No this is the reason (based on the arguments you've made so far):
As I stated earlier you have been looking for a way to "justify" your belief not for a way to actually "measure" anything for a true comparison.
That is a flawed basis.
SPR: Quantification of the "Theurge-style" PrCls
- Thread starter Dannyalcatraz
- Start date
No this is the reason (based on the arguments you've made so far):
As I stated earlier you have been looking for a way to "justify" your belief not for a way to actually "measure" anything for a true comparison.
That is a flawed basis.
Jack Simth
First Post
Perhaps a different measurement, still looking at damage spells.
Compare, say, Burning Hands (1st) to Fireball (3rd).
Both are area-effect Fire spells that deal direct-damage and permit a reflex save.
Burning Hands is a 15-foot Burst (about six squares) where Fireball is a 20-foot radius Spread (around 30 squares)
Burning Hands uses a d4 damage die, Fireball uses a d6 damage die.
Burning Hands is essentially melee range, Fireball is Long range.
Burning Hands has a 5d cap, Fireball has a 10dcap.
Two spell levels, and the higher-level spell is a lot better in a lot of ways.
Perhaps instead of comparing spell level, we should compare Spell Level Squared - that is, a 9th level spell slot is 81 points, an 8th level spell slot is 64 points, a 7th level spell slot is 49 points, and so on, down to a 1st level spell slot at 1 point and a cantrip (or Osiron) at 1/4 point (1/2 squared).
Compare, say, Burning Hands (1st) to Fireball (3rd).
Both are area-effect Fire spells that deal direct-damage and permit a reflex save.
Burning Hands is a 15-foot Burst (about six squares) where Fireball is a 20-foot radius Spread (around 30 squares)
Burning Hands uses a d4 damage die, Fireball uses a d6 damage die.
Burning Hands is essentially melee range, Fireball is Long range.
Burning Hands has a 5d cap, Fireball has a 10dcap.
Two spell levels, and the higher-level spell is a lot better in a lot of ways.
Perhaps instead of comparing spell level, we should compare Spell Level Squared - that is, a 9th level spell slot is 81 points, an 8th level spell slot is 64 points, a 7th level spell slot is 49 points, and so on, down to a 1st level spell slot at 1 point and a cantrip (or Osiron) at 1/4 point (1/2 squared).
Another issue with the SPR is that it is using feats that have built in limiting factors as a basis.
I don't have my book with me but IIRC the "breath" feat essentially converts spells into a breath weapon (with a short range). The range is the limiting factor there. Giving up a longer range spell for a shorter range effect. And a short range spell basically only allows a limited number of uses per combat before the caster gets into melee range of the target.
The other similar feats follow a pattern of "type" - cold for cold, fire for fire, etc. So they are limited by a certain type of effect. Which makes them selective in their use.
I don't have my book with me but IIRC the "breath" feat essentially converts spells into a breath weapon (with a short range). The range is the limiting factor there. Giving up a longer range spell for a shorter range effect. And a short range spell basically only allows a limited number of uses per combat before the caster gets into melee range of the target.
The other similar feats follow a pattern of "type" - cold for cold, fire for fire, etc. So they are limited by a certain type of effect. Which makes them selective in their use.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
If this were a scientific experiment, what would you do if the evidence didn't support your theory?
-blarg
-blarg
I've defended my dislike of the Theurge style classes on a variety of bases. I needed no additional methods. In the end, though, arguments pro and con still were matters of opinion.
SPR wasn't conceived with an intent to justify my dislike, it was discovered. I didn't create the feat, and its not like I cooked the books or anything.
Anyone using the same methodology and doing the math (correctly, of course) would receive the same answers.
IOW, no bias.
My dislike enters into things only in the sense of a revelation, as in "Perhaps that's what's really been bugging me."
That analysis has much merit, though you still have the problem that not all spells of the same level have the same quality.
Sure, but so does comparing individual spells- again, which is better, Summon Monster 1, Magic Missile, or Sleep?
Each spell has limiting factors- range, duration, stacking limits, SR and even the nature of their intended targets. Some are more effective on fighters than on wizards and vice versa. Certain energy types are more likely to be resisted than others. Some spells are more effective on undead, while others are utterly useless against them. What is the value of immediate damage versus damage over time? (OK, that last one gets a LOT of analysis by the guys at Goodman Games.)
