Doubling the numbers

[Max Caysey]

At what level, does it make sense to talk about doubling the number given by a levels 1 spell?

Healing double at levels 2, AC 1,5 at level 3, damage doubles at levels 3 and is x9 at levels 6... At what level should I get +40 for an improved true strike?

[nyjastul69]

At what level, does it make sense to talk about doubling the number given by a levels 1 spell?

Healing double at levels 2, AC 1,5 at level 3, damage doubles at levels 3 and is x9 at levels 6... At what level should I get +40 for an improved true strike?

True strike doesn't improve by level. Can you clarify your question a little?

[OldTrees1]

He is asking:
1) What level should a double strength True Strike be? Aka what level of spell should a +40 to your next attack be?

2) Is there a pattern for what level a double strength version of a 1st level spell should be?

[Chronos]

I think what he means is, if you're making a new spell at higher level, what is it reasonable for it to give?

For comparison, the first-level spell Cure Light Wounds heals 1d8+level (up to +5), while the second-level spell Cure Moderate Wounds heals 2d8+level (up to +10), or twice as much as the first-level spell.

I don't think there's really room in the system for an "Improved True Strike", at least not just by increasing the numbers. +20 to an attack roll is already pretty much "hit on anything but a 1", which is the same effect you'd get from +40 or +100 or +10 million. On the other hand, you could possibly make an "Improved True Strike" that's only a swift action to cast, or that works on all of your attacks in the next round, or that still only works on the first attack, but has a much longer duration that you can wait before using it, or affects all of your allies.

[Seclora]

I think what he means is, if you're making a new spell at higher level, what is it reasonable for it to give?

For comparison, the first-level spell Cure Light Wounds heals 1d8+level (up to +5), while the second-level spell Cure Moderate Wounds heals 2d8+level (up to +10), or twice as much as the first-level spell.

I don't think there's really room in the system for an "Improved True Strike", at least not just by increasing the numbers. +20 to an attack roll is already pretty much "hit on anything but a 1", which is the same effect you'd get from +40 or +100 or +10 million. On the other hand, you could possibly make an "Improved True Strike" that's only a swift action to cast, or that works on all of your attacks in the next round, or that still only works on the first attack, but has a much longer duration that you can wait before using it, or affects all of your allies.
2 levels for swift, 2 for full round. Doubling the numbers on something like that would probably put you at least level 4-5, although I'd agree that wouldn't be a very good use of spell.

Roughly I'd say:

Improved True Strike
Divination
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Casting Time: 1 Swift Action
Duration: 1 round

As True Strike, but applies to all attacks made in the round.
Focus: a small darkwood replica of an archery target worth 50 gold.

The main benefit is that it makes your later iterative attacks have a real chance to hit. If you wanted to double the benefits, put it around 8th and have the benefits drop off(-5 reduction for each succeeding attack) on iterative attacks.

[Karl Aegis]

Spells automatically double in power every other spell level. See: Planar Ally, Lesser, Planar Ally and Planar Ally, Greater.

[Eloel]

On the other hand, you could possibly make an "Improved True Strike" that's only a swift action to cast, or that works on all of your attacks in the next round, or that still only works on the first attack, but has a much longer duration that you can wait before using it, or affects all of your allies.
Now we're getting into the Psionics territory. Augmentation does exactly this. Too bad there's no Psionic True Strike so I don't really contribute much to the discussion, but still.

[Max Caysey]

True strike doesn't improve by level. Can you clarify your question a little?

Granted, that on any other level but epic, +20 is more than enough, but im just thinking that if a level 1 spell can produce an effect that gives +20 then surely a level 3-5 could/should by any logic be able to produce an effect of +40. Especially when other effect have been doubled at this point.

The question is more in terms of a theoritical debate, but seein that a level 6 spell can du 9 times as much damage and heal 10 times as much as a level 1, then I'm thinking that a level 5 that tripples the effect would follow the rest of the spell number progression. Think Cone of Cold vs Burning Hands... which is 3 times as powerful.

