The Gaming Den

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

So, I can't just assume every group will use max HP.

I'll have to design around the median, which is half HD, a pathetic state of life for PCs but fairly acceptable for NPCs since that's what the MM lists. This also blows my concept of an average state of Bloodied in 3e out.

The new median must then be 4 or 5 HP +2 for 14 CON, making an average of 6-7 per level.

Evocations dealing at least 5 per level will take the average PC down to critical levels with one failed save, and kill with two.
To reference my thread about extra Evocation effects against Bloodied targets, it wouldn't even be needed when the target has maybe 1-2 HP per level left. Pretty much anything can kill them at that point.
No point in increasing Evocation damage at all; maybe a debuff could be applied to make sure it sticks, but as for volumes of damage that needs no change.

And like a cherry on top I'd throw on a single die roll for randomness. Something like 1d6 for spell levels 1-2 and scale it up every even spell level by one die size.
Since 1d6 +5 would be fatal to the average, I'd have to subtract 5 damage from the level 1 bonus so that it's 1d6 and +5 per level past level 1.

Is this fair and balanced?

John Magnum · Knight Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 482

Wait, hang on, "by one die size", do you mean going from 1d6 to 1d8? So evocation would do 1d8 + 20 at level 5, and 1d10 + 40 at level 9, and 1d12 + 60 at level 13? Or am I missing something? I just... I really dislike your thing where you deliberately set out to make giant static damage bonuses and tiny irrelevant die rolls.
_________________
-JM

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Schwarzkopf · Knight-Baron Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 631

you honestly might as well just not have the die roll, though, it's so far from being relevant
_________________
"Welcome to the Den. We will steal your car, burn your house, rape your wife, and kill your dog. Then we will say mean things to or about you. On the internet." -Frank Trollman

John Magnum · Knight Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 482

I'm trying to think how much of a difference it could ever make.

So, we're assuming that monsters have 6-7 HP per level. So, at level 10, monsters have 60-70 HP and your evocations to 1d10 + 45. So it always takes exactly two hits to drop the monster, no matter how you roll. Actually, even if you give the monster way more HP like a d12 and 18 Con for 110 HP... Well, then it's POSSIBLE to drop it in two hits if you max your damage rolls, but in literally 99% of all cases it takes three. Give your monster a d12 and 20 Con and it ALWAYS takes exactly three hits to drop.

If you want rounds-to-kill to be this deterministic, you could always do fixed damage.
_________________
-JM

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Bihlbo · Journeyman Joined: 19 Nov 2010 Posts: 139

HP: I agree that rolling for hp is terrible. When I run games hp gains aren't random, but in every D&D-like game I've ever played hp have been rolled (using a variety of house rules, but most commonly we have rolled in front of everyone and written down the number). Edit: One GM who's run many of the games in which I've played has tried rolling for all monsters too. It sure takes longer, but he likes that we can't calculate a like-monster's hit points as soon as one dies. We try anyway. I killed a high-level vampire once with a disrupt undead because I knew he had exactly 1 hit point. I don't think he liked that, he wanted me to waste another heal. Rolling Eyes

Fundamental: What is the purpose of direct damage magic? Is the intent to build a character who can be a glass cannon? Is the intent to produce ranged damage options that further round out a group's tactical options? Or do you just want an option for when your character who doesn't sword things wants to reduce hp's?

When I see "1d6/level" or something like that it really makes me question the number of evocation spells. If they scale with level so well, why do you need more than 3? Because you're still casting low-level spells later on? Okay, then why not write the spells to adjust to vancian nonsense rather than making whole new spells?

It's non-standard, but why couldn't you make fireball 1st level with this description? "Deals 3d6 damage to every target in the area. Prepare this spell as a higher-level spell to add +2d6 damage for each spell level. When you prepare this spell you choose the damage type it uses: fire, cold, et cetera." Then you make a single-target version, and a range-touch-no-save version - your evocation spell list is complete. There's really no point in having more than one "cure wounds" spell either, for that matter.

Judging__Eagle · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:49 am Post subject:

I'm personally thinking of having Hit Dice mean something you roll every time; reducing all attacks to 1 point of damage, with certain powers going to 2 or 3. Hit Points, and Hit Dice, become Hit Point Dice; with every creature starting off with zero to three Hit Point Dice to start.

Of course, this is only a half-baked idea; and I'm still using the full AWoD/AS health boxes and damage resolution system for now.
_________________
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.

deanruel87 · Knight Joined: 12 May 2008 Posts: 491

Instead of going up a die type couldn't you just add another D6 occasionally. So 1d6 at 1st, 2d6 at 5th, 3d6 at 10th and so on. It seems a medium that would make both parties happy. And really rolling 3 or 4 d6's isn't bad at all.
_________________

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Bihlbo · Journeyman Joined: 19 Nov 2010 Posts: 139

I like evocations for two purposes:
1. The main source of a spellcaster's attacks vs. hit points - used often and cheaply, and roughly on-par with a fighter.
2. Big damage, costly to use, reserved for when it's time to drop a foe who's already been softened up by other folks.

hogarth · Prince Joined: 27 May 2009 Posts: 3477 Location: Toronto

Bihlbo · Journeyman Joined: 19 Nov 2010 Posts: 139

hogarth · Prince Joined: 27 May 2009 Posts: 3477 Location: Toronto

Aryxbez · Knight Joined: 15 Oct 2010 Posts: 442

Oddly enough, in a D&D group I've played in the most reliably, we just maxed HP, instead of rolling it. Which only helped since we played rather non optimally, what with wizards casting fireballs, and cleric healing (they were just side-NPC characters). May as well max it for non-casters, they need all the good stuff they can get. Main problem seeing, is that monsters and NPC's have access to these spells too, so can be difficult to balance for both sides.

