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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4459960" data-attributes="member: 19675">Just because a spell bypasses SR doesn't mean its inherently inferior to spells that depend upon their caster to do that dirty work.That's why I said there isn't a metric- a hard & fast statistically derived number- that we can make those kinds of comparisons with.I'm not avoiding the question.  I LOVE buffs.I'm saying that there is no quantitative metric to measure spell qualtity ACROSS types and levels of spells, only opinions.WITHIN types, however, comparison is easy.  One can easily figure out which buffs are better than others, or which blaster spell gives you the best bang for the buck.There are lots even within the core- many within the Conjuration school.I never proposed this as a sole metric.Quoting me:The example of the baseball player shows that there are dozens of statistical methods by which a batter's quality is measured- so, by implication, should it be here. Sorry if you missed that.When I asked about PS, I said  By which I meant that, AFAIK, there was no reason I could see why they don't stack...but I was asking if anyone else knew of one- Eratta, or a FAQ, perhaps- any kind of statement that like Improved Critical and the Keen weapon property, they aren't supposed to.And if you look at Sorc7/Wiz3/UM10, you'd see that the combination of the UM class ability and the PS feat means that, whatever spells such a PC has, he casts as an 18-20th level caster (Wiz caster level 10, UM feature +4CL, PS +4CL).No, I'm just fielding and answering questions.I already conceded that the Wizard will dominate in feat selection...as if that were even a question.Quoting my original postThe GG book has a few of the metrics you proposed- that's why I keep bringing it up!Again, never suggested that it should be.No, I stated I disliked those PrCls-  SPR was just the first metric I found that supported any of my opinions.Dude, I already said I had several builds and just miscopied my data.You could have corrected it or even used blargney's formula and seen that the trend was still in the direction I'm talking about.  My math was off, so sue me.Do you want me to "show my work?"  I have a dislike, yes.But the analysis is based on the math from a WotC supplement, not my presuppositions.Because the math error I made is easily corrected- you could have done so in the time it took you to make your previous post.Yep, and I said so.Seeing as how their progressions were simple & linear and that top level Wizards have 4 slots/level of spell and FocSpecWiz and Sorcerers have 6 slots, their math was much easier.</blockquote>

Verification