Balance For Irresistable Damage?

[Rystil Arden]

Eh. I HATE that aspect of D&D. It just complicates things for no good reason, making encounter planning and chargen at high levels a chore.

I wouldn't have a problem with an 8th level spell that did some amount of d6 damage, no save/SR/resist. In fact, it's far preferable to Otto's irresistible dance, which depending on the target and SR roll, can end the fight as an exciting encounter right there. Damage is just damage, and doesn't require using exotic monsters, mandatory team members or magic items to counter.

Damage is indeed damage. So it should apply at least two of full AC, DR, SR, and energy resistances, depending on what type it is, and perhaps also a saving throw depending on circumstances. These are the defenses against damage. Blitzkrieg and big crazy attack where you blow your gun is already overvalued in D&D--by negating defenses, you favour it more (and I know you aren't for blitzkrieg and big crazy attack where you blow your gun because I've seen you post to that effect in another thread)

 

[hong]

Damage is indeed damage. So it should apply at least two of full AC, DR, SR, and energy resistances, depending on what type it is, and perhaps also a saving throw depending on circumstances. These are the defenses against damage. Blitzkrieg and big crazy attack where you blow your gun is already overvalued in D&D--by negating defenses, you favour it more (and I know you aren't for blitzkrieg and big crazy attack where you blow your gun because I've seen you post to that effect in another thread)

Note I said "some amount of d6", with the exact amount of d6 left undefined. By having it not require an attack roll, bypass DR, and not have SR, you effectively make the minimum amount of d6 to obtain a usable spell smaller. It's guaranteed damage, thus fewer dice need to be rolled to satisfy people.

For example, I could make a spell that does 10d6, with a save for half. Or I could make a spell that does 5d6, no save. The latter is more conservative in that it does less damage, but more consistently. It also neatly avoids any twinking tricks that people might use to boost their save DCs into the stratosphere. The same principle applies with attack rolls, SR, and whatnot.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Note I said "some amount of d6", with the exact amount of d6 left undefined. By having it not require an attack roll, bypass DR, and not have SR, you effectively make the minimum amount of d6 to obtain a usable spell smaller. It's guaranteed damage, thus fewer dice need to be rolled to satisfy people.

For example, I could make a spell that does 10d6, with a save for half. Or I could make a spell that does 5d6, no save. The latter is more conservative in that it does less damage, but more consistently. It also neatly avoids any twinking tricks that people might use to boost their save DCs into the stratosphere. The same principle applies with attack rolls, SR, and whatnot.

The 5d6 no save option is actually not always worse--it can't be Evasioned or Mettled. Saves are also the tidiest option to choose to eliminate because (assuming no Evasion or Mettle) you can just say "I'll give the enemy a free save and make the spell no save" and still do half.

With attack rolls and SR, giving the enemy a free ride makes you do 0 damage, so you actually have to decide how often you think they can stop you, which will eliminate the variation between enemies. Cut the damage in two to remove SR because you assume SR will be 11+your caster level? Against SR 16+your caster level, you're doing double damage now.

The trouble is that whereas before if there's a turtle-monster (high in all defenses, relatively weak attacks) that was balanced to be equally challenging as a blitzkrieg monster (awful defenses, but does tons of damage), you can make the turtle into a joke with your unstoppable spell.

 

[FireLance]

If the PCs don't have Shield, Brooch of Shielding, or SR, that's completely their own fault--100 or 200 1st-level Wizards with Magic Missile prepared should not be an issue for them, but it will be if they've left themselves exposed like that.

You know, I think that Irresistable Damage might actually be a good thing - since all these protections aren't going to work, 20th-level characters can focus on the big picture of finding out in advance where all the groups of 200 7th-level wizards are going to be and avoiding them instead of walking around with all their defences up all the time.

 

[hong]

The 5d6 no save option is actually not always worse--it can't be Evasioned or Mettled.

I didn't say it was always worse. I said it was conservative, ie, less damage on average but more consistent.

Saves are also the tidiest option to choose to eliminate because (assuming no Evasion or Mettle) you can just say "I'll give the enemy a free save and make the spell no save" and still do half.

I don't particularly like evasion and mettle either, since they whiff your attacks. It would be much better if, say, they needed some resource points to use, like ToB maneuvers but generalised.

With attack rolls and SR, giving the enemy a free ride makes you do 0 damage, so you actually have to decide how often you think they can stop you, which will eliminate the variation between enemies. Cut the damage in two to remove SR because you assume SR will be 11+your caster level? Against SR 16+your caster level, you're doing double damage now.

