• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Is every Magic Change Downward?

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
Jalkain said:
This is how a wizard can be made into a viable all-day party member.

If that's the way you like to play a wizard, more power to you. However, I happened to like the fact that straight up damage dealing evokers were a viable character type in 3e. By all appearances, only truly min/maxed Red Wizard/Archmage evokers will be viable in 3.5e. I don't like that 3.5e is making your way the only way to play a wizard.

By using the full range of spells in a way which ensures that the party as a whole stays in better shape for longer. Not by casting haste and then launching a 3 round fireworks display before running out of spells.

Wonderful theory. And, I agree that it usually is more advantageous for a wizard to use save or effect spells than direct damage spells. However, if the 3 round firework display is less advantageous than a combination of Slow and crossbow bolts, I don't why you're so jubilant that the option is going away. If it sucked so badly, what do you gain from its cesation?

Wizards, by the nature of the class, have always had to be careful not to run out of spells. That was true even in 1st Ed, and I can see no reason why people should expect it to be any different now.

In 1e and 2e, however, they got to toss d6/level fireballs and cones of cold against monsters with unmodified d8 HD. Consequently in 1e and 2e, wizards were more able to conserve spells than they are in 3e or 3.5e where it usually takes two or three spells to generate the proportional effect of one 1e or 2e damage dealing spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Grog

First Post
rushlight said:
Unless you consider multiple opponents. Under those conditions, the mage clearly outclasses any melee-based attacks.

Mages have always been better against multiple opponents than fighters. It's been that way since D&D was first created. It doesn't mean they're unbalanced.

And all your example really showed was that if a wizard is willing to throw out over half of his most powerful spells, he could probably outdamage a typical fighter of his level. But if he's going to use that many spells in one fight, he really should be able to outdamage fighters...
 

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
If that was the objective, it failed rather dramatically. The fighter wasn't very beefed up. (A really beefed up (including stats) fighter would have been running a 28-30 strength (1/2 orc 20 starting str, +2 level, +4 item, +4 rage or human 16 starting str, +2 level, +6 empowered bull's strength, +4 rage) instead of a 20 for the encounter and would have had boots of speed). And, excepting save DCs (which were relevant for less than half of the spells the wizard cast), the wizard wasn't very stripped down (Assuming that the giant failed all of his saves will only result in a gain of 87.5 points of damage for the wizard--something that a really beefed up fighter could easily outstrip). IMO, that was what made the example a good example. One can make hyper min/maxed character easily enough but the discussion will then center upon whether each character was min/maxed properly and there's usually a way to squeeze a bit more damage out of a character. That this example centered on more typical non-beefed up characters was a good thing IMO.

And even with multiple targets and beefed up DCs weighing in for the wizard (perhaps we should assume that each fireball catches 2.5 targets--although IME, allies in the area are very very relevant to area effect spells and there's only one feat (sculpt Spell) to deal with the problem (and one class ability--Archmage) neither of which are core), I suspect that a beefed up fighter would still be at least in the same ballpark as the wizard.

rushlight said:
The objective of the experiment was to measure damage output from a beefed-up fighter vs a stripped down mage. Multiple targets just weigh things much more toward the mage. Allies in the area aren't relevant, and even if they were, there are feats that can again make allies irrelevant.
 

Jalkain

First Post
Elder-Basilisk said:
If that's the way you like to play a wizard, more power to you. However, I happened to like the fact that straight up damage dealing evokers were a viable character type in 3e.

Has 3.5e really made the evoker non-viable? You're sure of that?

Wonderful theory. And, I agree that it usually is more advantageous for a wizard to use save or effect spells than direct damage spells. However, if the 3 round firework display is less advantageous than a combination of Slow and crossbow bolts, I don't why you're so jubilant that the option is going away. If it sucked so badly, what do you gain from its cesation?


I'm not jubilant, and I gain nothing. The thread title (and others like it) seem to suggest that all is doom and gloom for spell casters. I'm simply saying that I disagree, and explaining why.

In 1e and 2e, however, they got to toss d6/level fireballs and cones of cold against monsters with unmodified d8 HD.

I think high level wizards were too overpowered in those earlier editions; people miss not being able to destroy everything by themselves. 3e and 3.5e are much more balanced than those earlier editions.

2e fighters fared rather poorly in comparison to wizards. Not to mention the fact that they were inferior to paladins and rangers. Now people have a reason to play a fighter, since they know that no-one can match the damage they can do against a big monster.

And spellcasters still inflict the most total damage on groups of foes, using AOE spells. 3.5e won't stop you from inflicting substantial damage on groups of foes, it's just been toned down a bit.
 
Last edited:

Voadam

Legend
aurellius said:
After following all the sneak peaks and rumors and leaks it seems like every non magic aspect of the game has stayed the same or risen upwards in power while every magic tidbit is about reduced power.


