Is Spell Blasting Doomed to Suck Even More in Next than it did in 3.x?

[Dice4Hire]

That is one thing I always hated about 3.5. Buff buff buff and the players really screamed at the DM if the monsters did not serve themselves on a platter once buffing was done.

 

[Dandu]

Yes. You have made the choice to be hyper-invested in a single weapon, and you have spent FOUR feats on it to get +2 to hit and +4 damage. If you wanted to be more versatile, I can think of a lot of places you could invest those feats. Would your fighter be just useless with +2 less to hit and +4 less damage? If we drop it to +1/+2, he can have the same +1/+2 with his Longbow. If +1/+2 is so valuable, why isn't it valuable on the bow?

I am not saying that WF and WS are valuable - in fact, they are terrible feats - but that is how WotC seems to think you should build a fighter, and is presumably how most people do it.

With those to hit bonuses, I need a 10/15/20 to hit. Not loving my second and third shots. Maybe I should keep moving to stay between it and my caster friend, while harrying it with a bit of damage each round. Or maybe I should use that Rapid Shot feat. If I fire one arrow, I have a 55% shot at one hit. A full attack action without RS gives me a 70% chance at hitting at least once, while Rapid Shot bumps that to 77%. or I Delay and hope it comes in to attack... Rapid Shot gives me just shy 11 average damage per round - not huge, but way better than the 0 I get if I just stand there and whine that it won't come in range of my hyperspecialized melee brute. What if I dump the three L1 archery feats in favour of WF, WS and GWF, Longbow? Now I have an extra +2 to hit and damage, and 82% likely to get at least one hit per round. Average damage now 11.5 instead of 9.5, so I average 13.8 damage per round. Maybe I get rid of Seeking in favour of an elemental Burst damage to get some more damage in when forced to archery.

Elemental burst damage only triggers on a critical hit, which does not happen very often. One of the energy damage enhancements is better, but it only adds 1d6 of an energy that may be resisted.

Of course, the only arrows that matter are the ones that hit, and if shooting at someone from a distance, cover becomes a very real threat, so I think Seeking is better than an additional d6 of sometimes damage.

Anyways, if your only choices are to use a bow for 11 damage per round or do 0 damage, of course the bow is a better choice. However, in a game with teleportation and mounts that can travel hundreds of feet per move, that is something of a false dichotomy.

It's a lot more effective than whining "my melee brute is useless", though. Quite a bit more fun as well.

I agree, I merely suggest that we be honest and upfront about what happens when a fighter with minimal investment in archery picks up a bow.

Exactly. At L10, your BAB is +10. A 14 to 20 STR is a +3 difference - that doesn't seem make or break by comparison. The Mighty Cleric has a +7 BAB - the exact same 3 point difference - and he's viewed as overpowered. Clearly, +3 doesn't make that substantial a difference.

This makes about as much sense as saying that the Mighty Wizard has a +5 BAB, and he is viewed as overpowered, so clear lt a +5 does not make a substantial difference.

The cleric is not considered overpowered because of his 3/4th BAB, he is considered overpowered because of the magical abilities he can bring to a fight. Clerics who dabble in archery aren't considered terribly effective, though clerics who focus on archery (with Zen Archery, etc) can be quite strong.

I guess a 10th level spell slot for a persistent Divine Power should be no problem for most clerics...I also note that two of the three spells have had their benefits reduced, according to D&DWiki, so some of that is solved.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I always love the "spot them far away, buff for a few minute" tactic. With all that magic in the world, I'd expect a competent tactician to get "spotted" far away.

"What are they doing now?"
"Still gesturing and jabbering, sir - oh wait, they've stopped. Looks like they're headed this way."
"OK, men, pull back. We'll retreat back to the battleground we prepare earlier, five minutes back, while their spells dissipate."

Two old red dragons engaging a party of 7? I would say they were pretty confident. It's not easy to spot that somebody are level 16 or whatever, especially when they start of with level 1-4 spells.

Now, there were two dragons coming in on us, and we spotted them about 3 dragon flight moves away, or 12 seconds of flying. They double moved the first round and used a move action the second round and were on us. We had a bit of an oversized party, so you had one wizard blasting and two clerics buffing in addition to the archer pelting them with arrows. Dragons are ok at strafing, but not great, so to get off a full attack, they have to get into melee range or just fly away.

