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: 4488677" data-attributes="member: 19675">Sorry about the long absence- I've been quite ill, lately.Anywho...Sure it does- it eliminates almost all of the variables.When comparing efficacy of actual spells, you have to deal with:1) Is the spell affected by SR?2) How many viable targets exist for the given spell? (Not at the moment of casting, but in the entirety of the game system.)3) Range.4) Area of effect / # of viable targets existing for the given spell at the time of casting.5) Environment at the time of casting.6) Cost and availability of material components.7) Combat, noncombat, or multiuse spell.8) Nature of targets for spells: directly cast at foes, cast on allies, cast on self, cast on areas or objects, multiple target types (chosen at time of casting).9) A given spell's availability to the arcane classes in general- IOW, upon whose list does the spell appear?10) Meta considerations linked to game design-    10a:  is the spell within the range of similar spells for its level or has there been power creep or nerfing?    10b:  does the spell introduce a new mechanic to a given level or even to the game itself?SPR makes all of those variables disappear.Minimal, actually.My disclosure of my dislike of theurge-style PrCls was merely in the interest of full transparency and honesty.  SPR was not intended to prove that they were better or worse in any absolute sense.SPR was derived merely as an observation that there are entirely objective ways to compare the spellcasting potential between arcane casting classes & builds, with it being one of potentially many.As such, the UM scores high, higher than any other arcane casting class build I could find.A typical theurge- type build, OTOH, has only one arcane casting class, so it will typically lag behind the Sorcerer, WarMage, Focused Specialist or Beguiler, and may do so against even a non-specialized Wizard, depending upon actual build.I don't know what you consider small sample sizes, but considering that they exist for or are calculable for any MLB player since 1900 or so means the sample size is actually quite large.Even without going back that far, calculating them for even a few decades would get you a statistically significant number- 40 players per team x 30 teams x 30 years = 36,000 samples.In your opinion. Again, others would disagree.No argument- clearly, higher level spells pack a punch lesser spells simply lack.However, looking at it that simply and stopping your analysis is like saying the only blade you'll ever need is a claymore...which is a fine philosophy until you're trying to fight in a 3' wide hall or you need surgery.Sometimes its far better to clear the battlefield with a barrage of smaller effects while holding onto your more powerful ones for key targets- the philosophy behind the theurge classes and reserve feats.This is reflected in reality as well.Despite a typical nuclear warhead being superior "in every way" to conventional armaments, the Air Force doesn't just use nukes, they have bombs and even machine guns on their planes.Likewise, the Army doesn't just produce tanks, they use infantry as well.  To do otherwise severely limits one's tactical and strategic options.A final clarification, just in case this thread gets necroed- think of it like the difference between measuring the calories and nutritional values of a given substance.  Calories merely measure energy within a given substance.  Nutritional values measure the quality of the food, its usefulness to the body.The cardboard box your breakfast cereal may be higher in calories than a similarly massed amount of the cereal, but it has almost no nutritional value to your body.SPR measures the "calories" a build has, it does not in any way address a build's "nutrition"- the quality of its spell selection.</blockquote>

Verification