Has anyone seen anything that makes magic better in anyway?


Marcus

Magic Bows, while not stacking with magic arrows anymore, will be able to use the bow plus to overcome DR now.

archmage and red wizard will be in the DMG and presumably in the srd.

Mystic Theourge is a powerful cleric wizard multiclass option.
 
Last edited:

Gwarok

Explorer
"Rework your example without Haste, and I think you'll find that the wizard is outclassed absolutely."

The wizard was outclassed damage wise even with the haste. I think anyone who plays a wizard as a howitzer is missing the point.
 

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
Jalkain said:
Has 3.5e really made the evoker non-viable? You're sure of that?

Pretty sure. Evokers were barely viable in 3e, even with the 2 spell/round Haste and +4 to DCs from Greater Spell Focus. Without either, and without a substantial increase in the damage from direct damage spells, I expect that they will be nonviable in most campaigns.

And spellcasters still inflict the most total damage on groups of foes, using AOE spells. 3.5e won't stop you from inflicting substantial damage on groups of foes, it's just been toned down a bit.

That rather depends upon what counts as significant damage and what constitute the groups of foes. If you're 8th level in 3.5e and the DM is still tossing mass formations of 6-18hp orcs at you, you'll still be able to inflict substantial damage upon them. (Then again, a fighter with great cleave will mow through 3-11/round as well) If, on the other hand, you face large packs of 32 hp Wargs (CR 2 so it takes 16 of them before it's supposed to be a difficult encounter and with a decent reflex save), you'll be unlikely to do deadly damage to more than one or two with one spell in turn 1 (which is probably your only chance to catch a large group of them in a fireball or ice storm). Similarly, if your DM tosses you up against six trolls (also a tough encounter), you'll probably have to hit with four or five fireballs in order to take down one--the damage from a single spell is unlikely to be more than maybe 20% of any single creature's hit points. And if you have a DM who'd rather put you face to face with a single advanced athach or owlbear with 200+ hit points, you can forget about damage spells making any difference at all.
 

AuraSeer

Prismatic Programmer
Bauglir said:
I heard a rumour that in 3.5e giants could throw rocks... really big ones. :p
Yeah, but they miss a lot; a fire giant has only +10/+5/+0 to hit with rocks. Consider that a 3.0 mage will have at least AC 25 (10 base +4 haste + 7 shield + 4 mage armor). After adding Dex bonus and range modifiers, the giant will likely need natural 20s to hit.

This is veering rather far from the topic, though.
 

aurellius

First Post
For those of you who were able to stay on topic thank you very much. Nothing was ever mentioned of Nerf-Nerf! nor debate of the changes being right or wrong, just whether my perception of the published tidbits was correct or if I was missing something.


Marcus...

However...
Many things about magic NEEDED to be be addressed in that combats revolving on a single action tend to be not fun [save/die].

No one wants to play a character that is useless/always outshone be it fighter or wizard or strange multiprc.
This to my experiene happens most when the party is not a TEAM.
 

Eraslin

First Post
Re: Magic NEEDED to be reduced.

rushlight said:
Or melee needed to be increased. I've been running a continous campaign since 2nd ed, through Skills and Powers, into 3e, and soon into 3.5.

One thing I've noticed in 3e is that an average mage will deal 2 or 3 times more damage out than an average meleer can, especially once you've gone above level 10 or so.

Sure, it's possible to really sit and tweak and fiddle and make a melee guy who can deal out decent damage under ideal conditions, but a mage can plop down equal amounts under average conditions. I'll illustrate further down.

Suffice it to say, as a DM I continually find myself balancing encounters based on the magic users. Whatever monster I'm throwing out needs to have the chance to survive more than a single round - otherwise what's the point? It seems to me the challenge of the game, the heart of combat, is the process whereby the players are CHALLENGED, and either rise up and defeat that challenge, or fail, regroup and learn something. If every combat is a single round affair, then just save yourselves some time, and mark down the XP without bothering to roll the dice. Hell, just go ahead, make yourself 20th level, declare you "won" D&D, and move on.

Here's something to think about:

Let's assume that there are two fights going on, each with an identical monster. I'll choose an average monster, a Fire Giant, which is a CR 10, common for a party of the level we're talking about. (Now I know that there are certain times when a mage just won't do, or a meleer just can't cut it, but we're talking about the usual, run-of-the-mill encounter here). We've got a 10th level fighter, and a 10th level mage, and we'll give each 5 rounds to deal damage.

Fighter: Let's assume that the fighter has a STR of 20 (+5) and wields a 2-handed +5 Shocking Greatsword. The Fire Giant has an AC of 21, so let's give our fighter Weapon focus/Spec, and Improved Crit (now 17-20, x2). So, that gives our fighter a +21/+16 to hit. Over 5 rounds, he'll get 5 chances at +21 (where there's a 5% chance to miss, by rolling a 1), and 5 chances at +16 (where there's a 20% chance to miss, by rolling a 4 or less). We'll assume that all 5 of the +21 attacks hit, and 4 of the +16 ones hit, given that 20% miss chance. So that's a total of 9 hits. Each of those 9 hits has a 20% chance to threaten a crit, so there's 2 crits, and we'll assume that he confirms those. So we have 7 regular hits, and 2 crits.

