SPR: Quantification of the "Theurge-style" PrCls

[Dannyalcatraz]

What is it that WotC did that created this mechanic?

In Complete Arcane, a followup to Dragon Heritage is Dragon Breath, which converts spell slots to a linear area effect attack that does 2d6 per spell level used to power it. PHB2 does the same with Infernal Howl, though the area is conical.

All SPR does is take this to the logical extreme, namely converting all of a PC's arcane spell slots.

No, SPR doesn't just look at slots.

Yes, it does. See WotC's mechanics spelled out above.

Using your SPR metric to compare these classes/PrC yields a lop-sided result. Precisely because 9 1st level spells are not equal even one very weak 9th level spell. Yet SPR says they are equal. That is precisely what SPR is measuring.

Again, I conceded that point (several times), as well as stated that SPR isn't meant to be a single metric AND countered that spell quality within a spell level can't be measured by a statistical comparison (see previous posts).

The utility of SPR is that it provides a statistical metric for comparing arcane spellcasting classes without dealing with variables that don't have common denominators.

Your metric allows the Theurge-type to have a large number, much larger than the single-classed wizard, precisely because it chooses to cheapen the value of the high level spell slot, and in doing so, it places a greater premium on low level spell slots.

You conceed that the ability you are using to create this metric in and of itself, denigrates the power of the high level spell. In other words this metric is flawed, as a method to compare relative power.

You are taking a single feat, and making it to be more than it was ever designed to be. It is flawed, precisely because it places a higher premium on the low level spell slot, and places a lower premium on the high level spellslots.

Yes. Your points (and others) are why this isn't intended as a sole metric of comparison.

If the actual average increase in power level between levels is 2,5 (just speculating)

(emphasis mine)

Therin lies the problem from the other side. How does one calculate average increase in power levels? As I've pointed out, the very nature of spell design prevents us from comparing power levels within a spell level, much less across them.

As another comparison, we may look at Innate Spell

Yes, we can.

How does that unlimited number of a 1st level spell compare to SPR?

While interesting, its quality varies specifically with the spell chosen to be innate- the problem of spell quality that I've been talking about throughout this thread.

If the Innate spell had been chosen by an Enchanter with Evocation as a barred school, he'd probably choose Sleep or Hypnotism as the spell in question.

What if we look at a a Conjurer who took Summon Animal 1, a Diviner who took True Strike, an Illusionist who took Color Spray, a Necromancer who took Ray of Enfeeblement or Fear, or even a Transmuter who took Enlarge Person or Magic Weapon?

Those don't really translate into comparable outputs with the Innate Spell analysis. One gives you a bunch of critters which may or may not get to do damage, a couple of them give you a dependable bonus to attack, another couple remove opponents from a fray without killing them. Some buff, some debuff.

IOW, zero mathematical comparison is possible.

With SPR, its all boiled down to damage in a day.

 

[irdeggman]

In Complete Arcane, a followup to Dragon Heritage is Dragon Breath, which converts spell slots to a linear area effect attack that does 2d6 per spell level used to power it. PHB2 does the same with Infernal Howl, though the area is conical.

All SPR does is take this to the logical extreme, namely converting all of a PC's arcane spell slots.

WotC did not create the mechanic to equate power and spell level the way you are talking about.

You have made an extapolation of a feat benefit and stated that WotC created something that equates power with spell level. This is a deceiving statement since it points down a preconceived direction.

The only place where WotC specifically equated damage and spell level was in the reference I made in the DMG for creating new spells. That would be the one to use and not the benefit from a feat if you felt it absolutely necessary.

Using the feats referenced as a basis for deteriming spell power based on spell level is sort of like using the damage output from a raging barbarian with power attack under a the effect of Bull's Str spell as a basis to say that is how the damage from a two handed weapon is determined. Since two handed weapons specifically grant 2 x the penalty from the attack roll for damage from power attack. They are all official WotC mechanics.

Regardless of whether or not this was designed to be a "sole" mechanic or not it is deceptive in its basis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

WotC did not create the mechanic to equate power and spell level the way you are talking about.

No, of course not. They were just creating a nifty kind of feat.

