get around AC 80 fo a high level fighter without spells, I feel that not only should level 9, which by including wish, which breaks the mold compared to other levels, have the power or option to create a very high number of bonus.

I dont mind the way its set up in terms of game balance, but theres just something that strikes me as wrong, when a puny level 4 spell can give as high a number as +4 then in my mind it would be logical if a level 9 could give around 9 times as much. I level 1 spell also has the possibility to grant +20 to a single attack. How much would a level 9 version of True Strike give?

[Feint's End]

I totally understand the whole thing from a balanca perspective. And yes one would indeed be very hard to hit with a +28 or 36 bonus to armorclass, but since its possible within the rules to get around AC 80 fo a high level fighter without spells, I feel that not only should level 9, which by including wish, which breaks the mold compared to other levels, have the power or option to create a very high number of bonus.

I dont mind the way its set up in terms of game balance, but theres just something that strikes me as wrong, when a puny level 4 spell can give as high a number as +4 then in my mind it would be logical if a level 9 could give around 9 times as much. I level 1 spell also has the possibility to grant +20 to a single attack. How much would a level 9 version of True Strike give?

So if a level 9 true strike gives you +1000 what does it matter? A regular True strike should always be enough to hit anyways so making something with a higher bonus just won't so anything for you (except for the insanely high ac enemies).

I think you look at spell grades in a weird way. Higher spell levels are not necessarily about increasing power alone but mainly about flexibility and options. That's also the reason why blasting spells for example just get higher caps for higher level and not straight up better scaling (disintegrate being the exception). Instead they get additional effects, more range or more are of effect or a mix of those.

[Melcar]

So if a level 9 true strike gives you +1000 what does it matter? A regular True strike should always be enough to hit anyways so making something with a higher bonus just won't so anything for you (except for the insanely high ac enemies).

I think you look at spell grades in a weird way. Higher spell levels are not necessarily about increasing power alone but mainly about flexibility and options. That's also the reason why blasting spells for example just get higher caps for higher level and not straight up better scaling (disintegrate being the exception). Instead they get additional effects, more range or more are of effect or a mix of those.


I totally agree that the options should increase as level goes op, meaning a much broader spectrum of posibilities and effect to draw on, but I also personally feel that high end spell should include the posibility of giving much higher numbers. Maybe not +1000, but i dont feel +100 would be too much power, from a level 9 version. Its only 5 times more powerful than the level 1 version, and I would like to think that a level 9 is way more powerful in effects and versitility. When you compare it to wish for example.

[SinsI]

It doesn't work that way.

Each spell has appropriate level at which it is normally available.
That level has appropriate challenges and appropriate resources available to characters.

Let's take a look at how things are designed with Mage's Armor and Greater Mage Armor.

Attack Bonus for monsters scales at a speed of 4/3 per level.
This means that from level 1 to level 5 it increases by 5.

Game designers cycle through available ways to increase AC to provide approximately the same ratio of increase, while keeping the previous one relevant for a while. That's why we are not going to get A Bit Greater Mage Armor at spell level 2 that would increase AC by 1 more than normal Mage Armor. Instead, you get a series of
Increase Natural Armor by 1;
Increase Dodge by 1;
Increase Shield by 1;
Increase Deflection by 1; etc.
and only after 4 levels of such you get Increase Mage Armor by 2.
Note that Mage Armor doesn't stack with normal Armor, so its rate of increase will be based on the armor bonus of comparable normal armor.
Normal Mage Armor has AC equivalent to an AC of Chain Shirt.

You can get the best Chain Shirt at level 14, for +5, so the best Mage Armor should grant at most +9 AC, and be of spell level 7.

[broodax]

And if you insist on following the path despite the great arguments presented here, consider you'll not just have +1,200 AC or whatever it is, you'll also have spells granting 99.95% miss chance, etc.

Spells simply don't scale that way, no matter how logical it might seem.

[Devils_Advocate]

Magic in D&D is prone to work in nonsensical ways for balance reasons sometimes. Invisibility does more work than improved invisibility, because invisibility has to detect when you make an attack and turn off when you do. Yet it's lower-level because the extra work it does makes it less advantageous.

Summoning spells are even more blatant. A first level spell can magically transport a creature from another plane of existence and send it back, healing it of all injuries up to and including death upon its return. Higher level spells do the same thing, but with higher CR creatures. Contrast this to teleportation spells that work equally well on willing subjects of any CR.

