Balance For Irresistable Damage?

[FireLance]

That's an interesting take on it. I thought most people thought that casters were already overpowered compared to non-casters, right?

So rebalance the non-casters (see the Book of Nine Swords) or the casters (I have one or two ideas in that direction, based on the Book of Nine Swords).

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Wow. I never thought I would see the words "rebalance" and "Bo9S" in the same sentence unless it went something like this: "The Bo9S needs rebalanced."

But then again, there was a reason I didn't pick that one up. To each their own. I'm sure those who bought it and use it enjoy it, and I'm not complaining or pointing a finger. Just saying that my understanding of balance is not along those lines. I'd rather reign the casters back in that let everyone loose!

 

[FireLance]

Wow. I never thought I would see the words "rebalance" and "Bo9S" in the same sentence unless it went something like this: "The Bo9S needs rebalanced."

But then again, there was a reason I didn't pick that one up. To each their own. I'm sure those who bought it and use it enjoy it, and I'm not complaining or pointing a finger. Just saying that my understanding of balance is not along those lines. I'd rather reign the casters back in that let everyone loose!

There are different aspects of balance. Rystil Arden raised the problem of PC vs PC balance, in particular, spellcasters with non-spellcasters. To address this, you could reduce the power level of casters (as you suggested) or increase the power level of non-casters (e.g. by introducing material from the Book of Nine Swords). Either way, you may have to rebalance the challenges against the new power levels of the PCs - either to increase the challenge (if non-casters get more powerful) or to lower it (if spellcasters get less powerful), or you could just leave the challenge levels unchanged and give the PCs a slightly easier or slightly more difficult time. It all depends on what kind of game you want to run.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There are different aspects of balance. Rystil Arden raised the problem of PC vs PC balance, in particular, spellcasters with non-spellcasters. To address this, you could reduce the power level of casters (as you suggested) or increase the power level of non-casters (e.g. by introducing material from the Book of Nine Swords). Either way, you may have to rebalance the challenges against the new power levels of the PCs - either to increase the challenge (if non-casters get more powerful) or to lower it (if spellcasters get less powerful), or you could just leave the challenge levels unchanged and give the PCs a slightly easier or slightly more difficult time. It all depends on what kind of game you want to run.

Yup. Exactly.

 

[IceFractal]

I think you may be overstating how powerful irrestistable damage is. For instance, this spell would be weaker than Fireball, because there are more creatures who could fail the Reflex save than there are creatures with Evasion.

Undodgeable Flames
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Save: None

As fireball, except as above, and Undodgeable Flames does 1d6/2 levels damage (max 5d6).


If you reduce it to a single creature and make the damage untyped, it will again be weaker or equal, as there are at least as many multi-foe encounters as fire-resistant encounters.

So already, we're well on the way to an unresistable spell, and if anything getting weaker rather than more powerful. It's not an impossible concept.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think you may be overstating how powerful irrestistable damage is. For instance, this spell would be weaker than Fireball, because there are more creatures who could fail the Reflex save than there are creatures with Evasion.

Undodgeable Flames
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Save: None

As fireball, except as above, and Undodgeable Flames does 1d6/2 levels damage (max 5d6).


If you reduce it to a single creature and make the damage untyped, it will again be weaker or equal, as there are at least as many multi-foe encounters as fire-resistant encounters.

So already, we're well on the way to an unresistable spell, and if anything getting weaker rather than more powerful. It's not an impossible concept.

That allows SR, Evasion, and Fire Resistance.

 

[FireLance]

That allows SR, Evasion, and Fire Resistance.

Saving Throw: None does not allow evasion, and making it untyped damage (in exchage for affecting one opponent instead of multiple opponents) just leaves SR.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Saving Throw: None does not allow evasion, and making it untyped damage (in exchage for affecting one opponent instead of multiple opponents) just leaves SR.

Oops, you're right that he took out the save. If he makes it to untyped damage on one target, it's certainly weaker than Fireball, yes (in fact, it's pretty much exactly the Magic Missile spell--you lose multi-targetting and force benefits in exchange for Shield not affecting it), but it leaves SR which is critically important: Removing the last balancing factor is worth MUCH more than removing the others.

 

[FireLance]

Oops, you're right that he took out the save. If he makes it to untyped damage on one target, it's certainly weaker than Fireball, yes (in fact, it's pretty much exactly the Magic Missile spell--you lose multi-targetting and force benefits in exchange for Shield not affecting it), but it leaves SR which is critically important: Removing the last balancing factor is worth MUCH more than removing the others.

This is where I'm not entirely clear: is SR important because it's SR, or is it important because it is the last thing that could negate or mitigate damage from the spell?

If it's the former, SR doesn't always come into play, which will make other spells (empowered magic missile, for example) more effective against opponents without significant SR.

If it's the latter, would changing the order of operations affect the outcome? Suppose there was a spell that did untyped damage to a single target and ignored SR but allowed a saving throw for half damage (say, blast of flame from Complete Arcane modified in the same way as fireball in the above example). Now, we reduce the damage by half and allow no saving throw. Does that unbalance the spell?

 

[Rystil Arden]

This is where I'm not entirely clear: is SR important because it's SR, or is it important because it is the last thing that could negate or mitigate damage from the spell?

If it's the former, SR doesn't always come into play, which will make other spells (empowered magic missile, for example) more effective against opponents without significant SR.

If it's the latter, would changing the order of operations affect the outcome? Suppose there was a spell that did untyped damage to a single target and ignored SR but allowed a saving throw for half damage (say, blast of flame from Complete Arcane modified in the same way as fireball in the above example). Now, we reduce the damage by half and allow no saving throw. Does that unbalance the spell?

I'd say the only saving grace of such a spell is the possibility of opponents with Evasion (which are relatively rare) because otherwise even if everyone makes the save all the time, the spell is sort of stealthily a spell that gives no options to escape it (but for half damage). For instance, let's say I found the 15d2 spell you proposed to be overpowered (average damage 22.5). Let's say you made the new spell do 1d8 per 2 levels up to 10d8 (I picked this number because it rounds nicely). This is secretly the same 15d2 spell from before with a chance of doing double damage on the off-chance the save is failed (unless the opponent has Evasion).

Because of Evasion, the latter would be slightly more acceptable, but I'd still be strongly opposed. Make it Reflex: None and we'll talk