So what do you guys think of a True Strike, at level 5 that gives +60???

Any comments are welcome.

[Eloel]

So what do you guys think of a True Strike, at level 5 that gives +60???

Make it level 2. There is no real point to +60 other than being happier that you beat their AC by 50 instead of 10.

[Max Caysey]

Make it level 2. There is no real point to +60 other than being happier that you beat their AC by 50 instead of 10.

It is possible to encounter things that have +50 AC... just saying. The spell in question does not really matter, its more a question of when its "realistic" to talk about a doubling or tripling of the effects of a level 1 spell.

[Chronos]

And the point is, it depends on what you're doubling or tripling. Doubling True Strike is not the same thing as doubling Cure Wounds.

[Eloel]

And the point is, it depends on what you're doubling or tripling. Doubling True Strike is not the same thing as doubling Cure Wounds.

Summon spells also double every level, if anyone is keeping score. 1d3 monsters from Level-1 averages to exactly 2x Level-1 monsters

[Cruiser1]

I don't think there's really room in the system for an "Improved True Strike", at least not just by increasing the numbers. +20 to an attack roll is already pretty much "hit on anything but a 1", which is the same effect you'd get from +40 or +100 or +10 million.
A +20 to attack is great at low levels, but in higher level combat it's a pretty minor bonus. There are epic monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicMonstersAndObstacles.htm) with AC over 100, and if you want to use Power Attack that can quickly eat up a +20 bonus too. Note that Limited Wish is a 7th level spell that (among other options) allows a creature to automatically hit on its next attack (effectively a +infinity to hit).

[Eloel]

A +20 to attack is great at low levels, but in higher level combat it's a pretty minor bonus. There are epic monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicMonstersAndObstacles.htm) with AC over 100, and if you want to use Power Attack that can quickly eat up a +20 bonus too. Note that Limited Wish is a 7th level spell that (among other options) allows a creature to automatically hit on its next attack (effectively a +infinity to hit).

I do not doubt that it can be made. I do not see any though.

Edit: Great Wyrm Force Dragon. Found it. Ouch. That guy is CR59 though, by that point, do you really care if a spell is cantrip or level 9?

[Max Caysey]

And the point is, it depends on what you're doubling or tripling. Doubling True Strike is not the same thing as doubling Cure Wounds.

Could you elaborate? I mean if something is producable at level 1, then it should be fine to double at leves where everything else doubles. The thing is, +20 is such a high number, that it looks bad to double, so i dont see why there is a difference...

[Cazero]

Could you elaborate? I mean if something is producable at level 1, then it should be fine to double at leves where everything else doubles. The thing is, +20 is such a high number, that it looks bad to double, so i dont see why there is a difference...

+20 is such a big number, so doubling the number is pointless. However, you can double it's usefulness. A +20 to your next roll, be it an attack roll, a skill check or a save, would be superior to true strike in every way and worth a bigger spell slot.

[Cruiser1]

+20 is such a big number, so doubling the number is pointless. However, you can double it's usefulness. A +20 to your next roll, be it an attack roll, a skill check or a save, would be superior to true strike in every way and worth a bigger spell slot.
Indeed, there is a spell that allows +15 to +25 (depending on CL) to any one single attack roll, skill check, save, or AC. Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) is an 8th level spell (compared to just 1st level for True Strike) which shows that even WotC sometimes realizes the value of versatility.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

+20 is a huge number, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to double it. While a +20 to attack can be used to make sure an attack will hit, a +40 will make that attack hit AND enable you to use your power attack to the limit without actually sacrificing accuracy. With a +60, if the wizard turned it into an item, the party fighter could use an intimidating strike with power attack and combat expertise and still be extremely sure he would hit.

So yeah, there is a point to raising an extremely high bonus.

[Hiro Quester]

I read recently that if you invest in AC, you should be able to make it about twice your character level +10.