You have made an extapolation of a feat benefit and stated that WotC created something that equates power with spell level.

By converting slots into #Slots(Spell Lvl*2d6), that is exactly the description of what the feat's mechanical effect is.

The only place where WotC specifically equated damage and spell level was in the reference I made in the DMG for creating new spells. That would be the one to use and not the benefit from a feat if you felt it absolutely necessary.

1) This feat and ones like it also specifically equate damage and spell level. That is what they do.

2) That section of the DMG is a guideline about designing new spells. SPR isn't.

Using the feats referenced as a basis for deteriming spell power based on spell level is sort of like using the damage output from a raging barbarian with power attack under a the effect of Bull's Str spell as a basis to say that is how the damage from a two handed weapon is determined. Since two handed weapons specifically grant 2 x the penalty from the attack roll for damage from power attack. They are all official WotC mechanics.

Its not quite the same.

There is already a very simple method for calculating damage for a 2Hd weapon- you look it up on a chart, check its size and there it is, and comparing it to other weapons is as easy as that. Pretty much everything else is gravy. (Yes, there are weapons that have special qualities, or have a damage type that is more commonly resisted than others, but for base damage, all you need is the chart.)

There is NO equivalent for spells.

Back to green slime's proposal about using Innate Spell for comparison for a moment

Magic Missile analysis:
5d4+5 * 10 (rounds) * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 72000d4+72000 = 252,000 average damage. Maximum damage = 360,000.

Now compare a Beguiler and a Warmage using that feat. (The classes have identical SPRs.)

The Warmage can use the Magic Missile analysis green slime already prepared. The Beguiler, OTOH, has no such 1st level damage dealing spell. He could have Mage Armor up 24/7...or affect a whole bunch of critters with his Color Spray, but how many?

Is that > 252,000 average damage, < 252,000 average damage, or = 252,000 average damage?

Is the Warmage better than the Beguiler? Yes, if you add the clause "at dealing damage with spells" to that sentence.

SPR doesn't even ask those kinds of questions. It just looks at one particular resource casters have and gives it a numerical value.

Regardless of whether or not this was designed to be a "sole" mechanic or not it is deceptive in its basis.

Its no more deceptive than any other statistical measurement. It has to be placed within the proper context.

A-Rod has a great batting average and hits a ton of home runs. That makes him a great hitter, right?

By most standards, yes.

OTOH, a great number of his hits and homers come when his team is either well ahead or well behind their opponents- and to make things worse, those hits rarely come with runners in scoring position. By those and other stats, he's counted among the worst hitters in the league.

 

[Elethiomel]

SPR doesn't even ask those kinds of questions. It just looks at one particular resource casters have and gives it a numerical value.

Yes. And that is why it is utterly useless as a metric. All it does is count spell levels; while someone could use the feat and burn all those spells in exactly that way that has no bearing or relevance to the way anyone would play in a real situation. It has as much to do with spell power as a baseball player's shoe size has to do with their baseball performance (disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about baseball. If shoe size matters, please disregard this comparison).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes. And that is why it is utterly useless as a metric.

Au contraire- it makes it useful. It gives and measures a common denominator to ALL arcane casting classes.

All it does is count spell levels; while someone could use the feat and burn all those spells in exactly that way that has no bearing or relevance to the way anyone would play in a real situation.

Again, begging to differ- I'm currently playing a sorcerer who does nearly exactly that. So far, he hasn't cast a single spell. Its nice to be able to lay down a line of electrical damage while wearing full armor.

(Full disclaimer- we've only had a few sessions so far.)

But that is beside the point- we're not talking about actual game play. We're measuring potential.

It has as much to do with spell power as a baseball player's shoe size has to do with their baseball performance

Perhaps you're latching on to the name of the metric- its not a measure of the power of spells, but how much arcane potential exists within a spellcasting class at any given level.

At certain levels and in certain circumstances, the theurge-type classes will have greater flexibility than a comparable single-classed spellcaster. They simply have more options- that is what SPR reflects.

They pay for this by the simple fact that they will always lag in spell acquisition (by level) which in turn translates into a lag in availability of top slots.