All of those variables make it difficult if not impossible to directly compare one spell's quality to another- they lack common statistically comparable ground, a common denominator.
What a good scientist does- go back to the beginning and formulate a new theory.
The thing is, as I pointed out with the physics example, there is support. The Theurge classes may lack a certain punch, like the ton of feathers, but the arcane potential is still there, like the 1 ton steel weight.
Had 4Ed not come along, its entirely possible that that potential could have been released in an abusive way by a new 3.5 product (if it hasn't already- I have lots of stuff, but not everything).
People, as I've said often enough, this was never intended as the end-all-be-all measurement. Goodman Games' product is full of metrics that let you compare the Wizard and Sorcerer- it doesn't venture beyond the 3.5PHB- and it still has no definitive answer as to which is "better."
This is just another metric, as (potentially) are the Innate Spell analysis or Spell Level Squared.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Well then, what would it take to prove to you that there's a flaw in your analytical tool?
-blarg
-blarg
By using a factor which few classes will ever use, save for the warmage (for lack of another alternative). It might have been relevant, if classes could (and should) be reliably gauged by how much damage they dealt with their spells. But as experience has shown, direct damage is easily the most inefficient route for a caster, and battlefield control (which hardly deals any damage) is king.
No offense, but your analysis is like arguing that a normally lackluster class is actually a rather strong PC because it makes an excellent bull-rusher (hypothetically). Maybe, but who the hell really cares, when no one ever uses that option?
It is the same here. At the end of the day, what is the usefulness of measuring the damage output of different spellcasting classes, if no one uses damage spells at all?
You can continue with your analysis, but that likely just ends up with misleading results like how a mystic theurge with practiced spellcaster is much more powerful than a pure-classed wizard because the former has more slots, when we all jolly well know that it is clearly the other way around.
Last edited:
Like I've said numerous times before, I know its flawed, which is why I said it shouldn't be used as a solo tool.
However, its no more flawed than others.
Again with the A-Rod analysis for comparison: he hits for high average and hits a lot of home runs. Simply looking at those numbers in isolation would lead most baseball teams to assume that he'd help their teams win a lot of games.
And they'd be wrong.
Other stats about him indicate that he hits poorly in pressure situations, and most of his homers don't affect game outcomes. By some statistical tools, the highest-paid player in MLB is one of its worst hitters.
Similarly, using SPR alone to assert that one class is demonstrably better than any other would be idiotic. It has to be used in the context of all other available metrics.
1) Experience isn't quite the same as statistics.
GG's aforementioned product examines 4 main arcane caster archetypes- Blasters, Controllers, Saboteurs and Support. Despite pages of statistical analysis, the product doesn't assert any one archetype as superior, nor either of the PHB's full arcane caster classes as superior.
Indeed, they seem to indicate that they are all very balanced versus each other.
2) As mentioned above, I actually AM using this as an option right now, and I'm desiging a second PC based on a similar feat from the PHB2 for future use. The hypothetical is real. See
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/239192-forked-thread-mage-brute-revisited.html
and
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/223891-mage-brute-build-help.html-
IOW, I've been talking about doing this for months (long before coming up with this metric, btw), and have done so.
3) You and others are still getting hung up in the actual dealing of damage when the analysis isn't about dealing damage at all- its just a measure of arcane potential.
The damage? IGNORE IT. Drop the "d6" if you will- its just unit of measurement. Call them "wubblozes" instead. Whatever- just get beyond the point that I'm saying that using slots to deal damage is the way to go, because I'm not saying that at all.
RAW, the feat itself requires at least 1 level of Sorc- that means that Warmages, Duskblades, Beguilers, etc. couldn't use it at all without multiclassing into that class.
But that is immaterial to the analysis.
All of the arcane casters use the same spell system, and all of their spells have all of the same incomparable variables. This analysis based on this feat cuts out those variables.
Last edited:
green slime
First Post
No, it doesn't. Or rather, it only seems to do so, when you want it to.
What was the point you were making about this "SPR" in connection with the theurge-style PrC's?
Shin Okada
Explorer
Posted on a wrong thread.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