The bard/sublime chord I used to play persisted siriene's grace, dragonskin, boosted dex sky high, etc. to augment AC, and had an AC of 61 at level 20.

So there is a point to improving true strike.

Now we're just quibbling about the level, and perhaps the amount.

I'd say about 8th level, since it's more powerful but ess versatile than moment of prescience, seems about right.

But perhaps adding CL plus 1d20 would be a better balanced option?

[Max Caysey]

I see how for balance +40 or +60 might be level 8, but when everything else is doubled, or trippled at level 3-5 and damage and healing is x9 at level 6 I think that level 8 for a +40 is quite too much if its compared to all other spells. Think that a level 7 can auto hit any AC +40 at level 8 might not be quite enough?

[Malimar]

You're trying to get people to give you a number: "+40 is X spell levels better than +20". But what I think most people in the thread are trying to tell you is that X is less than one. +40 is less than one spell level better than +20. Given a choice between preparing a level 1 True Strike +20 or a level 2 True Strike +40, in almost every situation it's better to prepare the +20 and use your level 2 slots on something else. (It's true that there are foes with AC so high that a doubled True Strike would make a difference, but if you're fighting one of them, you're not going to be wasting your actions on level 1 and 2 spells.)

[Ashtagon]

Am I the only one who thinks this could be abused with Power Attack?

[Eloel]

Am I the only one who thinks this could be abused with Power Attack?

Yep. PA has a limit of your BAB.

[Anthrowhale]

Surge of Fortune is a 5th level cleric spell which makes any roll a natural 20. Since this is more powerful than any numerical bonus to hit it upper bounds the appropriate level for a +40 true strike.

[Flickerdart]

That guy is CR59 though, by that point, do you really care if a spell is cantrip or level 9?

You do - because cantrips never receive bonus uses per day for having a high ability score, a 19th+ level wizard will have more 9th level spells than cantrips to cast per day.

[Eloel]

You do - because cantrips never receive bonus uses per day for having a high ability score, a 19th+ level wizard will have more 9th level spells than cantrips to cast per day.

Almost, but not quite. He can still cast cantrips out of 9th level slots :smallcool:

[GilesTheCleric]

I think doubling is most often useful for sub-optimal methods. True Strike qualifies, since it means that the character is still using his or her attack bonus, and that they're not attacking against AC 10 by default (or trying THAC0 *ducks*). I made some cure graphs for a build that was going to devote a few resources to improving healing beyond wands/ magic items (most of the healing aspect of the build has since been abandoned as a result); those spells could really use some doubling or tripling by the time characters are level 5-10, which is probably a significant amount of gameplay for players who are frequently starting new games at level 1.

For other blasting spells that actually keep up with dice/CL, there's already doubling available through twinning, repeating, quickening, admixturing, contingencying, echoing, etc.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd160/ryuusui-ken/Cure%20Averages_zpsxujkr2zq.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd160/ryuusui-ken/Cure%20from%2012%20Averages_zpsowmeoipl.jpg
I also saved a graph of MM1 creature AC from these boards a while ago (my apologies for not maintaining the attribution info; tineye it if it matters). By the looks of it, doubling attack bonuses wouldn't significantly help against an average creature. Martial classes have either a +20 or +15 1st iterative by lvl 20, which is success on a 10+ or 15+ before thinking about gear or stats. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd160/ryuusui-ken/Touch%20vs%20Normal%20AC%20MM1_zpss7atvmzj.jpg

By character level 9, SoDs are widely available (and martials have at least four feats to sink into initiative & pounce+PA or precision dice), so the ideal time to double things is probably levels 5-9 or -10. Instead of doubling, re-capping blasting spells from eg 5d6 (avg 17.5) to 10d6 (avg 35) might be better, so that sorcs and other casters with slower progressions and fewer known spells have an easier time of things. This way, they can better compare to a PA fighter's damage output even if they're closing their eyes and pointing to only core evocation spells for their Spells Known lists.