PDA

View Full Version : Balance and Damaging Spells



Gralamin
2007-09-01, 02:39 PM
This might belong in homebrew, but since its a question of how much, I think it fits better here.

I am currently designing an encounter-based magic system, and I want Damaging Spells to be a viable option. How much damage should they do to be a viable option? The best way to answer my question, as I see it, is At each Spell level, thus: How much Damage should a...

Level 1 Spell do?
Level 2 Spell do?
Level 3 Spell do?
Level 4 Spell do?
Level 5 Spell do?
Level 6 Spell do?
Level 7 Spell do?
Level 8 Spell do?

(There are no 9th level spells in this system)

Corolinth
2007-09-01, 02:45 PM
I don't think this question can be answered without more information. In order to judge how much damage spells should do at various spell levels and character levels, we'd have to know how many hit points people have at those same levels.

Gralamin
2007-09-01, 03:28 PM
I don't think this question can be answered without more information. In order to judge how much damage spells should do at various spell levels and character levels, we'd have to know how many hit points people have at those same levels.

Alright, I'll use the DMG to draw up a list of fighter hp, cleric hp, Barbarian hp, and Monster of that CR hp. Will that help?

Jasdoif
2007-09-01, 03:33 PM
I don't think there's anything really wrong with the existing damage spells, it's just that the save-or-suck/lose/die spells are so much more effective for the same spell slots.

Gralamin
2007-09-01, 03:40 PM
I don't think there's anything really wrong with the existing damage spells, it's just that the save-or-suck/lose/die spells are so much more effective for the same spell slots.

I have heard people say that do to higher average monster HP, it is a bad choice without the save or suck/lose/die spells.

Heres the table ignoring monster HP, as it would generally be within this amount. The max spell level is under my system.

{table=head]Level|Barbarian|Fighter|Cleric|Max Spell Level
1|13|12|10|1
2|20|19|16|1
3|28|27|23|2
4|35|34|29|2
5|43|42|36|2
6|50|49|42|3
7|58|57|49|3
8|73|64|55|4
9|81|72|62|4
10|90|79|68|4
11|98|87|75|5
12|107|94|81|5
13|115|102|88|6
14|124|109|94|6
15|132|117|101|6
16|141|124|107|7
17|149|132|114|7
18|158|139|120|8
19|166|166|127|8
20|175|175|133|8[/table]

tannish2
2007-09-01, 03:48 PM
true, perhaps a nerf of those would be just as effective

Jasdoif
2007-09-01, 03:50 PM
I have heard people say that do to higher average monster HP, it is a bad choice without the save or suck/lose/die spells.If you have those spells available, sure. One-shotting a monster is faster then burning it a few times.

Anyway, that popular Shock Trooper/Leap Attack combo increases damage by 3 per level (+1 higher BAB means +3 on the Power Attack damage). Meanwhile most damage spells are d6/caster level, so they increase by an average 3.5 per level. And increase range, something those charge attacks don't get much of.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-01, 06:18 PM
Frequently, spells do 1d6 per caster level (or lower level spells do 1d6 per two caster levels) with a cap as follows:

Level 1: capped at 5d6
Level 3: capped at 10d6
Level 5: capped at 15d6
Level 7: capped at 20d6
Level 9: capped at 32d6

This assumes the spell either allows a saving throw or requies an attack roll. If the spell does both, caps can be substantially higher. If the spell does neither (autohit), caps should be lower.

Corolinth
2007-09-01, 06:33 PM
When you say you're designing an encounter-based magic system, my first inclination is that you're designing a new system. Silly me. You're looking to use the D&D system and chop off the level 9 spells.

If you're going to use D&D hit point averages and D&D spell level progression, then the damage spells in D&D are balanced around that. People trash talk the direct damage spells in D&D and besmirch them as worthless, but they don't take into account the fact that the "save or die" spells allow a save, and that your opponent could make that save. In the event that your target saves, your spell does nothing. As opposed to the damaging spells which are reflex for half, or sometimes do not even allow a save. One of the basic ideas of game design is that spells that do not allow a resist, or those that only allow for a partial resist, generally are not as powerful on as a spell that is completely ineffective when resisted. You trade overall nastiness for consistency (which is why evasion was deemed to be so powerful in design, because it allowed classes to escape spells that otherwise dealt consistent damage).

