Orbs vs. Evocations II- with level by level data

[Felix]

Ratios for the orbs if they allow SR:

...

ratios if orbs allow a save for half damage (but no SR):

...

Since you seem to be in a number-crunching-benevolent mood, what is the ratio when both are allowed?

 

[Slaved]

Metamagic spells add flexibility to a caster's spell repitoire.

I would say versatility rather than flexibility, but that is a subtle difference.

On the whole, a higher level spell should be "better" than a lower level metamagiced one.

I do not think that this is true though.

Using extend as an example then if extend is appropriately costed having a spell go from 1 minute per level to 2 minutes per level is about one levels worth of benefit. So if there were two spells with exactly the same effect but one had double the duration they should be one level apart.

If extend had instead costed 2 levels then those spells should be 2 levels apart. If they were only one level apart then that would quickly show me that the extend feat is inappropriately costed, assuming that both spells were well balanced.

A metamagic making another spell actually worth the slot that it is now in should not be viewed as a crime! I think that should be the goal of every metamagic feat, worthwhile but not over or under powered in its applications.

 

[Grog]

On the whole, a higher level spell should be "better" than a lower level metamagiced one.

I see it the other way around. I think metamagiced spells should be better than regular spells of the same equivalent level, since you have to take a feat in order to use the metamagiced spells. Feats are supposed to give benefits; if taking a metamagic feat gets you spells of inferior quality, that's not a benefit, that's a penalty.

 

[IanB]

Since you seem to be in a number-crunching-benevolent mood, what is the ratio when both are allowed?

As I understand it, they should be below 1 at every level if you give them the exact same conditions as the evocation (save for half damage + SR applies) and then add an attack roll on top of that. They'd be worse than the evocation against even a single target.

 

[Felix]

I would say versatility rather than flexibility, but that is a subtle difference.

Subtle enough to make no nevermind.

A metamagic making another spell actually worth the slot that it is now in should not be viewed as a crime! I think that should be the goal of every metamagic feat, worthwhile but not over or under powered in its applications.

Let me put away my metamagic police badge then, and step over the hyperbole for a moment...

This comment, as well as:

I see it the other way around. I think metamagiced spells should be better than regular spells of the same equivalent level, since you have to take a feat in order to use the metamagiced spells. Feats are supposed to give benefits; if taking a metamagic feat gets you spells of inferior quality, that's not a benefit, that's a penalty.

This one, are quite right in that metamagiced spells should be superior in some cases. This is true for the [Stilled] Dimension Door, the [Extended] Magic Jar, and the [Maximized] Fireball that allows the caster to take Teleport. In their specific uses the metamagic improves the spell beyond the usefulness of the higher level spell.

In general, however, and particularly outside of the specific instance where you definitely want the metamagiced spell, you'd rather have the higher level one: Teleport instead of DD; Delayed Blast Fireball instead of a metamagicked Fireball. In general, the higher cost of being inflexible (or "less versatile" if you prefer) regarding which level spell slot you use renders a higher benefit upon casting. Or should.

Smell that? That's opinion.

As I understand it, they should be below 1 at every level if you give them the exact same conditions as the evocation (save for half damage + SR applies) and then add an attack roll on top of that. They'd be worse than the evocation against even a single target.

Sure, but by how much? If it's a close run thing, surely it'll imply Orbs are really much too good as written; if the ratio is .2 for each level, it may show the reverse.

 

[shmoo2]

Sure, but by how much? If it's a close run thing, surely it'll imply Orbs are really much too good as written; if the ratio is .2 for each level, it may show the reverse.

The ratios for the orbs if they allow both SR and a reflex save are indeed pretty close to 1.0: as the wizard's % chance to hit approaches 0.95%, the chance to miss is almost exactly countered by the chance to do double damage on a crit.

Ratios for the orbs if they allow SR and Ref. save:
level ratio
7 0.79
8 0.85
9 0.92
10 0.98
11 0.86
12 0.98
13 0.96
14 0.98
15 0.98
16 0.97

 

[Doug McCrae]

How about orbs as a warmage only spell? Without them the class is dreadfully underpowered.

 

[Vysirez]

IMO the problem lies in the fact that most of the higher level single target evocations suck. So you are forced to either compare a bad single target spell to the orbs, or compare an AE spell to the orbs and pretend the AE part of a spell doesnt matter for some reason. I mean Polar Ray? Really the only good single target evocations are low level and or handicapped like scorching ray. To be honest though, I have to say that the Orb spells are a bit overpowered. The no SR does push them over the top. I think they would be ok as evocations with SR.

 

[gnfnrf]

As an excercise, I watched a warmage in my party last session to count when she used orbs vs area evocations, and how many targets she hit. I thought this would give a small bit of real data to compare the damage ratios to.

This was Red Hand of Doom, at the beginning of the last chapter, with a 9th level warmage in a large (6 person) party. There are no spoilers in the analysis.

The first encounter was against two high CR monsters (estimated CR 11 and 8-9)

Orb - 1 target, no chance for multiple targets.
Orb - 1 target, no chance for multiple targets.
Orb - 1 target, no chance for multiple targets.

The second target was against a large mixed group of mid CR monsters (CR 4 to 6)

Fireball - 5 targets, also one friendly target.
Lesser Orb - 1 target, could have hit two targets with an area spell.
Lightning Bolt - 4 targets.

Average available targets per spell: 2.33 (2.17 even if you count the friendly as a negative target)

It's a very small sample, but it's actual game results, not just people guessing how many bad guys fit in the fireball.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Brother MacLaren]

IMO the problem lies in the fact that most of the higher level single target evocations suck. So you are forced to either compare a bad single target spell to the orbs, or compare an AE spell to the orbs and pretend the AE part of a spell doesnt matter for some reason. I mean Polar Ray? Really the only good single target evocations are low level and or handicapped like scorching ray.

It seems to me to be an intentional design decision. Looking at the core rules, single-target spells do not increase markedly in damage with spell level. Some increase greatly in damage potential, but operate over several rounds (e.g. Bigby's Crushing Hand). Some have a very high very high damage potential but allows a save (Disintegrate). Perhaps one reason for this is to avoid fights between similar-level foes from becoming all about winning initiative. Or perhaps it was recognizing how often taking out the BBEG is more important than taking out 4 of his minions. I'm not sure, but I'd be very interested in reading some of the designers' perspectives. Was Polar Ray used in playtesting? Was it previously a level-7 spell that was then increased to level-8?