Poll for my group: Magic Missile

[Castaigne]

Magic missile is certainly unbalanced, but too ingrained in the game for me to even suggest changing it for my group.

If I were to adjust it, I'd probably go with a save of Reflex half.

 

[Acmite]

I voted that it doesn't require any changes.

For the record, IMHO, Colour Spray is by far the most powerful 1 st level spell. Even 20th level fighters drop their weapon if they fail their Will save. It's a cone effect, so it has nice versatility. The only downside is the close range...but with Enlarge spell (making it a 2nd level slot), you can hit 1d6 20th level fighters and are almost guaranteed to disarm them unless they have locked gauntlets.

But, back to the question at hand. If you really think that MM is unbalanced, I think the easiest change (which I think would drop its use dramatically) is to change the range to Close. One of the main advantages is the unerring hit at reasonable range. Eliminate this, and wiz/sorcs will switch to longer ranged spells after a while.....

 

[Ravellion]

In the design process of 3rd edition, MM was a 1d6+1 spell with a save for half (fort). Too many playtesting groups thought it was a sacred cow however, hence, you are left with the time honored spell which is now too powerful for an evocation spell of its level.

In 2nd, sleep was nice.... hmmmm... no save, 2d4 hd fall asleep.

BTW, close range is a very good suggestion!

Rav

 

[Cabral]

I fully agree that it is not balanced. In fact, the designing a spell section in the DMG even says so IIRC! I never took a 2nd level invocation spell with my sorcerer: why should I? MM does it all, and better. An empowered MM is better than a fireball or lightning bolt 80-90% of the time.

I can't find any such statement and Tome and Blood list it as a becnhmark spell for the capabilities of a first level offensive spell.

I think the difficulty in comparing its balance is that there really isn't a comprehensive list of every type of spell at every level. Want me to show you a More effective 2nd level attack spell? Well, before I can attempt it, I need to see a Magic Missile-like 2nd level spell.

 

[Ravellion]

I can't find any such statement and Tome and Blood list it as a becnhmark spell for the capabilities of a first level offensive spell.

They list it as "a little overpowered" in Tome and Blood, because of not having to save or the caster not having to make an attack.

Your right, no such reference in the DMG.

Rav

 

[Victim]

One problem with magic missile is also a problem with 2nd level spells.

There are no attack spells that do all the damage instantly; they do it slowly. Slow damage has it's uses, but it's not quite the same. Without decent instant damage at second level, most 1st level spells that do instant damage are preferable. Hence, Magic Missile is often better than second level attack spells.

 

[hong]

As I see it, the real problem isn't so much with magic missile; it's with the overall power curve for wizards/sorcs. The premise behind magic-users since 1E days has been that they're utter wimps at low levels, rising to demigod status at high levels. A 17th level mage in 2E was basically far beyond just about every other character class. This was supposed to be "balanced" by how you could knock over the same mage at 1st or 2nd level (the assumption never really held IMO, which is why I put "balanced" in inverted commas).

3E isn't as bad as previous versions of D&D were in this respect. A lot of the high-level spells have been toned down a lot, and the wizard class has been beefed up a bit at low levels, primarily through high Int granting bonus spells. However, the steep power curve is still there. (Among other consequences of this, note how a multiclassed wiz who splits her levels evenly is usually much less powerful than a single-classed wiz -- this is because the benefits of high-level spells usually outclass what you can get from more levels of another class.)

A side-effect of this steep power curve is that a lot of low-level spells are relatively weak. MM is a spell that breaks this power curve, which is why it appears powerful compared to them. However, I don't see this as such a major problem, because low-level wizards _are_ such wimps otherwise. It's no big issue if they have one powerful spell, even if it outclasses other spells. It's still not going to overshadow anything that a low-level cleric or low-level fighter can do. A wiz with MM _may_ overshadow a wiz without MM, but even that's situation-dependent -- and if every wiz has MM, then the question itself becomes moot.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I like the idea of changing the range of MM to short. What do other people think about this?

Regards,

 

[Oogar]

Sacred Cow, short range would be acceptable.

 

[Marshall]

3E isn't as bad as previous versions of D&D were in this respect. A lot of the high-level spells have been toned down a lot, and the wizard class has been beefed up a bit at low levels, primarily through high Int granting bonus spells. However, the steep power curve is still there. (Among other consequences of this, note how a multiclassed wiz who splits her levels evenly is usually much less powerful than a single-classed wiz -- this is because the benefits of high-level spells usually outclass what you can get from more levels of another class.)

Which is caused by the idea of damage spells being level dependant for damage.
If there was a 1st level spell that did 5d4+5 force damage, auto-hit, no-save at CL1, it would be so overpowered as to not be funny. Likewise a 20'r ball of fire that did 5d6(reflex half) at CL10, would be so weak as to be unusable. Spells are designed taking into account Spell Level and Character Level. So, if your caster level falls behind your character level, your magic effects become progressively farther and farther behind 'balanced'.

Hence my various crusades to get CL from other than casting classes...