Dungeons & Dragons is not a high-verisimilitude game. It pretends to be, but it's loaded with stuff that makes no sense if you spend ten minutes thinking about it.

ETA: Also, you've got the problem precisely backwards. It's not that number-increasing type spells aren't powerful enough, it's that other high-level spells are game-breakingly overpowered.

[Melcar]

And if you insist on following the path despite the great arguments presented here, consider you'll not just have +1,200 AC or whatever it is, you'll also have spells granting 99.95% miss chance, etc.

Spells simply don't scale that way, no matter how logical it might seem.

I am not saying anything should be changed, I'm just trying to get a nice discussion underway. Because well as I have said, its illogical to me the way the spells scales.

In this discussion I'm not looking for game mechanics balance, I'm trying to say, that the scaling is off comepared to what each spell level can or should be able to do and produce in terms of effects. The only level 12 spell ever cast, snatched the powers from a god, willing or unwilling... and people say, that a level 9 spell giving +36 armor class is too much. That makes absolutly no sense.

Especially if I am to believe the power potential of spell levels scale exponentially. Which could be the answer to why a level 12 spell is so many times more powerful than a level 9

The more I think of it, the more I actually think that mage armor give too high a bonus for its level, compared to lets say greater mage armor.

Each +1 bonus of mage armor cost 0.25 at level 1, and 0.5 at level 3. What would it cost at level 5 then? Or level 7 or level 9? I meant there must be some sort of pattern in the way the scale.

[Mikeavelli]

Each +1 bonus of mage armor cost 0.25 at level 1, and 0.5 at level 3. What would it cost at level 5 then? Or level 7 or level 9? I meant there must be some sort of pattern in the way the scale.

We're telling you that there is no linear pattern in the way spells scale numerically. This is because just scaling up numbers is not how the system is designed. It doesn't make sense because you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the system works.

[Devils_Advocate]

Having spellcasting work at all makes it pretty much infinity percent more effective than in real life.

I'm pretty sure that high-level D&D spellcasters are ludicrously more powerful than most magic-users from myth and literature.

In what sense "should" high level spells be utterly absurdly powerful?

If you're talking about representing traditional D&D settings, then bear in mind that a certain amount of niche protection tends to be built into those. You can be the mightiest wizard in all the land, and a dude swinging a sword right in your face will still totally ruin your day. Armor interferes with arcane spellcasting purely to enforce this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquishyWizard). Giving the wizard an Immune To Swords spell is entirely out of genre, especially if you're treating "D&D" as the genre.

[Melcar]

We're telling you that there is no linear pattern in the way spells scale numerically. This is because just scaling up numbers is not how the system is designed. It doesn't make sense because you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the system works.

So no pattern at all? How then can you say that I'm wrong in my assumption that a level 9 should give +36 if there is no progression patterns to tell you otherwise?

[georgie_leech]

Each +1 bonus of mage armor cost 0.25 at level 1, and 0.5 at level 3. What would it cost at level 5 then? Or level 7 or level 9? I meant there must be some sort of pattern in the way the scale.

I'm not sure there is a consistent scaling system, or at least, I'm not sure there's only 1. For instance, the damage caps of Fireball, Cone of Cold, Delayed Blast Fireball, and Meteor Swarm all roughly follow the 50%/2 spell levels suggested, but Summon Monster X+2 is 150% Stronger than Summon Monster X; it summons 1d4+1 creatures, or 2.5 on average compared to 1. Spells like [Animal] [Ability] and their Mass versions suggest that it takes 4 spell levels to change to a Mass version, supported by Hold Person and Charm Monster needing that many. But then Wail of Banshee only needs 2 levels to become Mass Finger of Death, and then Weird goes the other way, needing 5 spell levels to be Mass Phantasmal Killer. This is on top of spells that just don't "scale" at all. For instance, Alter Self, Polymorph, and Polymorph Any Object are clearly part of the same line of Spells, but Polymorph has much more than just increased numbers, offering a wider range of creatures to transform into, removing the restriction on type and tripling the HD limit, on top of replacing physical Ability Scores; now PAO can be of permanent duration or give life to objects that never had it to begin with. And this is all Core, because it gets even screwier with non-core. Luminous Armor is a level 2 spell that gives +5 AC, and a -4 penalty to anyone attacking the target in melee. The Greater version at Level 4 follows the pattern of 50%-ish, providing +8 AC, but then doesn't touch the melee penalty at all.

