Magic missile too strong?

[Benimoto]

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.

I do a lot of my playing these days in fairly "rules-strict" groups, where both the penalties apply. Plus, if we're going to have a common ground here, I think we should go by the RAW.

I don't think a 35%-55% chance to hit is unreasonable for a wizard, but I think that given the option, many wizards will take the 100% chance of doing around 50% of the damage of the other spell.

I'm not saying that I think magic missile is completely, or even generally superior to other damage spells. Many (maybe 1/3-1/2) fights will give the wizard a clear shot at enemies, and there the ranged touch spells shine. Or you can take precise shot, like many spellcasters do, which makes it much more likely that spells like the orbs will outdamage magic missile. Also, of course many of the other d6/level damage spells are area effects, like fireball, and are better than magic missile for that reason.

I'm just saying that in my experience, magic missile is as good as, or better than my other damage spells in somehting like 1/4 to 1/3 of the fights I'm in. That seems a little powerful for a first level spell. Does the iconic value of magic missile make it worth the boost? IMHO, sure.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

I meant that people who use certain types of non-factual persuasive to the masses arguments bring nothing to the table.

Facts matter. How many people or whether the designers have a given opinion means virtually nothing other than as a footnote.

Your last two posts here are Ad Hominem. If you cannot convince by popular opinion, you attack the poster: calling somebody a name, or putting a label on them.

That too is not legal in a debate, nor actually allowed here on the boards.

But, it is interesting how many people don't use facts to back up their claims, instead they use rhetoric and then get "offended" when somebody calls them on it. You put some facts about Wizards into your Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam post, in order to make it look legitimate. This is called Fallacy of Composition where some true facts are inserted to make the non-supportable claims appear true.

I actually agree with you that Sorcerers are not broken. I do, however, think they are not weak and one of the most potent core classes at mid to high level, considerably stronger than Wizards. This is an opinion. I do not claim it as fact. I just personally know it to be true for well played characters.

 

[harmyn]

I do a lot of my playing these days in fairly "rules-strict" groups, where both the penalties apply. Plus, if we're going to have a common ground here, I think we should go by the RAW.

I have just researched the rule we are disputing, but I have issues with the way the rule is currently writtten and have to say I disagree with it. I have written in for a clarification of what is stated in the text and errata and asked for an explanation for the modifiers are what they are claiming they should be.

So while I have enjoyed debating you on this and find it both refreshing and civil, because of a conflict in how the rules regarding this should be viewed, we will have a difficult time finding common ground because of the -4 discrepancy in the attack. Although from the standpoint of a flying warlock cover is of only limited issue.

 

[DM-Rocco]

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.

Seriously, you are taking this whole thing way to seriously. Please melow out.

Most of us are just trying to have a civil debate, but you are out for blood.

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

Rreally now, chill out before your blood pressure sky rockets.

Why are you so certain that everyone but you is wrong?

[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".

It is not the blast by itself, it is the invocations that you add to the blast, like for example, the Vitriolic Blast Invocation. Now you 9d6 blast ignores spell resistance and deals acid damage and 2d6 acid damage on the following rounds. It does this for 1 round for every 5 levels you are.

So what you might think, hmm, well let's see,
round one
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
total so far, 18d6 acid damage (which is the next best thing to force by the way)

round 2
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage (why woudn't you take quicken spell like ability twice)
4d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 40d6 so far

round 3
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Tenacious Plague (summons magic pierce insects)
8d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 57d6 so far

Now, of course a single disintergrate could possible do up to 40d6, but you have to hit and if they make their saving throw they take a lot less damage.

Plus, while a wizard or a sorcerer might be able to do more damage in the short term, a warlock could do this all day and not even think twice about it. Even just the Vitriolic Blast would quickly outshine other spell caster cause you have no limit.

I don't care who you are, you should always a limit on your power.

I meant that people who use certain types of non-factual persuasive to the masses arguments bring nothing to the table.

Facts matter. How many people or whether the designers have a given opinion means virtually nothing other than as a footnote.

Your last two posts here are Ad Hominem. If you cannot convince by popular opinion, you attack the poster: calling somebody a name, or putting a label on them.

That too is not legal in a debate, nor actually allowed here on the boards.

But, it is interesting how many people don't use facts to back up their claims, instead they use rhetoric and then get "offended" when somebody calls them on it. You put some facts about Wizards into your Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam post, in order to make it look legitimate. This is called Fallacy of Composition where some true facts are inserted to make the non-supportable claims appear true.

I actually agree with you that Sorcerers are not broken. I do, however, think they are not weak and one of the most potent core classes at mid to high level, considerably stronger than Wizards. This is an opinion. I do not claim it as fact. I just personally know it to be true for well played characters.

Forget it, he is a lost cause.

Too bad really, it sucks when you can't talk about issues.

Anyway, I think sorcerers are very potent and agree that they are better in most situations than a wizard.

I disagree that they are not broken however, and that is just my opinion. I think there are enough powerful spells at mid to high levels that just break a sorcerer. With the addition of the Meta-magic master from PHBII I think that they are even more broken, if not so before.

 

[Drowbane]

Quick question, Rocco: Have you played a Warlock? Have you seen any in play?

It is not the blast by itself, it is the invocations that you add to the blast, like for example, the Vitriolic Blast Invocation. Now you 9d6 blast ignores spell resistance and deals acid damage and 2d6 acid damage on the following rounds. It does this for 1 round for every 5 levels you are.

