Damage Equivalence

[JRRNeiklot]

Gonna repeat my question here. What would you do to judge where a given spell should be ranked? If damage isn't a good metric, what metric would you prefer? Mark I eyeball? Considering the railing over the inclusion of errata, I would think that's a bad idea.

So, if not damage as a metric, then what?

A damage metric seems to imply that the game is all about combat, when charm person is - in my experience - generally used outside of combat, though not exclusively. I would look toward the game world the game is supposed to present. Is charm person a spell apprentices learn and possibly abuse the hell out of? If so, it should be first level. Presenting an accurate milieu should come first, balance be damned.

 

[Sirot]

A damage metric seems to imply that the game is all about combat, when charm person is - in my experience - generally used outside of combat, though not exclusively. I would look toward the game world the game is supposed to present. Is charm person a spell apprentices learn and possibly abuse the hell out of? If so, it should be first level. Presenting an accurate milieu should come first, balance be damned.

There can be separate uses for in-combat and out-of-combat. Alternatively, they went with the out-of-combat use of charm person and estimated that if used in a fight, it is worth about 10.5 points of damage.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Makes sense to me, at least when we are talking about spells relevant in combat.

Another useful metric is always: "When do we want people to have access to this tool".

Scry, Teleport, Raise Dead, Plane Shift, Polymorph, Dominate?

(Dominate, for example, is an ability you could probably put in as a 1st level spell, if you make it weak enough. But do you want Wizards to control other people's mind like that at 1st level? Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.)

 

[Hassassin]

Gonna repeat my question here. What would you do to judge where a given spell should be ranked? If damage isn't a good metric, what metric would you prefer? Mark I eyeball? Considering the railing over the inclusion of errata, I would think that's a bad idea.

So, if not damage as a metric, then what?

Isn't spell level supposed to be the metric for ranking spells?

Basically, having a standard for 1st level spells and a progression of Nth level = some function of N-1th level should be enough. Even if you have damage as a metric you still need a way to connect it to spell level.

 

[Guest 85555]

There can be separate uses for in-combat and out-of-combat. Alternatively, they went with the out-of-combat use of charm person and estimated that if used in a fight, it is worth about 10.5 points of damage.

This kind of division is very problematic imo. There is a way to do it and preserve believability, but on the heels of 4e, this strikes me as an idea that could turn off a lot of players. I want feel like i am casting the same spell whether i am in or outside combat, not like the spell has two modes.

Really they should start with flavor then work toward balance through stuff like casting time once flavor is etablished.

 

[Hussar]

A damage metric seems to imply that the game is all about combat, when charm person is - in my experience - generally used outside of combat, though not exclusively. I would look toward the game world the game is supposed to present. Is charm person a spell apprentices learn and possibly abuse the hell out of? If so, it should be first level. Presenting an accurate milieu should come first, balance be damned.

So, you're comfortable with WOTC telling you what your game world should look like?

 

[Hassassin]

So, you're comfortable with WOTC telling you what your game world should look like?

They do that in any case, as long as there's for example an equipment list with prices. You can always overrule them.

A first level spell is more common than a 9th level one, so their effects on campaign worlds should be considered. I'd like more advice on world building in general.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmm, outside of combat, spells and rituals have all kinds of effects... there it needs to be balanced against skills.

In combate, if charm person allows you to trick an opponent into attacking a different, the most uncreative use of the spell will not break the game. One attack and ok. It actually should be on the lower end of the damage spectrum.

Here, the metric is damage. HP is all important here.
Outside of combat, a single fireball can potentially open or close a door or hallway, effectively multiplying the potential damage by large (you avoid combat entirely)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So, you're comfortable with WOTC telling you what your game world should look like?

I'm comfortable with them telling me what the DEFAULT game world looks like, yes.

 

[avin]

What's the damage equivalent of comprehend languages?

Vanish + Doom

Btw, I'm surprised you gave up a long-running 4e campaign just over that. You would have had to have been at least 10th level to run into blinding+stunning effects in the same attack.

Plus, there is no such thing as "3 rounds". It's always either (save ends) or until the end of the attacker's next turn.

Frankly, I think the DM tricked you by playing fast and loose with the rules, and pushed you into a system that does have those kind of attacks, and away from one that doesn't.

Same here. I Guess this DM cheated

That said, one of my friends abandoned my campaign after failing 4 times on a Save End, I guess it was a stun. (In fact he was jealous everybody was doing similar damages hehehe).

Didn't WotC briefly mention that Encounter based powers were non-combat and thus probably correspond to the 'Social' component of the game?

This in mind you could 'Charm' the guard captain to guide you through the castle.

I won't mind that.