Wraithstrike balance evaluation examples

[Aaron L]

Since Wraithstrike is 1 round, now it's just a matter of time before we get Greater Wraithstrike that lasts one round(maybe 1 hour!)/per level at about 4th or 5th level!

 

[sithramir]

In my epic game my character has a Jade Phoenix Mage the PrC from Tome of Blood.

He has signature spell (wraithstrike).

He can use a maneuver as a full round action which allows him to keep attacking as many times as he wants until he misses with a minus 4 for each attack. Using wraith strike he's hitting the touch AC so against something like a dragon he can hit MANY MANY times in one round.

He also took arcane strike so he can add this damage for sacrificing a spell into all those attacks as well. Let's just say it is insane damage.

You don't need to be epic for this, it just happens to be where I saw it in my game. You can easily do this around 12th level or so.

I've come to realize that wraithstrike is insane. Maybe if it was 4th level or higher than it'd be ok because you couldn't do it with a lower level spell and it would minimize huge abuse from fighter/caster types. Being second level means a sorcerer could have nearly unlimited uses unless you have a whole lot of battles in one day.

 

[Mistwell]

And in the opinion of those people (me included) is that it's perfectly acceptable to ban a spell (or magic item or feat or whatever) based on a reasonable analysis. I don't need to see a good role player not take advantage of this to know I don't want such a stupidly-designed spell in my game.

This is what happens when you take a comment out of context.

I was responding to someone specifically saying that people had not just done a reasonable analysis, but had actually used it in a game on a long term basis and come to that conclusion.

You then clipped that comment, and made it seem like I was not fairly addressing the issue you raised, when in fact the issue you raised was the whole point. Or that I somehow had ignored the opinion of those who had not used it in game, when again I had already addressed that issue. Why clip THAT comment when you knew full well it was out of context when displayed that way?

More importantly, and why this thread exists, I recommend to everyone out there not to use spell. Don't even bother trying it and allowing it in your game. It's a MUCH bigger hassle to remove a spell from the game later after you find out it sucks. Forget about the problem of reworking a character (even an NPC) after removing the spell, you'll have a glaring continuity error. That part creates major suckage for the game in general.

And we disagree on that count. A lot. More than just my opinion is present in this thread saying that the spell has been found to be fine in actual play. I think it's only right that people try it for themselves rather than depending on theoretical advice for stuff that could happen on paper. Much like the Warlock. They might actually come to a different conclusion than you have, and find the spell is fine. Is it really so bad that people try a spell before they ban it, if some others have said it seems to work fine in play? Or do you really believe that your opinion is the only possible valid opinion on this issue?

 

[wildstarsreach]

This is what happens when you take a comment out of context.

I was responding to someone specifically saying that people had not just done a reasonable analysis, but had actually used it in a game on a long term basis and come to that conclusion.

You then clipped that comment, and made it seem like I was not fairly addressing the issue you raised, when in fact the issue you raised was the whole point. Or that I somehow had ignored the opinion of those who had not used it in game, when again I had already addressed that issue. Why clip THAT comment when you knew full well it was out of context when displayed that way?



And we disagree on that count. A lot. More than just my opinion is present in this thread saying that the spell has been found to be fine in actual play. I think it's only right that people try it for themselves rather than depending on theoretical advice for stuff that could happen on paper. Much like the Warlock. They might actually come to a different conclusion than you have, and find the spell is fine. Is it really so bad that people try a spell before they ban it, if some others have said it seems to work fine in play? Or do you really believe that your opinion is the only possible valid opinion on this issue?

Mistwell,

I agree in principal when there isn't such a glaring imbalance. If people let the spell into their game, I think that they should be aware of the potential problems. I think that this spell is imbalance dwhen compared to spells even remotely similar. I believe that this spell would be good at 6th level for proper balance but could live with it at 4th. However I feel that my DM's still would probably not allow it. Knee jerk on their part. When I first starting hearing about this spell I thought that it would be a great spell. I can see where it would become problematic. I still though that it is the DM who is right in order to balance the game. This spell as is helps on PC's defeating opponents quickly but lowers the PC survivability if the enemies use it against them. I'm willing to sacrifice the ability to have this spell if more than ten times that NPC's don't have it to use against us. That is why it is too good.

 

[Rystil Arden]

And we disagree on that count. A lot. More than just my opinion is present in this thread saying that the spell has been found to be fine in actual play. I think it's only right that people try it for themselves rather than depending on theoretical advice for stuff that could happen on paper. Much like the Warlock. They might actually come to a different conclusion than you have, and find the spell is fine. Is it really so bad that people try a spell before they ban it, if some others have said it seems to work fine in play? Or do you really believe that your opinion is the only possible valid opinion on this issue?

And I take a middle ground on this, Mistwell. I think this spell is insane and terribly unbalanced, but I admit that it might not be in either highly abnormal games with no fighter/mage characters or in games where the GM and players both try to min/max out as much as possible in an arms race to reach the level of the CO boards at WotC, or maybe even others.

