Post by Raj on Mar 16, 2016 19:17:54 GMT
I hope I lured enough lurkers all excited for a proposed increment to spells offensive power.
Instead, I'm just asking for some help to the weak double damage type option for direct damage, namely:
The things that make such spells unappealing are many: double damage type means double kickback; damage split between two different types means monsters flat resistances apply to both; half of the damage is not even boosted by lore.
The thing that in theory should make these spells usable is that doing two types of damage, there're good chances that enemies take ''something''. There lies the issue: enemies might take a very small amount of one or both types but it's hard to compete with the right damage spell for the encounter, and generally speaking spamming minor damage all around is not very efficient. You do not spam Ice storms on a bunch of cold-immune enemies just because the phisical damage is going to deal ''some damage'' (quite low against enemies that matter, in fact) for example, that's only asking for more kickback and there're good chances you have a better suited spell in your arsenal.
Numbers! Facts!
Ice Storm is level 4 and has no save; let compare a empowered Ice Storm (6) with a normal (so they share same spell level) Freezing Sphere (CL*d6 cold damage, lore boosted, save for half, level 6); CL 60 and 120 (maxed) lore for ease of calculations.
Lore
- Can be used to increase the damage of elemental damage spells. The minimum Lore to receive a bonus is 21, and the bonuses increase through Lore 120, which grants 100% of the possible bonus in the area.
Fyi, all current areas in the module allow for the full 100% damage boost, you can check yourself typing "!count loreboost" in game.
Empowered Ice Storm: 22d6 cold +100% lore, 20d6 bludgeoning damage, +50% empowered = avg 231 cold, 70 bludgeoning damage no save;
Freezing Sphere: 60d6 cold, +100% lore = avg 420 cold, save for half.
In practice, once you subtract monster resistances and assume you beat the enemy save often enough (quite common in a party in level appropriate areas), the Ice Storm gets even worse, and this is on a levelled ground using the same spell level as a comparison. It's already hard to justify using low level slots for damage spells.
You can also get 2% more damage upon completing all pre-LL tags, and 8% more after your first Abyss Prince win. But only on lore-boosted damage.
Flame Strike and Firestorm don't have a obvious spell comparison, but we can do something similar assuming we're a CL60 druid dealing with a fire-vulnerable foe where your choice is between:
Empowered Firestorm: 30d8 fire +100% lore, 30d8 divine = avg 270 fire, 135 divine, save for half
Elemental Swarm: 60d10 fire = avg 330 fire, save for half
Here we have to say a thing, finding a enemy vulnerable to both fire and divine is not very common, even in the relevant circumstance you might not want to memorize the very specific fire-based spell (because there might be fire/divine immune foes around as well, or because you're lazy and just fill all your 9s with swarms).
About Flamestrike, it has such a small aoe that it's hard to compare, but the damage is all but impressive, I guess you noticed yourself in game as well.
I posted a lazy proposal to address such underpowered spells some time ago here, with little feedback but overall looked like it was hard to give up on the cosmetic cool feeling of P&P iconic spells even if it made them unusable in the endgame.
Today Acaos quickly came up with the idea of letting such spells bypass part of the monster DR, and that would sure help against high resistant foes that atm take next to 0 split damage.
"Ignores up to CL points of cold and bludgeoning damage resistance on the target" added: I'm not sure what in the game could reach 60/- dr beside EB-protected casters, Abyss Lords or whatever nasty being is going to be introduced in PL areas, but CL/2 seemed more adequate to me. Making this thread to stimulate discussion, get new ideas, or to increase my post count while failing at improving my english, whatever.
Thinking about it, these spells could also work similar to BFM/DSM brands ("...Brands also drop Fire resistance by 2/- per 10 CL.") or AAs Imbue Arrows ("...When used by an Arcane Archer with a control class of Sorceror or Wizard this inflicts elemental vulnerability to the element used of CL / 3. ") with a sort of temporary debuff, or a non-stacking inflict of some sort.
Instead, I'm just asking for some help to the weak double damage type option for direct damage, namely:
Ice Storm
- Does (2 + (CL /3))d6 cold and (CL / 3)d6 bludgeoning to all targets, with the cold damage boosted by Lore, with no cap.
- Does (2 + (CL /3))d6 cold and (CL / 3)d6 bludgeoning to all targets, with the cold damage boosted by Lore, with no cap.