Consider Disintegrate vs. Chain Lightning at level 11 and at level 20

11
Disintegrate requires a touch attack and allows a fortitude save. 22d6 on a failed save, 5d6 on a successful save, and nothing on a missed touch attack.
Chain Lighting allows a reflex save. 11d6 on a failed save, half on a successful save.

20
Disintegrate: 40d6 on a failed save, 5d6 on a successul save, nothing on a miss.
Chain Lightning: 20d6 on a failed save, half on a successful save

At level 11, on a successful save, Chain Lightning is averaging higher. At level 20, Chain Lightning is vastly superior on a successful save. Also there's no chance of missing your touch attack. On a failed save, Disintegrate is nasty.

The biggest problem with damage spells in D&D isn't that they don't hit hard enough (especially since most of them are area of effect spells). Rather it's too easy to boost save DCs to such a point that the save or die spells can consistently kill your more powerful foes.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-09-01, 08:03 PM
Well, another reason the damage spells are considered weaker is that at higher levels many enemies sport various kinds of energy resistance. Instead of playing a guessing game of trying to figure out what types of energy your foe is vulnerable to, you could drop a save-or-suck on them to do something productive for the round instead of watching your fireball be ignored.

Jack Mann
2007-09-02, 01:46 AM
The problem with damage is that these spells is that they're not great for much except mooks.

See, you are not generally dealing more damage than a fighter's attack, at least to a single creature. The only advantage you have is that you're (potentially) doing it to more than one enemy at a time. The problem is that currently, you're only sometimes facing multiple enemies, and when you do, they're often weak enough that it's best to just let the fighter (or barbarian, cleric, druid, etc.) mop them up. If they're stronger, it's usually better to find a way to let him deal more damage while taking less.

So, if it's a single enemy, then you know you're not going to do as much damage as the fighter, and you're going to expend more resources than him to do it. So, you use a save-or-die/lose. If you're avoiding these (the DM doesn't like them, or you don't like to cut out the drama of the battle), you do a save-or-suck. If there are multiple enemies... Well, even then, nine times out of ten you're better off using a buff or a battlefield control spell. I'm not even talking about overpowered spells, either. Haste vs. fireball is the classic example. Fireball, you might be able to hurt all the enemies a little, assuming they're all grouped together. 17.5 damage on average when you first get it. Haste gives the fighter another attack, which will do at least 17.5, unless he's really bad at fighter builds, as well as upping his attack bonus and AC a bit. Increasing his attack bonus also increases his damage through power attack. Or the wizard can find some way to keep the enemy from attacking the fighter all at once, or channel them to where it's most advantageous for the party. Even the options that aren't too powerful are typically better choices than direct damage.

4th edition might change this a bit, since large groups of enemies are supposed to be more workable, so being able to damage lots of enemies at once becomes a bigger advantage. Provided they're all grouped together in such a fashion that you can catch them with your fireball, it's a viable tactic.

Still, I think the other problem is that dealing damage puts the wizard in competition with the other classes. One thing that makes the wizard's greater power matter a bit less is that a lot of it comes from things that no one else could do anyway. The fighter can't teleport the party from place to place. The rogue isn't going to create walls of stone. The druid isn't going to cast haste. These are powerful things, but they don't really take that much screen time from the others, because the wizard isn't treading on someone else's toes. In fact, a lot of what makes the wizard powerful is his ability to boost others. If these were the only things a wizard rocked at, I think the class would be a lot better off. If the wizard is dealing pure damage, he's trying to do an archer's job (which is a striker type, I think). This means he's either as good, if not better, than the striker classes (which, depending on how much he needs to specialize to do so, might not be a terrible thing), or else he's worse, and again should refrain from damage.