EDIT: In other words, it looks like the designers tried to follow something like what you're proposing, but flubbed it, either failing to do so, or failing to communicate what the scaling factor actually was.

[Devils_Advocate]

So no pattern at all? How then can you say that I'm wrong in my assumption that a level 9 should give +36 if there is no progression patterns to tell you otherwise?
That's simply the case for every reasonable meaning of the word "should" in this context. In real life, heroic fantasy, and Dungeons & Dragons, dudes in robes making complex hand gestures and shouting gibberish can in general be totally pwned by people with pointy metal objects. In what way whatsoever is it appropriate, rather than inappropriate, to remove that weakness?

But you want a pattern? Fine. We know from the magic armor prices that cost increases exponentially with armor bonus. So even if you consider spells to be exponentially greater payments with level, that still only balances out to a linear increase. As such, if a level 1 spell gives +4 AC and a level 3 spell +6 AC, that's +1 AC per spell level, meaning that a level 9 spell would give +12 AC if it followed your precious patterns.

Happy?

[Feint's End]

So no pattern at all? How then can you say that I'm wrong in my assumption that a level 9 should give +36 if there is no progression patterns to tell you otherwise?

Take a look at Inertial Armor. WotC had a pattern but you are overinterprating the starting 4 (you see it as part of the calculation and not as the base). The calculation for your specific example works simple -> 3+grade

Is it comparable to other grade 9 spells? Hell no ... it's pretty bad. Is it comparable to the armour a martial could aquire around that level? Pretty much exactly yes!

Taking your calculation how would you calculate Inertial Armor then? It's also 3.5 material and therefor underlies the same principles. How would you write the augment option? First 2 points give you 0.5 armor; second 2 points give you 1.5 points ......

[Devils_Advocate]

Ah, yes, that psionic power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/inertialArmor.htm) scales exactly like I said. (An expenditure of 2N-1 power points is the psionic equivalent of using an Nth-level spell slot.)

Throwing around huge numbers just isn't what spellcasters are supposed to be for. Of course, in practice, there are blatant exceptions: CoDzilla pumping its numbers above normal warriors', Save-or-Die spells doing effective infinite damage, etc. But, well... those things are gratuitously overpowered.

[Melcar]

That's simply the case for every reasonable meaning of the word "should" in this context. In real life, heroic fantasy, and Dungeons & Dragons, dudes in robes making complex hand gestures and shouting gibberish can in general be totally pwned by people with pointy metal objects. In what way whatsoever is it appropriate, rather than inappropriate, to remove that weakness?

But you want a pattern? Fine. We know from the magic armor prices that cost increases exponentially with armor bonus. So even if you consider spells to be exponentially greater payments with level, that still only balances out to a linear increase. As such, if a level 1 spell gives +4 AC and a level 3 spell +6 AC, that's +1 AC per spell level, meaning that a level 9 spell would give +12 AC if it followed your precious patterns.

Happy?

Whats with the tone?

And... No. Because it also makes no sense that a level 9 only would be 3 times more powerful.

The whole point is not arguing why the rules are as they are, but to try to come op with some sort of reasonable pattern that fits what should be possible within the power of each level, and to totally disregard the balance or rules in the progress.

As I have said many times I get, and are fine with the way the spells are in relations to game mechanics and balance, but I believe the way in witch ever the scaling or how the designers have come up with balance is off.

Again Wish vs +12 AC???? If I were to design a spell that only gave AC which could comapare to wish in terms of power I personally believe +36 (9x mage armor) would be the minimum.


Take a look at Inertial Armor. WotC had a pattern but you are overinterprating the starting 4 (you see it as part of the calculation and not as the base). The calculation for your specific example works simple -> 3+grade

Is it comparable to other grade 9 spells? Hell no ... it's pretty bad. Is it comparable to the armour a martial could aquire around that level? Pretty much exactly yes!

Taking your calculation how would you calculate Inertial Armor then? It's also 3.5 material and therefor underlies the same principles. How would you write the augment option? First 2 points give you 0.5 armor; second 2 points give you 1.5 points ......