The problem with SR, especially at high levels, is that it's often a fallback for otherwise-instakill spells. As a DM I never use Otto's for instance, because I know that nobody in the group has SR. Similarly the players never use Otto's, because it's makes the fight a walkover if the bad guys don't have SR and that's boring. Even if they do have SR, twinking out your caster level check isn't that hard, and in the end it still devolves down to a single die roll.

Yes, Otto's has an attack roll. This doesn't change the basic problem.

The trouble is that whereas before if there's a turtle-monster (high in all defenses, relatively weak attacks) that was balanced to be equally challenging as a blitzkrieg monster (awful defenses, but does tons of damage), you can make the turtle into a joke with your unstoppable spell.

Well, that's a problem with the turtle monster, and with extreme builds in general. Like you said in the other thread, something doesn't become balanced just because there's a counter; and similarly, something doesn't become unbalanced just because some obscure build or monster out there can't counter it.

 

[hong]

You know, I think that Irresistable Damage might actually be a good thing - since all these protections aren't going to work, 20th-level characters can focus on the big picture of finding out in advance where all the groups of 200 7th-level wizards are going to be and avoiding them instead of walking around with all their defences up all the time.

Exactly. Having to think of all the possible permutations of instakill attacks, and then work around them, is tedious in the extreme.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The problem with SR, especially at high levels, is that it's often a fallback for otherwise-instakill spells. As a DM I never use Otto's for instance, because I know that nobody in the group has SR. Similarly the players never use Otto's, because it's makes the fight a walkover if the bad guys don't have SR and that's boring. Even if they do have SR, twinking out your caster level check isn't that hard, and in the end it still devolves down to a single die roll.

Yes, Otto's has an attack roll. This doesn't change the basic problem.

Otto's is also prevented by Mind Blank, a 24-hour-long spell of the same level, and if you have a Psion in your party, the whole group will probably have it up. I'd say that combined with SR and touch attacks is a reasonable suite of defenses

Well, that's a problem with the turtle monster, and with extreme builds in general. Like you said in the other thread, something doesn't become balanced just because there's a counter; and similarly, something doesn't become unbalanced just because some obscure build or monster out there can't counter it.

I didn't say the turtle monster was crappy other than defense--maybe it still has a reasonable attack power (just lower than the Blitzkrieg monster), but the expectation is that its defenses would actually matter, whereas the Blitzkrieg monster's wouldn't--they figure it'll stay in the fight a bit longer and make up the lost damage, but it won't.

 

[FireLance]

The trouble is that whereas before if there's a turtle-monster (high in all defenses, relatively weak attacks) that was balanced to be equally challenging as a blitzkrieg monster (awful defenses, but does tons of damage), you can make the turtle into a joke with your unstoppable spell.

It might just be me, but I think that turtle-monster would make a really boring encounter. Back in my 2e days, I had a cleric vs cleric fight where both parties missed each other about 90% of the time (good armor, bad attacks, bad damage). After several straight rounds of you miss-I miss, both I and the player were desperate for it to end (but we played it out to the final conclusion - we were in college and we had time). If nothing else, irresistable damage will cut down on that.

 

[hong]

Otto's is also prevented by Mind Blank, a 24-hour-long spell of the same level, and if you have a Psion in your party, the whole group will probably have it up.

_IF_ I have a psion in my party. I do not intend to manipulate the makeup of the group just so I can be safe against one spell.

I'd say that combined with SR and touch attacks is a reasonable suite of defenses

_IF_ I have a psion in my party.

I didn't say the turtle monster was crappy other than defense--maybe it still has a reasonable attack power (just lower than the Blitzkrieg monster), but the expectation is that its defenses would actually matter, whereas the Blitzkrieg monster's wouldn't--they figure it'll stay in the fight a bit longer and make up the lost damage, but it won't.

Well, the turtle monster will just have to suck it up, won't it? It's still going to be taking less damage than the blitzkrieg monster against everything else out there, and one irresistible-damage spell, properly designed, won't kill it before it gets to hit back. If it _can't_ hit back, well, see what I said about extreme builds.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It might just be me, but I think that turtle-monster would make a really boring encounter. Back in my 2e days, I had a cleric vs cleric fight where both parties missed each other about 90% of the time (good armor, bad attacks, bad damage). After several straight rounds of you miss-I miss, both I and the player were desperate for it to end (but we played it out to the final conclusion - we were in college and we had time). If nothing else, irresistable damage will cut down on that.

I see you're thinking the total extreme with the turtle monster also. I'm talking about a critter that has relatively high defenses all around, say enough SR, AC, and saves, to give everyone in the party no better than a 25% chance of nabbing it, except the Fighter with her early iteratives, which will let it stick around a bit, and the critter does damage that the party notices as damaging and dangerous but isn't immediately life threatening every time it uses it like a Dragon's breath weapon if you don't have immunity or heavy resistances of some sort. Maybe the turtle bites you hard.