Blaster caster vs. Theorycraft caster - a proof?

[harpy]

After a PFS game last night my friend and I had a hour long car drive home and we were just talking about the game.

At one point he raised the issue of "why do people think blasters suck?"

I started to say, "On every forum I've ever read over the last decade they've always said they suck."

He interjects, "Yeah, I've read that guy treantmonk's guide to wizards, but I just didn't buy it. I sat down and did the math and it seemed like fireballs were great."

I then gave him some broad explanations of what theorycraft has said... that it has to do with action economy, that damage progression is outstripped by the system, that min-maxed DCs outstrip saves, etc.

None of it was moving him. I told him to go ask this on the forums and he said, "Oh no! I don't post on forums. If you're on there six hours a day just find me one of these threads that demonstrates all of the math that shows that blaster wizards just can't keep up with the game."

So I've been searching the forums, but honestly, I can't find any grand treatise that breaks this down into elaborate proof-like examples with DPRish analysis, comparisons to melee bruisers, level by level damage progression, etc.

Is there anything like this out there?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Battlefield control isn't rooted in math, and neither is blasting. It comes down to "what makes better use of my time?"

Blasting is generally a poor move because a monster with 1 HP is still a monster that's attacking you. A monster that's on the other side of a wall or is being grappled by tentacles may have all it's HP, but then, so do all your characters, and you can pick them out and kill them one at a time.

In other words, fireball seems really cool when it takes like fifty orcs down to half their life, except now you still have fifty orcs that are attacking you, whereas a wall spell could've split it down to ten orcs attacking you.

 

[Fajita McJones]

Blasting with a Fireball is way more fun and dramatic than casting Haste and watching your party members hit stuff more. So there.

 

[Celtavian]

re

In general blasters don't keep up with melee or ranged. With crits and feats like Power Attack and Deadly Aim, melee and ranged damage far outstrips caster damage on single targets. It's been this way since 3.5. 3.0 was balanced because Haste allowed a second spell to be cast which was great for blasters. They removed this because casting two spells in many circumstances other than damage was overly powerful, especially when you factor in Quicken Spell. But they still haven't reigned in feats like Power Attack and Deadly Aim when it comes to crits.

DR is fairly meaningless in D&D past say lvl 8 to 10. Toss in spells like Versatile Weapon and enhancement bonuses cutting through DR and you have melee and ranged attackers ripping through enemies while blaster casters don't do much.

I play an evocker using empowered Scorching Ray with Point Blank Shot. I managed to do 40 points of damage in a round unloading on a creature. That's pretty good with a 2nd lvl spell at lvl 9. That was one and 1/3rd melee hits with Power Attack. And less than half a crit hit by the Great Axe wielder whoaverages 100 points a crit with his +1 thundering Greataxe.

I'm never sure what game designers are thinking of when they work so hard to reign in arcane caster damage and not bother to reign in melee and ranged damage. It seems like they are always adding ways for melee and ranged damage dealers to do more. While always making sure the arcane casters can't match their damage output with blast spells.

So arcane casters have to rely on effect spells that take the target out rather than do damage. As levels rise those type of spells are more effective than damage spells. Spells are limited resource, whereas melee and ranged attacks are for the most part not. So why bother unloading blast spells for meager damage compared to the melee and ranged physical attackers when you can feel those slots with powerful effect spells that take something when they hit rather than do damage. Especially with saves being weaker than hit points.

 

[Tovec]

To Celtavian, this is a pathfinder board right?
In PF power attack is:

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Meaning at 9th level (if I recall correctly that's what you said you were) the fighter or barb should only be doing +6 damage with a weapon, for a -3 - no longer the massive -20 for +60 of 3.5. How are they routinely doing more than 40 damage without something that isn't regularly allowed at 9th level? I'm really curious because I have an orc barbarian who BARELY cracks 100 on a crit and that's at level 10 with a shocking, thundering, flaming, +1 warhammer wielded in two hands, with power attack with a raging str of 30.

3.5 days this could be done fairly easily. I don't see much way of doing it in Pathfinder anymore. Yes a full attack, but I don't often get full attacks anymore.

 

[Glade Riven]

...Deadly Aim...

While the description does say the feat doesn't work with touch attacks, if I were DMing I'd probably allow it to be applied to range-touch attacks.

 

[Celtavian]

re

To Celtavian, this is a pathfinder board right?
In PF power attack is:


Meaning at 9th level (if I recall correctly that's what you said you were) the fighter or barb should only be doing +6 damage with a weapon, for a -3 - no longer the massive -20 for +60 of 3.5. How are they routinely doing more than 40 damage without something that isn't regularly allowed at 9th level? I'm really curious because I have an orc barbarian who BARELY cracks 100 on a crit and that's at level 10 with a shocking, thundering, flaming, +1 warhammer wielded in two hands, with power attack with a raging str of 30.

3.5 days this could be done fairly easily. I don't see much way of doing it in Pathfinder anymore. Yes a full attack, but I don't often get full attacks anymore.

Add up everything.


Fighter Two-hander lvl 9

Str 20

+7 str
+9 power att (2h weapon)
+2 spec
+2 weapon training
+1 weapon

+21 damage for first attack
Second and third attack due to haste:

+10 str
+9 power att
+2 spec
+2 weapon training
+1 weapon

+24

Crit: 72 damage+3d12+2d8= 100 average damage (97 with first hit)


And it keeps on multiplying and getting worse the higher level he gets with double power attack at lvl 15 and more attacks benefiting from backswing.

What does an arcane caster have to match this?

I'm already using Empower Spell.


Let's face it. For pure damage, the deck is stacked with melee, and two-hander fighter is at the top by a huge margin. No one can touch a two-hander fighter for damage.


At lvl 20 power attack is +18 for a regular two-hander fighter and +24 for a dedicated 2-hander fighter.

Toss in spells like haste, rage, enhancement bonus to str, giant form and bard bonuses, and an arcane caster can't keep up with blast spells unless it is a whole bunch of targets. Even then it is mostly a waste of a spell when the melee can tear through them one or two a round.