I like to think of each spell level having a pool of energy. Some things demand more energy to run and some less. AC is not something a believe (in my world) that demands much energy. Thats why a level 1 (in my world has 10 levels of energy, can power +5(Shield of Faith)) Meaning that AC costs 2 points of energy.

Having long duration can change this up and down (its not perfect and I'm trying to work this out).

A level 9 has 90-100 energy levels in my system. Meanign that Wish takes 90 points of energy to power up.

[broodax]

The way you like to think of it is not the way it works. And if you want to house-rule something that works that way, I think you'll find it will likely to be incredibly inconsistent and to occasionally break the game.

I think you'll also not find much help in doing so because just about everyone excepts the fact that spells scale the way they do today and understand the problems that would be caused by changing it.

You should also probably do this in the homebrew forum.

[Keldrin]

I read this thread rapidly, so I apologise if this was mentioned earlier.

Epic Mage Armour, is +20 and lasts a day (or a day/level maybe?).

Compare that to other epic spells that cut the tops of mountains and make them hover and such like.

I did play a Bard to 16th level, and with inspirational boost and the badge of valour, I buffed +4 for the party, which everyone seemed pleased with, but I agree it seems it scales oddly compared to Greater Magic Fang and Weapon (they don't need items or spells to be +4 at that level for example).

I often feel there's a disconnect as to what increases in level and what rate. That is, they often seem to come into there own too late to be really useful.

[georgie_leech]

The way you like to think of it is not the way it works. And if you want to house-rule something that works that way, I think you'll find it will likely to be incredibly inconsistent and to occasionally break the game.

I think you'll also not find much help in doing so because just about everyone excepts the fact that spells scale the way they do today and understand the problems that would be caused by changing it.

You should also probably do this in the homebrew forum.

I disagree. There are enough consistencies in spell effects that it seems clear the designers were trying to have a system like the one suggested, and as the topic is at least partially an analysis of existing spell effects, this is as good a place as any. Trouble is, like my post said there are also enough deviations to suggest they weren't especially adept at following a consistent pattern, or at least that multiple patterns were being used by different designers.

[Deophaun]

Forget spell scaling; that's not the source of this spell's problems. The real problem is the Sublime Chord.

At some point at Bard is going to have to make a choice as to whether he wants to focus on magic or music. The "music," of course, is Inspire Courage. Taking Sublime Chord basically cuts the Bard off from developing IC any further.

And then this spell comes along, and says "that's OK, you can just use your increased number of spell slots and spells known to IC better than a Bard 20."

Sublime Chord is already a really, really good trade. This spell just makes it no trade at all.

[broodax]

I disagree. There are enough consistencies in spell effects that it seems clear the designers were trying to have a system like the one suggested, and as the topic is at least partially an analysis of existing spell effects, this is as good a place as any. Trouble is, like my post said there are also enough deviations to suggest they weren't especially adept at following a consistent pattern, or at least that multiple patterns were being used by different designers.

It seems that many of the existing patterns have been pointed out, but the OP feels that they are "wrong".

Further, those patterns are all in place not because the designers wanted spell levels to scale in some specific way, but because they want spells to be of a power level in line with everything else in the game, as has also already been stated. 9th level spells should provide bonuses about equal to bonuses available to level 17 characters through other means. This is different for AC than it is for ability bonuses or enhancement bonuses to attack and damage, and to try to impose the same scaling on each of them ignores the actual design intent.

That some spells just go and break the game then, is an entirely separate issue.

[Devils_Advocate]

Whats with the tone?
You seem unwilling to accept input from others.


And... No. Because it also makes no sense that a level 9 only would be 3 times more powerful.
But a linearly increasing bonus requires exponentially increasing power. That's why things don't stack with themselves.


The whole point is not arguing why the rules are as they are, but to try to come op with some sort of reasonable pattern that fits what should be possible within the power of each level, and to totally disregard the balance or rules in the progress.
What do you mean by "should" in this context?

Are you assuming that a task's difficulty is directly proportional to how useful the result is? Because that's not realistic at all. Like, keeping ourselves alive mostly just requires food and water, which are not all that hard to obtain, relatively speaking. Nuclear power plants are considerably less useful -- what good would they even do if everyone was dead? -- but are harder to have.