Also, I recall Frank suggested forth that Evocation spells as written, should all be one spell level lower. So a 3rd level spell should be 2nd, 2nd a 1st, and so on. Course, it meant there was no 9th level evocation spells, which case were encouraged to make up your own. Perhaps to take ideas from the Epic Level Handbook, where have fireballs blowing up entire cities or something.

Nowadays, I'd much rather have max, or a preset, like 4th edition does, course just do it better than they did.
_________________
Still digs this Thread as how Power Levels should be for Fighter types: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527850/Tiers_of_Power:_Fluffy,_video-demonstrated_benchmarks_for_level-appropriate_people.?pg=1

What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries

RobbyPants · Prince Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 3169

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Robby do you have a link to the original thread?

Also, this explains why the Tome fiend spheres have access to Fireball as a SL1 spell. I was wondering all this time.

My problem with a SL1 Fireball is the range. It trumps all other evocations at caster level 1. You could have a small troop of wizards/sorcerers cast Fireball repeatedly and they would blow away any other level 1 party of any composition by the end of about 3 rounds.

Other than that, I agree totally with the change.

RobbyPants · Prince Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 3169

John Magnum · Knight Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 482

Except even at level 1 combats are over before three rounds is up. And they're spending a truly insane amount of resources to do so. At level 1, color spray, sleep, and silent image win entire encounters at the cost of one spell and some non-consumable actions. If you have the entire party spamming fireballs for round after round, that's a stunningly inefficient use of resources.

I mean, okay, if we're imagining five wizards prepping four fireballs each, that's twenty fireballs per day. Expected hit points are wildly variable across first-level encounters, but it looks like CR1 enemies tend to have 2d8 or 3d8. Assuming that they're all clustered tightly together and fail all their saves, that's three or four fireballs to win an encounter. So, if the wizards all win initiative together, they win most encounters in a single round and have something like a four to six encounter workday. Plus, they can do this at range.

This is pretty good, although you'll note that it relies on some extremely generous assumptions for our troop of fireball slingers. Of course, "five evokers" is still a pretty stupid party, and unless you also implement the evocation damage tweaks you've been talking about their expected workday starts changing in weird ways as level goes up.

It doesn't seem like it breaks the game in half.

EDIT: Bunch of dumb stuff here. I keep forgetting that 3.5 doesn't give you first-level encounters that aren't a big pack of CR1 enemies. If you're fighting enemies with one or fewer HD, the pack of fireball slingers does a lot better at level one.

Still, I think it just means that SL1 fireball joins the pantheon of first-level spells that end encounters, it doesn't tower over them laughing. An enchanter or illusionist or two with three or four buddies is definitely extremely competitive on the "chew through first-level encounters" front.
_________________
-JM

RobbyPants · Prince Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 3169

Well, basically, at 1st level, you'd be prepping good spells in your 1st level slots and using at-will Evocation cantrips for backup damage. You wouldn't bother with 1st level Evocations until you probably had 3rd level spell slots. You'll want at least one "win" spell per encounter.
_________________

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Thanks for the links Robby. (EDIT: Strange seeing my own posts in the local thread; I've apparently read it, participated, and forgotten all about it)

As for Fireball, it was mostly the range and AoE that greatly outdoes those of other level 1 spells. 1d6/save half is fairly weak but at that distance nothing to scoff at.
Personally I'd have Fireball start at Close range with 10 foot radius as a SL1, and then scale up from there to the point when it's 2000 feet away and something like 100 foot radius dealing 15 damage per level or more as an SL7 or 8.

Foxwarrior · Knight-Baron Joined: 11 Nov 2010 Posts: 556 Location: US

I agree with your Fireball scaling, sigma999. As a third level spell, Fireball isn't all that great of a spell to cast when you could be casting any other spell instead, but its Long range and 20 foot blast radius mean that there are plenty of times when you couldn't be casting any other spell instead. My main problem as a PF Evoker Wizard who aspires to be an artillery piece isn't that Fireball is level 3 (Fireballs a bit wimpy? Just burn through more slots: you've got the time, since enemies can't run that fast, and many can't fly), but rather that Fireballs with overcosted metamagic will be the best (damaging) evocations I can manage, even as a level 5 spell.

Too bad 3.5e spells don't scale that way. It could be easily written as a psionic power, though.

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Since reconsidering the expected HP per level (most of you go with "half maximum plus 1" if averaged), I've decided to go with 4 rather than 5 damage per level of a spell.

This will leave even a Wizard with CON 10 at least at 1-2 HP on a bad roll for the variable amount, which should be roughly half the time if dealing 1d6 + 4 for each level beyond the first.

That's just where I want it.

I'll look into the fastest rate at which a character can afford CON boosting as by wealth per level, and increase damage from there.
I may have already done this last year and simply lost the TXT, it will take some searching.

sigma999 · Prince Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 4251 Location: MD, USA

Strangely I wrote this up two years ago, which means it might have been posted elsewhere on this forum and I'll never know, but regardless.... this was my math at the time. I'll revise it from here.
Some of it near the end, I think was for a d20 variant that I abandoned. Ignore that.

Stat Entitlements (assuming baseline wealth, buying a CON boosting item when possible)