Magic missile too strong?

[harmyn]

It's actually split almost 50-50 for offense spells. And the designers did that intentionally. You have an bunch of ray spells and energy spells like ray of enfeeblement, exhaustion, frost, scorching ray, enervation, etc., and those are ranged touch attacks. And then you have the saving throw spells, such as fireball and charm person. I think you will find it's split fairly well.

Which is why I've been focusing on the levels where magic missle is powerful, which is 5th to 9th levels.

If 99% of your NPCs DON'T lack a brooch of shielding and an already-up shield spell, you're probably metagaming as a DM. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not the norm either.

Then I again think your game is a bit off from the average. Ranged touch attacks should be missing around a third of the time from your typical sorceror or wizard. If you are running a high powered game (32 point ability score array, or easily available magic items to boost attacks) then that will change. But in your typical 25 point ability array with the highest stat in your spellcasting ability and second highest in constitution, your sorceror or wizard should be missing about a third of their ranged touch attacks, or at best a quarter. If they are hitting almost every time, you've varied from the average game.

Magic missle always hits, with no save, and it's a force attack so nothing has resistance or immunity (beyond spell resistance which applies to almost all spells, and those that do not are often touted as being the "other" overpowered spells like the orb spells). Even a 20th level fighter has a chance of missing, and most mid to high level opponants have resistances and immunities to the energy spells like fireball.

I use random roll for the characters in my game. But for purproses of this discussion here I posted up the needed To-Hit rolls for a fighter and Wizard of equal level against randomly chosen monsters of CR's 6-9; beasts they would normally be facing at their given level. The Wizard only had a Dex of 12, very easily achieved on a 25pt buy in - 16 for Int at 10pts, a 14 Con for 6 pts, a Dex of 14 for 4pts, and you can spend the last 5pts to get a 10, 11, and 8. respectable stats for that level of point buy. You will notice that for the most part on ranged touch attacks the Wizard need only rarely needs to roll any higher than the fighter on a d20 roll and I have already included the penalty for shooting into melee into the math. Frequently the wizard needs to roll slightly less than the fighter does, and most of those rolls involved a target number around 9 which will give you typically a 60% success rate.

So your rate of missing is about a third, and that is the same amount the fighter has to deal with. Figure that in with the fact that the fighter gets more attacks but only half the wizard's spell even need a to-hit roll and to me it all works out, especially given that most of those that don't need a to-hit roll can affect several targets at once (fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, color spray, sleep, etc.).

Again, I don't see the to hit roll that daunting, especially as you advance into the mid levels and low teens.

And you are correct, most of my foes don't have brooches of shielding or Shield spells up, unless they know what they are going up against. Know if they know a Sorcerer is coming after them, then to me its a no-brainer to secure the spell or magic item because it does negate one of the sorcerer's more popular attack options.

 

[Benimoto]

Again, I don't see the to hit roll that daunting, especially as you advance into the mid levels and low teens.

Are you including both cover and melee in your modifiers? I find to-hit rolls annoying, especially when I miss.

I'm not saying enemies will always have cover and melee modifiers, but they'll frequently be in melee, and I find it advantageous as a wizard to be in an area where me and the enemies have cover from each other.

 

[Twowolves]

Should it?

There are lot of Amulet slot items that are more impressive and more useful than a Brooch of Shielding. Even an Amulet of Health +1, although more expensive, protects against about half of the damage of a single Magic Missile spell, but it also does this against a lot of other damage spells and helps against Fort save spells as well. At mid to higher levels, a Brooch of Shielding is a bit of a waste in many circumstances.

The problem with a Brooch of Shielding is that: 1) most characters should not wear or even own one for a variety of reasons, and 2) all the brooch does is stop a few specific magical attacks and change the tactics of the combat. It does not really affect combat that much since it does not protect against most opponents, or even most spells of even arcane casters.

Yes, there are better Amulet slot items. None are as cost effective or available (cost vs minimum level needed to make). The brooch is limited in scope, yes, but it's 100% effective at stopping a spell that 99.9% of the arcane casters use. Not to even mention the wands of MM that seem to crop up, meaning the wizard/sorcerer has a fallback attack every round. The Amulet of Health costs more than twice as much (almost three times as much to make), and while more useful, still isn't 100% proof against an extremely common attack. No damage means no concentration check to lose a spell, remember.

At mid- to higher levels, yes, but less than 25% of the population should fall into that category, according to the DMG NPC suggestions (one "highest level" NPC, plus 2 of half his level, plus 2X of 1/2 his level, etc etc). That means that there are a LOT of NPCs that can both afford a brooch and would stand to gain from it (low level guys would be insta-kills vs a mid-high level MM).

 

[harmyn]

Are you including both cover and melee in your modifiers? I find to-hit rolls annoying, especially when I miss.

I'm not saying enemies will always have cover and melee modifiers, but they'll frequently be in melee, and I find it advantageous as a wizard to be in an area where me and the enemies have cover from each other.

I did include the penalty for firing into melee into my calculations. That's why the sample wizard in my example has a To-Hit bonus of +0 at sixth level instead of +4. And I agree they are annoying and risky because you can miss, but you deal more damage.

