Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6518594" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Which 1st level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Burning Hands?  Which 2nd level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Scorching Ray?  Which 3rd level Illusion spell would you use to match the damage of a Lightning Bolt?  (And those are just the obvious ones.)The fact is, you can "replace" most spells in the game with Wish or Miracle, but unless you're replacing them level for level it's an invalid comparison.Given enough time, I can replicate the raw damage potential of any spell with a sword.  Or a sharpened stick.  Doesn't make the spell worthless.  So tell me, which 3rd level Conjuration spell would you use to replicate the damage of Fireball, which can affect up to 24 medium sized creatures in a single round?  Presume a 5th level caster, if you would.  It might be real world, but it isn't "physics", which is what I said.  As for them not being fallible:  Are you saying that PCs never make mistakes?  Because that's what "fallible" means.And you've obviously never read the rules on Warforged.  They don't get any special bonus on anything because of a "computer brain".  As far as I know, the word "computer" is never used in describing them, or anything else in the game world for that matter.  (By the way, I'm a computer programmer IRL, and I know just how imprecise robotic systems can be.  One of my clients had to scrap a very expensive bit of automation after just three weeks because it kept fouling up.  My mom used to work for Rand McNally, the map company, and when someone wanted to take a break all they had to do was turn up an edge on a piece of paper.  The map folding machine couldn't handle it and would tie itself in knots so bad it took Engineering half an hour to get it running again. One piece on an assembly line is out of place by three inches and the robotic "hand" can easily fail to grab it.  The computer is fast and great at repetitive operations, but it's only as "smart" as the programmer is able to make it, and far from perfect.)I've noticed that you argue, not against what I wrote, but against something sort of in the neighborhood of a relative of someone who knows what I wrote.  Try to keep up, please.  (You said to go ahead and be harsh.)I said that there's nothing to say "it's magic" about that sort of estimation of distance and area.  Whether it's archery or a spell is irrelevant, if you're gauging distance to a target, there's nothing magic involved. Try this with your group:  Use a tabletop without a battlemat, without grid markings.  Make them use the spell exactly as described in the rules, by choosing a direction and stating a distance.  Then measure that distance with a tape measure.  Don't let them measure in advance, not for range and not for area.  And make them stick with their first declaration, they can't pull the old, "I guess I meant 65 feet, not 60" bit.  Any bets they'll occasionally be off by an inch or two?  (And by "occasionally" I mean "always".)  Will their placement miss some opponents?  Include some allies or bystanders?  Maybe they'll even decide to chose a less imprecise spell?  Note that, by your estimation, choosing another spell isn't a downside, since just about any other spell of any other school can replicate or even surpass the Evocation spell.Except they can't.My house rule simply notes that their aren't any "grid lines" in mid air, no solid measure or target point.(By the way, I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your last statement.  It doesn't seem to be related in any way to the section you quoted and were apparently responding to.  It's almost too ironic to see you this badly off target.)</blockquote>

Verification