Again Wish vs +12 AC???? If I were to design a spell that only gave AC which could comapare to wish in terms of power I personally believe +36 (9x mage armor) would be the minimum.
:smallsigh: Wish costs 5000 XP! If you really want AC that badly, then sure, +40 AC for one day for a 9th level spell with a 5000 XP cost. But why would you even want that?


I like to think of each spell level having a pool of energy. Some things demand more energy to run and some less. AC is not something a believe (in my world) that demands much energy. Thats why a level 1 (in my world has 10 levels of energy, can power +5(Shield of Faith)) Meaning that AC costs 2 points of energy.
If you really want to work out your own system based on entirely different core assumptions, then you should probably start a thread in Homebrew. (Suggested title: "Over 9000 Levels of Power: How can we improve each spell to match the cheesiest spell of its level?")

In the d20 System, low AC requires low power and high AC requires high power. That doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it?


A level 9 has 90-100 energy levels in my system. Meanign that Wish takes 90 points of energy to power up.
... Wait, that's just 9 times a "level 1" (spell?). So, if the bonuses granted went from +2 at level 1 to +18 at level 9, would you be fine with that?

[Melcar]

You seem unwilling to accept input from others.


No, but I reserve my right to disagree, just as you do!


But a linearly increasing bonus requires exponentially increasing power. That's why things don't stack with themselves.

Who says that?



What do you mean by "should" in this context?

I mean that I think things could be done better, and I would like peoplem to reflect on this. Like a level 9 being ca. 9 times more powerful than a level 1.



Are you assuming that a task's difficulty is directly proportional to how useful the result is? Because that's not realistic at all. Like, keeping ourselves alive mostly just requires food and water, which are not all that hard to obtain, relatively speaking. Nuclear power plants are considerably less useful -- what good would they even do if everyone was dead? -- but are harder to have.

No I am not.



:smallsigh: Wish costs 5000 XP! If you really want AC that badly, then sure, +40 AC for one day for a 9th level spell with a 5000 XP cost. But why would you even want that?


I dont care if any one wants it. I think it should be well within the possibilities of a level 9 spell. The whole point of this thread was to get people to think on how spell scale, and how they dont, and why.


If you really want to work out your own system based on entirely different core assumptions, then you should probably start a thread in Homebrew. (Suggested title: "Over 9000 Levels of Power: How can we improve each spell to match the cheesiest spell of its level?")


This has nothing to do with cheese. It has something to do with the lack og coherence in the system, as I se it. My argument is, that +36 ac at level 9 is not cheese.


In the d20 System, low AC requires low power and high AC requires high power. That doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it?

I dont find it that simple, as some have pointet out them selves. It demands more power, to get more bonus, but not as much as it apparently needs. Hence my worn out example of +36 at level 9. The bonus that should be possible to get from a level 9 spell should in my mind be equal to wish in power. I dont feel they are at this moment. That to me is scaling or what ever you want to call it... wrong!



... Wait, that's just 9 times a "level 1" (spell?). So, if the bonuses granted went from +2 at level 1 to +18 at level 9, would you be fine with that?

happy?

[Just to Browse]

Who says that?Anyone who has ever made high-quality scaling content for D&D ever.


I dont care if any one wants it. I think it should be well within the possibilities of a level 9 spell. The whole point of this thread was to get people to think on how spell scale, and how they dont, and why.They scale by getting strong enough to deal with relevant threats in a 4-encounter day. They do not scale by multiplication, they do not scale by addition, they do not scale by exponentiation, division, subtraction, integration, differentiation, fourier series, trig, or laplace transforms.


This has nothing to do with cheese. It has something to do with the lack og coherence in the system, as I se it. My argument is, that +36 ac at level 9 is not cheese.Your rules are not rules that work in D&D. If you make up rules and say "it should work this way because I did some maaaath", you are attempting to cheese the system.


I dont find it that simple, as some have pointet out them selves. It demands more power, to get more bonus, but not as much as it apparently needs. Hence my worn out example of +36 at level 9. The bonus that should be possible to get from a level 9 spell should in my mind be equal to wish in power. I dont feel they are at this moment. That to me is scaling or what ever you want to call it... wrong!SCALING DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY GAEEAAAAAGH!!