The first 7 hits do 2d6 (the greatsword), plus the 2-hand str bonus (+5 x 1.5 = 8, rounded up), along with the magic bonus (+5), and the Weapon Spec bonus (+2), and finally 1d6 for the Shocking. That's 3d6+15 total, for an average of 25 points each, or 175 total.

The last 2 crits do 25 points each as usual, plus another 2d6+15 each, for an additional 22 points. That's 47 points each, or 94 total.

Over all, that's 269 points of damage.


Mage: Now, our mage isn't all that good. He's got an INT of 15 (+2), the minimum needed to cast 5th level spells. He's got 3 feats: Heighten, Empower, Maximize, and Energy Substitution. He's got his combat spells memorized: 1st: Magic Missle x5, 2nd: Melf's Acid x5, 3rd: Haste, Fireball (as a Sonic spell) x2, 4th: Fireball (Heightned, as a Sonic spell) x3, 5th: Quickened Magic Missle x2.

Our mage isn't as good at rolling as the fighter, he rolls average.
Round one: Mage casts Haste, followed by a Melf's.
Round two: Melf's, followed by Melf's (haste) followed by Quickened Missile.
Round three: Fireball, Fireball, Quickened Missile.
Round four: Heightened Fireball, H: Fireball
Round five: H: Fireball, Magic Missile

So, let's see how much damage we did. We'll start with the Magic Missiles, since those give no save. Each one gives 5d4+5, or 17 points each, 3 times, for a total of 51. Next we'll do those Melf's Acids, and they get no saves either. Each does 2d4, plus another 2d4 every round for 4 rounds. That's 3 Melfs, for 6d4, plus 4 extra rounds for the first one, and 3 extra rounds for the second and third, for a total of 20d4 extra, or 26d4 total. That's a total of 65. Next there were 2 fireballs, which give a reflex save. Our DC is 15, but the giant just has a reflex save of +4, so there's a 45% chance of the giant making his save. We'll round that up to 50%, so he saves one and fails the other. That's 10d6, plus 5d6, or 53. Next are 3 more fireballs, heightened to 4th level. That reduces his change to save even more, so on average he'll save one and fail the others. That's another 25d6 for a total of 88 points of damage. The grand total of damage done is 204.


So the fighter did 65 points of damage more, but he did so with a much higher stat, and expensive magic weapons. Give that mage an equal value in magic items and stats (like a rod of maximization, or the like), and he'll quickly surpass the fighter. Rise up a few levels, and damage becomes irrelevant, since the mage can then just kill outright. Give him some useful feats that increase his DCs, and a better stat, and he'll get more of those spells through. Powergame him out by mixing in Prestige Classes, and it gets even more insane. It's difficult to add much more to a fighter.

Surely this wasn't a very accurate representation of random events, but I believe that it's close. If it at least gives you something to think about, that's good. Ask your DM (or yourself if you DM) how many times the monster dies to the mages and clerics before the fighters can get in more than a few hits, given they usually have to get in position first. Not to mention that those magic types have a whole host of utility spells, and protection spells. I don't really have a problem with many of the changes proposed.

Not intending to insult, but these sorts of arguements have always bugged me. Other than the obvious assumption that the mage must have been flying, and that the giant was too stupid to throw things at the mage (fireballs in the last round -- the giant hadn't closed to within 20' by then?!). These single encounters really don't demonstrate much, in my opinion.

The primary difference between the fighter and the mage, in your example, that I see is that when the fire giant's mate comes looking 10 minutes later the fighter actually stands a chance. The fighter only needs to chug a couple of healing potions, and he's set. The mage, on the other hand, has just blown through most of his spells for the day and is in a major bit of trouble (that is, assuming that the mage isn't flying or that the giant is too stupid to throw rocks, or something, at the mage).

In my experience the apparent power inherant in spellcasters is only a problem in games where there's usually only 1 (maybe 2) encounters in any given game day; this sort of scenario is ideal for any spellcaster because they can just blow through all of their good spells and not have to worry about the rest of the day. On the other hand, look at the relative performance of the two classes after they've just faught a small handful of battles in the same day. Nevermind the case where the groups' sleep is being constantly interrupted during the night by whatever natural predators exist in the world. The fighter can always chug a healing potion, or something equivalent, and be back in tip-top fighting shape (ready to take on the next challenge). The spellcaster needs to rest 'til the next morning to achieve the same status.

Just some food for thought,
Eraslin
 

Remove ads

Top