The fight, in typical DnD 3.x fashion lasted something like 4 rounds, including the two buffing rounds. One of the dragons engaged on round 2 (hovering to get of a full attack the next round close to the ground) and the other was a bit more cautious and engaged on round 3 (hovering in the air).

I guess a 10th level spell slot for a persistent Divine Power should be no problem for most clerics...I also note that two of the three spells have had their benefits reduced, according to D&DWiki, so some of that is solved.

Btw, I never got to use persistant spell on this character, I went for Quicken spell, It's why I mention casting one of my buff spells each round (casting air walk and such with my standard action). Persistant spell is probably most useful on Divine favour. I know all the spells got nerfed from 3.0 to 3.5 and nerfed again, but even the nerfed versions are pretty awesome, especially at high levels when you have like 20-30 spell slots and no way of getting them cast in combat anyway, so you can burn high level slots on quickened versions.

If I remember correctly, we used bless+prayer+haste+[dragonlance spell here] which all give different stacking bonuses that give a total of +5 to hit and +1 damage to hit. Not often all of those were active at the same time though.

 

[Ahnehnois]

and the players really screamed at the DM if the monsters did not serve themselves on a platter once buffing was done.

That seems a little naive of them.

Anything that's fair game for the players is fair game for the DM, and it's in his job description to challenge them. I wonder if all those players who expect to win easily have ever tried a game where they do. It can be pretty boring.

 

[N'raac]

Two old red dragons engaging a party of 7? I would say they were pretty confident. It's not easy to spot that somebody are level 16 or whatever, especially when they start of with level 1-4 spells.

Why are they bothering to engage a party of 7 tiny little humans? Presumably, they have some horses, so maybe there's a nice, light snack in there. And, being Evil, terrorizing the little guys may be fun. They're overconfident by nature, so swooping down to melee makes sense. Let's go with a nice, light snack combined with possible treasure and just being cruel by nature. However, I add the caveat that this makes them a random encounter, not an important aspect to the story, and those should be more speed bumps than dangerous challenges.

Now, there were two dragons coming in on us, and we spotted them about 3 dragon flight moves away, or 12 seconds of flying. They double moved the first round and used a move action the second round and were on us. We had a bit of an oversized party, so you had one wizard blasting and two clerics buffing in addition to the archer pelting them with arrows. Dragons are ok at strafing, but not great, so to get off a full attack, they have to get into melee range or just fly away.

So, you spot them 1,200 feet away. Not bad. Were you actively looking for things in the sky?

The fight, in typical DnD 3.x fashion lasted something like 4 rounds, including the two buffing rounds. One of the dragons engaged on round 2 (hovering to get of a full attack the next round close to the ground) and the other was a bit more cautious and engaged on round 3 (hovering in the air).

So you see them what, 1/3 of a mile away, and they can't see you casting spells (whoa - magic - reassess tactics!). And you are using your actions to buff. Did you not dismount? Were the horses not affected by the Frightful Presence of the Dragons? If there are no horses, they also spotted these little tiny bipeds from 1/3 mile away and chose to attack?

So they both take the Hover feat, not a combat feat? No spells cast at them in those first two rounds? OK, Round Three the bipeds attack and, surprise, are highly effective. So the first one stays in melee and the second drops down to engage? Not the tactics suggested by a 20 INT, 21 WIS, 20 CHA to me, at least. They use strategies worked out ahead of time, and that's the best they can come up with? Sure a full attack is better that a flyby - but it doesn't expose them to counterattack.

Neither thinks to Crush the little creatures so they can't run away? Its 11th level sorcerer spells are useless? It's too stupid to fly away and strafe after taking 3 digits of damage in six seconds? Seems like the PCs get all the benefits of tactics and planning, but the 20 INT, 21 WIS dragons just fly into the grinder.

Why can't the dragons also have Haste? After all, a 20 CHA Sorcerer has over 30 spell slots - he can never use them all. Slows and Holds to keep those soon to be panicked hors d'ouvres still seems like a reasonable tactic. The latter can be cast from 200' away, so the Hovering second dragon has something to do. They're still moving? A hint they are more powerful than first believed, perhaps? Revise tactics? Dispel Magic (also from 200' away) a few times? Use it to Counterspell (to cruelly frustrate and terrorize the little mammals)? What - they still cast the spell? Another clue they are a powerful force, and we should revise our tactics.