[Deophaun]

But a linearly increasing bonus requires exponentially increasing power. That's why things don't stack with themselves.
Who says that?
The DMG:
{table]Item|Base Price
+1 Armor|1,000 gp
+2 Armor|4,000 gp
+3 Armor|9,000 gp
+4 Armor|16,000 gp
+5 Armor|25,000 gp
+6 Armor|36,000 gp
+7 Armor|49,000 gp
+8 Armor|64,000 gp
+9 Armor|81,000 gp
+10 Armor|100,000 gp
[/table]

[Melcar]

{{scubbed}}

[georgie_leech]

{{scubbed}}

So... the thread is actually about "Spells in D&D don't scale to any particular formula, but if they did, what would it be?"

[TuggyNE]

{{scubbed}}

Thing is … the only way you can have a meaningful discussion about whether spells, as they exist, have coherent scaling, is if you look at the way spells (and the system as a whole) currently are.

If you say "yeah, I don't actually care about how the system is designed, I want to know how to make homebrew spells that people accept as being of the right power level without following the patterns and guidelines that exist (such as they are)" … well, I'm sorry, but you're fundamentally asking for something that is logically impossible. Either follow the system's assumptions, or don't; if you don't, you'll have to accept that a lot of people will criticize your work for not following the assumptions, unless you clearly label it as "not actually for 3.x" or something.

[Realms of Chaos]

I... don't even see how this is much of a discussion at this point.

It has been proposed that a level 9 spell that provides a weightless +12 armor bonus to AC without any armor-related penalties that applies against incorporeal touch attacks and that lasts all day would be internally consistent with both balance and scaling (ac bonus = spell level +3).

Even then, you are sticking to the truism that every 9th level spell should be as powerful as wish. It seems like any argument we give that supports scaling and balance inevitably leaves you with 9th level spells that are "too weak".

In other words, it looks less like you're prioritizing internally consistent spell design over balance (as you claim) and more like you're prioritizing internally consistent spell scaling that must use wish as the measuring stick of 9th level spells. Suffice it do say, I do not understand these priorities

Further, I would add to the table that spells are not and never have been multiplicative in the way you seem to suggest. There are a grant total of zero 7th level spells that are seven times more powerful than a specific 1st level spell.

Then again, this thread is about exploring new approaches to unified scaling and multiplicative power is one approach to power scaling that could potentially work. With that said, this is only one possible scaling scheme and it seems to be the only one that you are willing to explore. At all.

If you really want this thread to be about exploring the possibility of granting more unified scaling schemes to spells, why not show more consideration to other, equally valid schemes (even if it might mean nerfing wish).

[Just to Browse]

OK, since the OP has acquiesced that he is OK with the fact that his numbers don't work in 3e, let me submit a function for the mage armor progression, with a liberal helping of SCIENCE!

AC => Armor class bonus from the spells
SL => Spell level

AC = floor(4 * SL2 * exp(.835 * (1 - SL)))

Based on our 2 data points:
AC1 = floor(4 * 12 * exp(.835 * (1 - 1)))
AC1 = floor (4 * 1 * exp(.835 * 0))
AC1 = floor(4 * 1 * 1) = floor(4) = 4
whitespace for formatting
AC2 = floor(4 * 32 * exp(.835 * (1 - 3)))
AC2 = floor(4 * 9 * exp(.835 * -2))
AC2 = floor(4 * 9 * ~.188247) = floor(~6.777) = 6


So this fits our data points, and since we're throwing caution to the wind and making 9th-level versions of everything, let's see what happens to mage armor:


AC9 = floor(4 * 92 * exp(.835 * (1 - 9)))
AC9 = floor(4 * 81 * exp(.835 * -8)
AC9 = floor(4 * 81 * ~.001256) = floor(~.4069) = 0

Thus, I believe it's fair for a 9th-level version of mage armor to provide a +0 bonus to AC, and because math I believe it's a coherent spell system. I think it's worth preparing about as often as imprisonment. SCIENCE STRIKES AGAIN!

[HaikenEdge]

This might seem inflammatory, but discussions like this is one of the reasons why many DMs do not allow homebrewed material, because the material itself is inconsistent with balance of the game. This thread seems less like a discussion about the scaling of power between spell levels, and more the OP just looking for affirmation that his beliefs are correct and everybody else who disagreed with him are just idiots.

Why are you so intent on making your 9th level spells conform to the power level of Wish? Wish is a 9th level spell with a significant XP component; why are you not using, say, Meteor Swarm, another 9th level spell, as the measuring stick by which to measure the power of 9th level spells?