 

[Benimoto]

I did include the penalty for firing into melee into my calculations. That's why the sample wizard in my example has a To-Hit bonus of +0 at sixth level instead of +4. And I agree they are annoying and risky because you can miss, but you deal more damage.

Right, but in many circumstances there's more than just the melee penalty. For example, in a typical encounter where the fighter charges right at the enemy, the mage is going to have both cover and melee penalties applied, for a total of -8 to hit. (Or -4 to hit from melee, and +4 to the opponent's AC from cover, technically.)

One or the other is enough to give the poor wizard only a 50% hit rate in many fights. That already puts magic missile at a similar average damage rate to the d6/level spells. Both combined make magic missile the better damage spell in many fights.

 

[Mistwell]

The position you took was Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam which are not legal in a debate. Popular opinion, nor designer opinion, has any real bearing on the truth of the potential of the class. Now, if you are only using that to illustrate that they are not broken (and not to illustrate that they are weak), although not valid in a debate, I do not disagree with your statement.

At the point where you choose to lecture me on what is "legal" in a debate, we have nothing else to discuss. You've crossed the line.

 

[brehobit]

At the point where you choose to lecture me on what is "legal" in a debate, we have nothing else to discuss. You've crossed the line.

Mistwell,
While I often find KD to be a bit difficult, in this case he is just stating what is legal in a formal debate (5 minutes each, 3 minutes for question etc.) I don't think his statement is objectionable when considered in that context.

Mark

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell,
While I often find KD to be a bit difficult, in this case he is just stating what is legal in a formal debate (5 minutes each, 3 minutes for question etc.) I don't think his statement is objectionable when considered in that context.

Mark

Then he is wrong, in addition to being abusive, if that is what he means.

 

[Drowbane]

Okay, I forgot about the crit factor, another strike. So, warlocks get unlimited blasts topping out at 9d6, no save, its critable and you can add other effects to your blasts through invocation, which correct me if I'm wrong, are also unlimited.

Hmm, not broken at all.

[semi-rant]

You're kidding, right? 9d6 may sound like alot, but its only an average of 31.5 dmg (if my weak math-fu is correct). The Warlock has to be 18th lvl to pop off 9d6 EBs, right?

Do you have any concept of the damage potential a BFS (big fricking sword) in the hands of a murderous psychopath (aka, 1/2 Orc Barbarian 18) is capable of? Seriously, do the math.

(Just off the top of my head...) BAB 18, Str (before Rage) 24 (+6 Str item, conservative starting Str with all Attribute increases going to Str... for a +7 mod), average Powerattack for 6, +2 Keen Falchion... = +21 / +16 / + 11 / +6 (2d4+24.....15-20 x2)

Thats what, an average of 27 dmg before bothering to Rage? With a rather low starting str for a Barbarian. Oh, and roughly a 25% chance of dishing out double damage for 4d4+48?.... up to 4 times a round?

Yeeaaah... the Warlock's EB has nothing on that.

[/semi-rant]

Any decent tank will outdamage a Warlock on a consistant basis, from level 1 to level 20+. Any nuker-mage (be it Wu Jen, Wiz, War Mage, Sorc, etc) will too.

People see "at will" and don't seem to think about how little that really means. How often is the party facing more than 2-3 combats a day anyways? Is the fact that the Warlock can fire EB all day really relevant?

What Warlocks do really well is "cool factor".

 

[harmyn]

Right, but in many circumstances there's more than just the melee penalty. For example, in a typical encounter where the fighter charges right at the enemy, the mage is going to have both cover and melee penalties applied, for a total of -8 to hit. (Or -4 to hit from melee, and +4 to the opponent's AC from cover, technically.)

One or the other is enough to give the poor wizard only a 50% hit rate in many fights. That already puts magic missile at a similar average damage rate to the d6/level spells. Both combined make magic missile the better damage spell in many fights.

I myself wouldn't apply an additional -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the opponent. Melee combat is generally very fluid and the initial -4 penalty on shooting into combat represents the "cover" provided by your ally. Otherwise you could take the shot normally but instead have a chance of damaging your ally. This damage to your ally would represent the missile weapon hitting the "cover", in this case your friend's back most likely.

Think of it like this, your opponent gains a +4 bonus from cover because of your ally's charge into melee. In this hypothetical example we are going to say your desired target has a Touch AC of 12 and you have a Total Ranged Touch Attack Bonus of +4. With your ally's charge your enemy's AC is raised to 16 (12+4). You realize that if you attempt to avoid hitting your ally the target's AC will raise to an effective 20 (16+4) for you once you figure in the penalty for avoiding friendly fire. So you decide that you aren't that fond of the foolish fighter who charges. and forgo the penalty to avoid hitting your friend. The AC is back to 16 and with your Attack of +4 your target number on the d20 is a 12 which gives you a 45% chance of success now. Unfortunately you only rolled a 10 meaning that you hit Touch Armor Class 14. This places the attack squarely on the cover provided by your ally. BUT you cannot hit your ally because you missed the attack while shooting into melee. So from this, I deduce that the -4 penalty into melee is the cover bonus your friend provides by your desire to not hurt him.

And given the examples I provided the poor wizard at levels 6-9 had typically had a range of 40% to 60% to hit the enemy. The fighter typically had a 35%-55% chance. This is considered a normal and reasonable attack for the fighter, but not the wizard? I have to disagree with you.