If the monsters used tactics half as effective as PC's they'd become more a threat worthy of two CR 20 opponents (which should be expected to use 20% of the resources of a party of 7 L20 characters -not tear through them like a hot knife through butter) and less a speed bump generously provided to a group of buffers.

They're malicious, cruel and overconfident. Why close right away? Why not let these mammals stew for a bit - fly away behind the mountains and come back a bit later - do you let those buffs expire, or chase them showing you have power enough to fly?

 

[Dandu]

So, you spot them 1,200 feet away. Not bad. Were you actively looking for things in the sky?

Isn't Spot passive ability?

So you see them what, 1/3 of a mile away, and they can't see you casting spells (whoa - magic - reassess tactics!).

Given how the Spot rules work, this is entirely possible. Although from the way Spot is written, it is impossible to see the Sun.

 

[N'raac]

Back to the SRD, by the rules Spot is -1 per 10 feet distant (so 1,200 feet would be -120) and -5 " if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant)." So whether you are watching the skies seems quite relevant. I'm not sure you couldn't spot Dragons 1,200 feet distant if watching for them, but identifying them as a specific threat (and them identifying tiny little mammals on the ground) seems less than likely.

Of course, my 1,200 feet was based on three rounds of Dragonflight, not the 600' they appear to have been, so only -60 by RAW.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Hmm... I am guessing they were only Adults, not Old, it's a some years ago and I am only guesstimating what type they were. The motivation for attacking us was probably that we were on their turf. Anyway, are we really discussing realism in DnD?

If we are, we can start with the chance of seeing a 30' dragon 450' feet away. It's a DC 0 check with a -45 penalty according to the rules. According the realism, it's like noticing and identifying a trailer 450' away, something all but your grandmother is likely to do in open terrain.

Btw, what dragon doesn't take the hover feat? It's one of the more useful feats there are for a dragon...

 

[N'raac]

Hmm... I am guessing they were only Adults, not Old, it's a some years ago and I am only guesstimating what type they were. The motivation for attacking us was probably that we were on their turf. Anyway, are we really discussing realism in DnD?

Verisimilitude, certainly. Why are your senses good enough to ID them as large dragons far away (not smaller birds much closer), but theirs not good enough to see spellcasting going on down below, a sign (coupled with the fact you are standing your ground staring at the two huge dragons) that you aren't just ordinary humans? Why are their tactics "get in close, get hit hard and stick around" when they can hover 20' off the ground and strike with little fear of retaliation? They don't demonstrate the tactical common sense of a 2 INT animal, much less a high INT, WIS, CHA creature like a Dragon. Adults are still 16 INT & CHA, 19 WIS L7 sorcerers, but all they can think to do is land and attack?

Btw, what dragon doesn't take the hover feat? It's one of the more useful feats there are for a dragon...

Not if it's going to use it to stay just above, rather than just beside, dangerous targets to melee with them. Better to drop and Crush them! Now, if it were to Hover 20' up, blasting out gouts of flame, while its teammate hovers somewhat higher blasting mid-range spells against a mammal that figures out how to fly, that would seem like a useful feat. As would using Hover in tandem with a 150' flight range to stay out of reach of targets which have proved to have some effectiveness against their Draconic Majesty.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@N'raac the dragons sure do didn't act their intelligence/wisdom when they committed to the attack, as you said, why weren't we running? We had level 6 spells running, but to a CR 15 dragon, that shouldn't look too bad. In addition, the buff spells were mostly level 1-4.

The most obvious hint was the ranger pelting the dragon with 5 or so arrows a round. Adult Red Dragons don't really have great ranged offense btw. The breath weapon is good, but that was one of the things our buff spells helped against. To get a "proper" attack off, they need to make a full attack.

Anyway, this is faaar away from the topic of the discussion, which was that I don't think 3.5 blasters were bad at all, which I assume you don't disagree with since you aren't quoting those parts of my posts?

I think discussing that part of my posts would be more relevant and interesting than what my DM did 4-5 years ago in a specific situation...