 

[Shin Okada]

Dannyalcatraz, your theory is flawed from the beginning. Even for Draconic Breath feat (which you have used as the base of your theory), nine 1st-level spells are not equal to one 9th-level spell. With nine 1st-level spell slots, you can breath 2d6 breath 9 times. With a 9th-level slot, you can breath a 18d6 breath once. Which will make you a formidable combatant? The latter, of course.

 

[Corsair]

A couple quick things:

1) Why bother with the whole *2d6 garbage? You're just using that as an excuse to total up spell levels. Just admit that and move on.

2) If you could take a feat that gave you one of the follow sets of spell like abilities, which would you choose:

Feat A: 1/day Shapechange

Feat B: 1/day Teleport, 1/day Cloudkill

Feat C: 1/day Fireball, 1/day Fly, 1/day Dispel Magic, 1/day Glitterdust


What if every SLA in feats B and C was 2/day? Which would you pick then?


Summary: Your metric of measurement is a poor choice, and grossly overestimates how useful large numbers of low level slots are at high levels compared to having even a handful more top end slots.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz, your theory is flawed from the beginning. Even for Draconic Breath feat (which you have used as the base of your theory), nine 1st-level spells are not equal to one 9th-level spell. With nine 1st-level spell slots, you can breath 2d6 breath 9 times. With a 9th-level slot, you can breath a 18d6 breath once. Which will make you a formidable combatant? The latter, of course.

I made no claims that a 9th level slot is equivalent to 9 first level slots in any way other than as a simple measure of potential.

The question as to the efficacy of the 2 combatants is entirely dependent upon the situation- for some jobs you need a scalpel, for others you need a 2 handed sword.

If the guy with the single 9th level slot uses it incinerating 60' of Kobolds, he's done and has wasted his slot- the Kobolds aren't just dead, they're incinerated a dozen times over. If there are any Kobolds outside of that area, he might be in serious trouble. In contrast, the first combatant breathing up to 9 different 60' lines of electrical damage will be much more useful to his party.

OTOH, if facing a single powerful opponent, the guy who expends the 9th level spell may end the fight before it begins, while the one with the smaller breath weapon may be dead before he can do significant damage.

 

[Shin Okada]

I made no claims that a 9th level slot is equivalent to 9 first level slots in any way other than as a simple measure of potential.

But you are counting them equally when comparing various spellcaster builds. And you are not showing other arguments to support that theurge type casters are so great.

The question as to the efficacy of the 2 combatants is entirely dependent upon the situation- for some jobs you need a scalpel, for others you need a 2 handed sword.

When a character can cast a 9th-level spell, he does not need to use his own spell slots for doing works for scalpel. He can either use very cheap magic wands, scrolls, alchemical items or even his dagger for wiping out 100 kobolds. That is at least 17th-level Wizard you know.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A couple quick things:

1) Why bother with the whole *2d6 garbage? You're just using that as an excuse to total up spell levels. Just admit that and move on.

Because it gives us a result in a unit- namely damage- that expresses a number that is meaningful within actual gameplay. "Slots" and "Spell Levels" are a step removed.

2) If you could take a feat that gave you one of the follow sets of spell like abilities, which would you choose:

Feat A: 1/day Shapechange

Feat B: 1/day Teleport, 1/day Cloudkill

Feat C: 1/day Fireball, 1/day Fly, 1/day Dispel Magic, 1/day Glitterdust

To me, those are all equivalent- my choice would depend entirely upon the unique PC concept I was aiming for.

What if every SLA in feats B and C was 2/day? Which would you pick then?

Same answer.

Your metric of measurement is a poor choice, and grossly overestimates how useful large numbers of low level slots are at high levels compared to having even a handful more top end slots.

I've addressed this time and time again: I make no assertion that a given number of low level slots are equivalent to a mathematically equal high level slot in actual game play.

SPR is merely a measurement of potential energy.

Think of it this way: Given the choice between having a ton of feathers or a 1 ton steel ball dropped on you from a height of 1 mile, I'm pretty sure most of us would opt for the feathers.

Yet according to physics, both masses have the same potential energy.