4th edition's fix for this appears to have the wizard continue dealing less damage than any other class, while combining it with other effects. For example, if you deal such-and-such damage with a cold spell, it might slow the opponent down. This is probably the best fix. The archers aren't being outdone in damage, but the wizard still has some nifty tricks up his sleeve.

Orzel
2007-09-02, 02:48 AM
The problem with damage spells is pretty much 3 fold.
1. They deal as much as a primary weapon users attack
2. There are more powerful limitations on spells
3. Save or effect spells require few castings to kill.

Most damage spells with a save or attack roll deal 3-4 damage/level on a failed save and 1-2 damage per level on success. Beefy classes have 7+ HP per HD and many monsters have 10 HP/HD. The tiny guys have resists, evasion, and are too hard to hit. So if no one else on your party damages the target and your CL is close to their HD, it'll take 3-4 damage spells to kill something. And those spells will have to be all within your 3 highest spell levels or the target will succeed and require more spells to kill. You only need a save or effect spell to hit once so it might take 1 or 2 castings of the right spells if you have them.

Now if you got a power attacker and a sneak attacker, 1 evocation could finish him. Same if the target has a lot fewer HD than your CL. But alone, 2 save or effect spells is cheaper that 4 damage spells.

4.0 is making damage per level independent of CL so blaster mages may get better. Fireball could be 3rd level and always deal 7d6 fire damage or deal 3d6 per spell level or 2d6 per point in Int/Wis/Cha mod. Who knows.

Yakk
2007-09-02, 08:39 AM
Damage spells should be balanced against other sources of damage, and the cost of the spells and the other sources of damage.

The HP of characters and creatures is relatively orthogonal.

If an Archer can kill a target in a single round, and you want a fireball to be as deadly as a hail of Arrows, then Fireballs need to do roughly the same damage as Arrows (taking into account everything you can do to boost Arrow damage).

The same sort of care has to be taken with AC and saves and to-hit and spell DCs.

Of course, this is tricky. Under current D&D, a leap attack shock trooper or similar build, is doing +3 damage per level, plus another +1 per level from strength/magic/other tricks, and a base around 5. If creatures have roughly the same HP as a fighter, at L 10 the 80 HP fighter is doing 45 damage -- enough damage, on average, to kill himself in two blows!

...

If you want to revamp combat, it isn't an easy task.

1> How many characters in a combat?
2> How many rolls in a combat? Per PC? Per NPC?
3> How many rolls, on average, to defeat an NPC? A PC?

Starbuck_II
2007-09-02, 02:50 PM
An idea.

New Fireball:
Save 1/2 as normal.

Fail: the 1d6/level plus an effect (such as caught on fire: 1d6/rd till they get it off same as alchemist fire).

See now: you have a save or suck but is also dealing damage.

So to make DD spells more viable: they need a extra benefit.

Cone of Cold: frostbite on a fail (fatigued for a few rounds).

Lightning Bolt: fail, maybe for 1 rd/level electricity spells deal +1 damage per die or something. Or something like +2 DC from electric spells.\\
Something in theme, but extra benefit.

An extra benefit for damage spells.

Gralamin
2007-09-02, 02:54 PM
When you say you're designing an encounter-based magic system, my first inclination is that you're designing a new system. Silly me. You're looking to use the D&D system and chop off the level 9 spells.

If you're going to use D&D hit point averages and D&D spell level progression, then the damage spells in D&D are balanced around that. People trash talk the direct damage spells in D&D and besmirch them as worthless, but they don't take into account the fact that the "save or die" spells allow a save, and that your opponent could make that save. In the event that your target saves, your spell does nothing. As opposed to the damaging spells which are reflex for half, or sometimes do not even allow a save. One of the basic ideas of game design is that spells that do not allow a resist, or those that only allow for a partial resist, generally are not as powerful on as a spell that is completely ineffective when resisted. You trade overall nastiness for consistency (which is why evasion was deemed to be so powerful in design, because it allowed classes to escape spells that otherwise dealt consistent damage).

