Damage Equivalence

[Szatany]

What's the damage equivalent of comprehend languages?

It's probably low. It allows you to use social abilities against opponents who use languages you otherwise don't know, so there is some value. But probably not much.

 

[Tilenas]

What's the damage equivalent of comprehend languages?

Was it humor? Please let it be humor.

My thoughts exactly. I think the designers are havin a laugh right now reading our reactions.

There needs to be some mechanism for the game designers to judge the relative power of spells/abilities.

Problem is that when you let slip that the game is being constructed with consistent principles, some of the old-timers scream blue murder that "it's not what Gary intended".

Went over the top there, didn't you? I doubt many old-timey players will disagree that there needs to be some consistency. Damage is the real red rag here.

 

[Hassassin]

The transcript says 10.5 damage, BTW.

 

[Morrus]

The transcript says 10.5 damage, BTW.

It originally said 105. I fixed the typo after about 50 people PMd me to point it out! Yes, the correct figure is 10.5, not 105.

 

[ferratus]

I might disagree that damage might not be the best metric, but there definately needs to be some reorganization of spells.

Playing 3e a short time after playing 4e was a revelation. 4e taught me that any spell that took away actions from your enemies was the best spell you can cast, and there are a lot of spells that take away actions at low levels. So my cleric started taking actions away from people left and right, and reduced the DM's enemies to helplessness. I definately broke the game.

 

[Sammael]

10.5 is the average of 3d6, which I believe will be the ballpark of level 2 spells.

 

[Szatany]

10.5 is the average of 3d6, which I believe will be the ballpark of level 2 spells.

Well, if you have a single 1st level spell slot per day (or even three), I see no problem with that spell dealing 3d6 damage to a single target at 1st level.

 

[Hassassin]

Well, if you have a single 1st level spell slot per day (or even three), I see no problem with that spell dealing 3d6 damage to a single target at 1st level.

Especially if a greatsword deals around 2d6+6.

 

[Tilenas]

I might disagree that damage might not be the best metric, but there definately needs to be some reorganization of spells.

Playing 3e a short time after playing 4e was a revelation. 4e taught me that any spell that took away actions from your enemies was the best spell you can cast, and there are a lot of spells that take away actions at low levels. So my cleric started taking actions away from people left and right, and reduced the DM's enemies to helplessness. I definately broke the game.

Incidentally the point where we stopped playing 4e literally mid-session and made new 3.5 characters was when the DM was told something like "you're stunned (save ends), then you're blinded for 3 rounds".

 

[Guest 85555]

From http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-assassins-wizards.html

Now this little line really caught my attention. Ignoring the actual number there, since we have no context in which to place it, I'm thinking that's not a half bad metric to judge things. Start with the baseline that everything is damage, and then peg effects relative to that.

Thoughts?

I dont like this aporoach. The metric should be how useful is the spell. Don't measure everything against combat...that is where 4E went wrong for a lot of folks. And don't water down Charm Person, because somewhere, sometime, some person may use it to get around a GM's encounter. The classic spells were great. Bring them back, make some minor tweaks for balance. They have tried the uber balanced aporoach to D&D and it was less popular than the competely broken version (3E). I say shoot for what 2E had and make better use of things like casting time and side effects as a balancer. But don't go overboard with balance. For a lot of us that just makes the game unfun.