So what you might think, hmm, well let's see,
round one
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
total so far, 18d6 acid damage (which is the next best thing to force by the way)

round 2
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage (why woudn't you take quicken spell like ability twice)
4d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 40d6 so far

round 3
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Tenacious Plague (summons magic pierce insects)
8d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 57d6 so far

Now, of course a single disintergrate could possible do up to 40d6, but you have to hit and if they make their saving throw they take a lot less damage.

Plus, while a wizard or a sorcerer might be able to do more damage in the short term, a warlock could do this all day and not even think twice about it. Even just the Vitriolic Blast would quickly outshine other spell caster cause you have no limit.

I don't care who you are, you should always a limit on your power.

A few issues: Warlocks can't use Meta-spell-like-ability feats at will. "Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage (why woudn't you take quicken spell like ability twice)" Can you take Quicken Eldritch Blast more than once? Don't forget Empower and Maximize while you're at it. Also, how is it that in rnd 3 the Warlock is doing a V-EB and a Swarm?

Anyways, all good points.

I'll go ya one further by mentioning that the same Warlock could also have Flight and Greater Invis up while doing all these whacky Invocation laden EBs.

This doesn't change the fact that most "D&D Days" last 2-3 Encounters... thus putting the Warlock firmly back in the realm of "huh, cool concept character.

To reiterate, the only thing the Warlock truely has going for it (that another class can't do better) is Stamina... and when was the last time you saw an (Cleric, Druid, Sorc, or Wizard) of such high levels run out of spellcasting options? Especially Sorcs... (Edit: I just noticed that you also think Sorcs are borken too.)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Looks like it's time for me to make a new character, Domain Wizard (Evocation) (UA Wizard variant) with levels of Force Mage (Dragon mag PrC)... Arcane Thesis: Magic Missile. Bunch of metamagic feats... Mmmm, mmmm, good.

 

[Votan]

Quick question, Rocco: Have you played a Warlock? Have you seen any in play?

I have sene a warlock in play. I loathe the class as being overpowered. I have frequently watched the warlock dominate the game to the deteriment of other players. I will admit that the conditions under which I played were not typical.

 

[irdeggman]

Re Warlocks - I did a breakdown for a friend who likewise seemed to think they were too powerful.


See attachment

 

[RigaMortus2]

Re Warlocks - I did a breakdown for a friend who likewise seemed to think they were too powerful.


See attachment

In all the games I've played in (mind you, I play with the same core group of players, just multiple different campaigns), the Warlocks are very powerful. We often play games where you have several encounters in a day, so when the Wizard is out of spells and hiding behind a tree hoping to not get noticed, the Warlock is flying around invisibly, blasting enemies all day long, and dimension dooring out of trouble. I like the Warlock because I like classes that always have SOMETHING to do during combat, and classes that have no resource reserve they have to keep an eye on (other than HP of course).

Edit: Just say your attachment, and needed to make a comment on this little tidbit you have in there:

He also gains some special abilities as he goes up levels – but can still only do 1 thing a round since they all are standard actions to use and can not be quickened since they are spell-like abilities.

This is incorrect. He can take the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat and quicken a specific invocation 3/day. There are also other meta-spell-like ability feats he can take to, like Maximize SLA (Eldritch Blast?). ALSO... He can take and apply Sudden Metamagic feats to his invocations as well (though Sudden Quicken does have too many prereqs, some he either (a) doesn't qualify for or (b) will be of no use to him).

Also want to note the Warlock can pick up the Extra Invocation feat which also adds to his repitoire of things he can do.

My Warlock had the following build (which we stopped playing before I could get the entire build together). I forget all the names of the Invocations, so I am gonna name what they basically did...

See the Unseen
Devil's Sight
Darkness (we played 3.0 darkness since 3.5 darkness makes no sense)

Invis (swap this out for something later once I got the Greater Invis version)
Flight
DimensionDoor

Chilling Tentacles
Chain Eldritch Blast
Repelling Blast

Feats were: PBS, Precise Shot, Maximize SLA, Sudden Still (so in the event I was grappled, I could Sudden Still Dimension Door to safety), Quicken SLA.

There were more, but these were the core abilities I was going for. Pretty much a battlefield controller. Chilling Touch to keep opponents grappled, Chained Repelling Eldritch Blast to push multiple opponents away from me and the party. Flight, Invis, Dimension Door to stay out of harms way.

 

[irdeggman]

In all the games I've played in (mind you, I play with the same core group of players, just multiple different campaigns), the Warlocks are very powerful. We often play games where you have several encounters in a day, so when the Wizard is out of spells and hiding behind a tree hoping to not get noticed, the Warlock is flying around invisibly, blasting enemies all day long, and dimension dooring out of trouble. I like the Warlock because I like classes that always have SOMETHING to do during combat, and classes that have no resource reserve they have to keep an eye on (other than HP of course).

So you would make a better comparison of warlock to fighter to see how balanced they are correct?

I mean neither has an expended resource problem and both can always do something in combat.

Do the two of those stack well against each other? If so then the class is indeed balanced.

An important thing to remember is that a warlock never benefits from a high BAB in regards to gaining more than 1 attack a round. He needs feats (of which he has no bonus feats to choose from so they must come from level based ones) in order to gain any such benefit.