Consider Disintegrate vs. Chain Lightning at level 11 and at level 20

11
Disintegrate requires a touch attack and allows a fortitude save. 22d6 on a failed save, 5d6 on a successful save, and nothing on a missed touch attack.
Chain Lighting allows a reflex save. 11d6 on a failed save, half on a successful save.

20
Disintegrate: 40d6 on a failed save, 5d6 on a successul save, nothing on a miss.
Chain Lightning: 20d6 on a failed save, half on a successful save

At level 11, on a successful save, Chain Lightning is averaging higher. At level 20, Chain Lightning is vastly superior on a successful save. Also there's no chance of missing your touch attack. On a failed save, Disintegrate is nasty.

The biggest problem with damage spells in D&D isn't that they don't hit hard enough (especially since most of them are area of effect spells). Rather it's too easy to boost save DCs to such a point that the save or die spells can consistently kill your more powerful foes.

No No, I am making a New System, It just won't be as powerful as existing magic.

Good suggestions so far everybody.

If you want to see the start of my new system (Not much is done), you can find it here (http://gralamin.bluwiki.com/go/Gralamin)

One concern I have for my system though is a way to make it a modular system, and figure out the effects (as well as currently Scaling type problems). If you would like to comment on anything, feel free to click on the discussion button up top.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-02, 10:21 PM
I have heard people say that do to higher average monster HP, it is a bad choice without the save or suck/lose/die spells.

Heres the table ignoring monster HP, as it would generally be within this amount. The max spell level is under my system.

{table=head]Level|Barbarian|Fighter|Cleric|Max Spell Level
1|13|12|10|1
2|20|19|16|1
3|28|27|23|2
4|35|34|29|2
5|43|42|36|2
6|50|49|42|3
7|58|57|49|3
8|73|64|55|4
9|81|72|62|4
10|90|79|68|4
11|98|87|75|5
12|107|94|81|5
13|115|102|88|6
14|124|109|94|6
15|132|117|101|6
16|141|124|107|7
17|149|132|114|7
18|158|139|120|8
19|166|166|127|8
20|175|175|133|8[/table]

The table is, of course, utterly and completely inaccurate. Barbarians are going to be raging. People are going to have hp and con-boosting items and effects. They're also going to start accruing energy resistances, as are the monsters. It's not uncommon to see high level characters or monsters with 200-500 hp, multiple energy resistances, and abilities to prevent large amounts of hp damage or recover it without sacrificing the actions they actually care much about.

For example, take an average half-orc barbarian. He gets 14 Con, a d12 HD, a +6 or +8 to Con from raging, +5 Con from wishes or tomes, and +6 con from an item at high level. Then he raises Con once from levels, putting the other 4 into strength. The result is a guy with 375.5 hp average at level 20, before he actually receives buffs or anything, which are plentiful at that level.

Straight damage spells simply do not scale well enough to be very useful, generally speaking. Sure, I could use a spell to... whittle down someone's hp a little... or I could use a spell to end an encounter.

TheOOB
2007-09-02, 10:49 PM
Well, one of the major reasons damage spells are weak in core is that you have to expend a resource (spells) to do what ever class can do normally(and perhaps even better) for free. In an encounter based system this is not as much of a problem. For balance you are best off looking at ToB manuvers, and basing damage numbers off of those.

Gralamin
2007-09-02, 10:57 PM
Well, one of the major reasons damage spells are weak in core is that you have to expend a resource (spells) to do what ever class can do normally(and perhaps even better) for free. In an encounter based system this is not as much of a problem. For balance you are best off looking at ToB manuvers, and basing damage numbers off of those.

Ah excellent. I thought those would work nicely. Thanks.

Ramza00
2007-09-02, 11:21 PM
Two reasons spells damage suck for wizards vs saves or loses.