[TuggyNE]

Why are you so intent on making your 9th level spells conform to the power level of Wish? Wish is a 9th level spell with a significant XP component; why are you not using, say, Meteor Swarm, another 9th level spell, as the measuring stick by which to measure the power of 9th level spells?

Ideally, one would avoid both the absurd flexibility and INFINITE ARCANE POWAH! that is wish and the tediously feeble "fire resistance applies four times lol" direct damage that is meteor swarm; a better touchstone might be, say, astral projection (without infinite-gear-use shenaniganry), foresight, Mordenkainen's disjunction, prismatic sphere, or time stop.

[NichG]

Absurd numbers aside, its reasonable to ask in the broader sense 'what do we want a 17th level character to be able to accomplish two or three times a day (usually as a standard action)?', and use that as a guideline to figure out bounds on the versatility we want 9th level spells to have as well.

Or to put it another way, if you imagine that the high level characters are playing a game of 12 player chess with the cosmos, and each day they get to make a move and the players on the side of the cosmos get to make a move, how big is 'a move' and what does it look like, narratively?

[HaikenEdge]

Ideally, one would avoid both the absurd flexibility and INFINITE ARCANE POWAH! that is wish and the tediously feeble "fire resistance applies four times lol" direct damage that is meteor swarm; a better touchstone might be, say, astral projection (without infinite-gear-use shenaniganry), foresight, Mordenkainen's disjunction, prismatic sphere, or time stop.

I absolutely get that; I was simply questioning why the OP was using one of the most powerful 9ths as a guideline, as opposed to one of the weakest 9ths.

[georgie_leech]

I absolutely get that; I was simply questioning why the OP was using one of the most powerful 9ths as a guideline, as opposed to one of the weakest 9ths.

Especially since Meteor Swarm is actually one of the spells that scale, sort of. Fireball is a Level 3 Area Evocation that has a cap of 10d6 damage. Under the idea of 50%/2 levels, a Level 9 Area Evocation should do about 33-34d6 of damage, and it does 32d6, probably because they overestimated the ability to spread the damage out and the ability to deny reflex saves.

[Devils_Advocate]

Who says that?
The cost of magic armor is proportional to the square of the enhancement bonus. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm) Wait, that's geometrically increasing instead of exponentially, isn't it? Well, um... pretend I typed that instead. :P

Modifiers from the same source don't stack. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) You can't just cast the same spell over and over again for a bigger and bigger bonus.


I mean that I think things could be done better, and I would like peoplem to reflect on this.
People have reflected on what you've posted, reviewed the available evidence, and concluded that the way things scale as written makes internal sense. We've explained why we think so, as well. It's less clear why you disagree.

There's also the point that high-level spells being consistently overpowered isn't "better". On the contrary, it would make more sense to use the balanced, "bigger numbers" spells as the baseline and to allow only "game-changer" spells of power proportional to that of the "bigger numbers" spells of the same level.


Like a level 9 being ca. 9 times more powerful than a level 1.
What does "ca." stand for here? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. Or was that a typo?


No I am not.

The bonus that should be possible to get from a level 9 spell should in my mind be equal to wish in power.
What do you mean by "power", then, if not usefulness? The obvious sense in which +12 AC is less powerful than a wish is that it's less useful. As such, the obvious interpretation of your complaint is that that bonus is insufficiently useful for a 9th level spell. But that makes no sense on verisimilitude grounds, because it is not a general rule that things are useful in proportion to the resources expended to get them.


This has nothing to do with cheese.
Then why are you using wish as a basis to discuss what a 9th level spell should be able to do? Most spells don't require expensive components (material or XP), so if you want to work out a baseline of what spells of a given level should be able to do, the obvious thing to do is to look at the ones without expensive components, since that's the general case.

Furthermore, if wish is superior to other 9th level spells even given its XP cost, then doesn't that just indicate that wish should be Epic-level? Don't you need to go over 9th level spells in general to get a good sense of what's appropriate for a 9th level spell?


happy?
????

[TuggyNE]

What does "ca." stand for here? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. Or was that a typo?

Presumably "circa", although the usage is a little unusual.

[Arbane]

The 9th-level version of Mage Armor is Prismatic Sphere.

Who cares how high the enemy's to-hit is if they can't get near you without being annihilated?