Fire Storm
- Does (CL / 2)d8 fire damage, boosted by Lore, and (CL / 2)d8 divine damage.
- Does (CL / 2)d8 fire damage, boosted by Lore, and (CL / 2)d8 divine damage.
Flame Strike
- Does (2 + (CL /3))d6 fire and (CL / 3)d6 slashing to all targets, with the fire damage boosted by Lore, with no cap.
- Does (2 + (CL /3))d6 fire and (CL / 3)d6 slashing to all targets, with the fire damage boosted by Lore, with no cap.
The things that make such spells unappealing are many: double damage type means double kickback; damage split between two different types means monsters flat resistances apply to both; half of the damage is not even boosted by lore.
The thing that in theory should make these spells usable is that doing two types of damage, there're good chances that enemies take ''something''. There lies the issue: enemies might take a very small amount of one or both types but it's hard to compete with the right damage spell for the encounter, and generally speaking spamming minor damage all around is not very efficient. You do not spam Ice storms on a bunch of cold-immune enemies just because the phisical damage is going to deal ''some damage'' (quite low against enemies that matter, in fact) for example, that's only asking for more kickback and there're good chances you have a better suited spell in your arsenal.
Numbers! Facts!
Ice Storm is level 4 and has no save; let compare a empowered Ice Storm (6) with a normal (so they share same spell level) Freezing Sphere (CL*d6 cold damage, lore boosted, save for half, level 6); CL 60 and 120 (maxed) lore for ease of calculations.
Lore
- Can be used to increase the damage of elemental damage spells. The minimum Lore to receive a bonus is 21, and the bonuses increase through Lore 120, which grants 100% of the possible bonus in the area.
Fyi, all current areas in the module allow for the full 100% damage boost, you can check yourself typing "!count loreboost" in game.
Empowered Ice Storm: 22d6 cold +100% lore, 20d6 bludgeoning damage, +50% empowered = avg 231 cold, 70 bludgeoning damage no save;
Freezing Sphere: 60d6 cold, +100% lore = avg 420 cold, save for half.
In practice, once you subtract monster resistances and assume you beat the enemy save often enough (quite common in a party in level appropriate areas), the Ice Storm gets even worse, and this is on a levelled ground using the same spell level as a comparison. It's already hard to justify using low level slots for damage spells.
You can also get 2% more damage upon completing all pre-LL tags, and 8% more after your first Abyss Prince win. But only on lore-boosted damage.
Flame Strike and Firestorm don't have a obvious spell comparison, but we can do something similar assuming we're a CL60 druid dealing with a fire-vulnerable foe where your choice is between:
Empowered Firestorm: 30d8 fire +100% lore, 30d8 divine = avg 270 fire, 135 divine, save for half
Elemental Swarm: 60d10 fire = avg 330 fire, save for half
Here we have to say a thing, finding a enemy vulnerable to both fire and divine is not very common, even in the relevant circumstance you might not want to memorize the very specific fire-based spell (because there might be fire/divine immune foes around as well, or because you're lazy and just fill all your 9s with swarms).
About Flamestrike, it has such a small aoe that it's hard to compare, but the damage is all but impressive, I guess you noticed yourself in game as well.
I posted a lazy proposal to address such underpowered spells some time ago here, with little feedback but overall looked like it was hard to give up on the cosmetic cool feeling of P&P iconic spells even if it made them unusable in the endgame.
Today Acaos quickly came up with the idea of letting such spells bypass part of the monster DR, and that would sure help against high resistant foes that atm take next to 0 split damage.
"Ignores up to CL points of cold and bludgeoning damage resistance on the target" added: I'm not sure what in the game could reach 60/- dr beside EB-protected casters, Abyss Lords or whatever nasty being is going to be introduced in PL areas, but CL/2 seemed more adequate to me. Making this thread to stimulate discussion, get new ideas, or to increase my post count while failing at improving my english, whatever.
Thinking about it, these spells could also work similar to BFM/DSM brands ("...Brands also drop Fire resistance by 2/- per 10 CL.") or AAs Imbue Arrows ("...When used by an Arcane Archer with a control class of Sorceror or Wizard this inflicts elemental vulnerability to the element used of CL / 3. ") with a sort of temporary debuff, or a non-stacking inflict of some sort.