1) Monsters gain hit dice far faster per cr than the do saves. Saves are pretty much linear as evident by these tables of the average saves per cr monsters.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12991290&postcount=7

Advanced monsters on the other hand (not class levels) gain more hd a lot faster per cr

Aberration, construct, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, ooze, plant, undead, vermin +1 CR per 4 HD added

Animal, magical beast, monstrous humanoid +1 CR per 3 HD added

Dragon, outsider, nonassociated class levels +1 CR per 2 HD or 2 levels added

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

2) Second other classes can do damage alot better, or they can do damage over time for very little resources expenditure. Each spell you use is a valuable resource, sure fighters have hit points to worry about but you can heal those after battle quite cheaply with item via a and of cure light wounds or lesser vigor. Disabling an opposing group of monsters with a solid fog or black tentacles (battlefield control) thus spreading out combat by seperating them so the fighter can kill them one out of time reducing the risk to you and your party is a lot more effective than an empowered scorching ray and that is one of the good damage spells.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-03, 12:07 PM
The thing is, when you cast a spell, you want to remove enemies from play. Whether this means disabling them with Web, killing them with Finger of Death, or doing a ton of damage doesn't really matter. What does matter is how well it accomplishes this goal, and direct damage spells tend to suck at it, because they do very low damage.

Now, it *is* worth noting that this can change based on builds. For example, I'm making a Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer/Arcane Trickster right now, and he's going to be using some direct damage spells... because *he can actually kill things with it, due to Sneak Attack.*

For an example... level 20, he'll have +16d6 SA or so with Hunter's Eye cast. He'll be invisible pretty much all the time, so he'll take advantage of that to cast Extended Hunter's Eye before the fight. Additionally, he'll put up Cloud of Knives, and of course will have used Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability and shared Hunter's Eye to his familiar (granting the familiar +8d6 SA). He'll have something like +20 or so init (thanks primarily to Improved Initiative, Insightful Divination, Warning/Eager weapon, and a high dex. And, of course, actual divination spells). In this way, he can actually go ahead and throw out, say, a quickened Acid Orb, an Acid Orb from his familiar, an Avasculate, and a free attack from the Cloud of Knives. Oh, and a free Cloud of Knives from the familiar too, thanks again to Share Spells. That'll give +64d6 in sneak attack damage, 32d6+10 in spell damage, and all that will be AFTER Avasculate reduces the enemy to half hp with no save (and then requires them to save or be stunned), and two saves against being sickened. Combined with the Craven feat, he adds another +60 damage from sneak attack.

The grand total is a reduction to half hp, then 96d6+70 (average damage 406) damage from touch attacks that don't allow saves for half. That means that I can expect to take out enemies with around 812 hp fairly reliably, assuming they're vulnerable to sneak attack (Of course, I can use Golemstrike or Gravestrike and so forth to help with that). Of course, if that's not enough, I could always use Celerity or Belt of Battle (at least, if any DM I ever played with was crazy enough to allow that spell/item... I know I sure wouldn't) to get yet another spell in there, blasting for another good 40d6+20 damage or so.

Best of all, I didn't use one of my 9th level spell slots, which I'll still want to use for Time Stop, Gate, and all those other things that don't suck like Meteor Swarm.

((Note that this also works at much lower levels. Light of Lunia, shared to your familiar, is decent right at level 1 Wizard / 1 Rogue, giving you 5d6 vs most and 9d6 vs outsiders and undead when shared to your familiar for a handy doubling))

That's actually about what it takes to make direct damage kinda worth using... a large amount of sneak attack or otherwise added damage (such as metamagicing the hell out of scorching rays) to bring it up to speed :smallbiggrin:. Otherwise, you're probably going to be way better off using things like Color Spray, Web, Solid Fog, and so forth. Heck, even for the above character, I'll probably still want to use those spells at least as much as direct damage.

Yakk
2007-09-04, 02:56 PM
If you want to rebalance spells and damage, first look at physical damage. What levels of melee/archery damage are expected?

With the rules out there for D&D 3.5, you can go from a L 10 character who swings a sword, to a power-attach leap-attack shock trooper build, to a charge-attack build, to a cheese-sneak-attack build, and have orders of magnitude difference in damage dealing abilities.

Then you need to figure out where you want spellcasters to be in relation to the above damage dealing potential options, and figure out what the costs will be to cast spells.