I think a GM may indeed want to try out Wraithstrike to see if it will work in their games (though banning it outright is also a good idea, particularly if you know you have Fighter/Mages with Power Attack but not other broken things like, for instance, Wraithstrike's older sister Divine Metamagic), but if they do, I think they should be VERY careful. They should bring their players to a test fight that doesn't impact the campaign, or playtest it themselves, or something like that. Why? Because in most campaigns, in the hands of someone who would actually want to cast it in the first place (which is pretty obviously what you should be checking balance with) this spell is so absurd that if you try it out in a real game setting, you have a non-negligible chance to ruin your entire campaign (or have to retcon that it was 'just a dream' or something). If you give it to the monsters to test it, and you test it with a level-appropriate challenge, the party is probably going to be TPKed. If you give it to the PCs (assuming you have a gish PC who can use it), you may suck the fun out of the adventure due to the one gish PC killing everything himself (or if you make things harder so that the gish doesn't cakewalk it, the harder things will be way too strong for the other PCs and kill them, which is the eternal dilemma for GMs with an overpowered character).

One thing is certain--putting Wraithstrike into a game and then never having a PC who would want to use it exist in that game is not a positive example of Wraithstrike playing nice with balance.

 

[Iku Rex]

Wraithstrike has Verbal and Somatic spell requirements so Spell Failure is a factor, and a Silence spell will negate it.

The somatic component is not a problem if you're wearing no armor or no-ASF armor, possibly with the help of a level of spellsword. Still spell is another option, especially if the DM rules that it's a move action to re- grasp a two-handed weapon after casting wraithstrike.

Opponents rarely have silence.

Contingency spell with a Reciprocal Gyre targeted on the person that attacks with Wraithstike. Most Gish builds will feel the pain.

Why would they cast reciprocal gyre on themselves? "The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person ..." And while reciprocal gyre (SC) can be a decent spell against a buffed mage, the wraithstrike will only add 1d12 damage (will half).

 

[Iku Rex]

I admit to loosing interest in this subject when I realized that wraithstrike bypasses DR. (I don't see how it's "ambiguous".) It made it too obvious. But I still want to address a few of the arguments from the last few days. I apologize for keeping the thread alive.


Power Attack is not the problem. In 3.0 you could get the 2-for-1 damage by using two weapons. You still can in 3.5 by dual-wielding non-light weapons. Power Attack gives a highly skilled character a chance to deal extra damage against easy targets, which makes sense both game mechanically and in-game. A lot of the time 2 extra damage is a bad trade for 1 AB, and the trade gets worse the more damage you deal. It only looks good with wraithstrike because of the insane effective attack bonus it provides under the right circumstances

One bizarre idea that really puzzles me is that a rule is only unbalanced if it "breaks" in all campaigns and against all opponents. Basically, what people are saying is that "it's only unbalanced when it's unbalanced". No kidding. By that standard there are NO unbalanced rules. But this is the DnD rules board, not the "X's campaign world" board. I think it's a given that if someone says "rule X is unbalanced" they mean "rule X is unbalanced when used in a situation where it can be used effectively".

Against my better judgement I'll try for an example: It's a bad idea for a grocery store to sell poisoned meat. Period.

Even if some people don't eat meat ("nobody plays a fighter-mage in our DnD campaign"). Or don't shop at that store ("nobody uses that obscure supplement in our gaming group"). Or happen to pick a safe piece ("nobody picked that spell in our group"). Or don't eat enough to be really sick ("it's perfectly fine for poorly optimized low-level characters"). Or if a sick customer can be healed with the correct medical treatment ("the DM can take countermeasures").

As for said countermeasures: They're not the answer either. Once an entire campaign world starts twisting to accommodate a single low-level non-core spell something is wrong. It assumes a lot of extra work by the DM. The vast majority of DMs don't want to go over every monster and NPC from Monster Manuals, DMG or published adventures to boost their touch AC by a few points. Nor does it fit most published campaign settings. (Though introducing a few overpowered spells into a world could be an interesting basis for a campaign, as the balance of power changes and everyone scrambles to exploit the new spells or to find defenses.) Even if the DM goes out of his way to make changes wraithstrike will still be devastatingly effective in some situations. A spell does not have to be overpowered against every opponent to be poorly designed.

"Just give the opponents wraithstrike too" is even worse. Presumably, unbalanced spells make the game less fun. Unbalanced monsters and NPC also make the game less fun. It solves nothing and doubles the un-fun. Better to talk about it out-of-character.

Finally I've noticed that a several posters overlook that wraithstrike is a swift spell. It should not be compared with spells with a standard action casting time. I may make a short list of equivalent swift and immediate action spells that are used in melee and what they can do. (Probably won't though since I'm getting tired of this thread.)

 

[two]

very irritating

Aw come on now...you can make an Incantatrix at level 10-12 that can do HUGE damage with the spell (and there are a couple of other builds as well). You CAN drag it out to 20 levels, much like people have posted 20 levels for wratihstrike. But you receive huge benefits at right around the same level as the Wraithstrike builds.

But really, this is a different thread we are talking about, and it should be it's own thread if people want to see a scorching ray build.

I find it very irritating when people demand multiple builds in great detail yet simply refuse to do any builds in return.

At all.

Incantrix. 11th level. Huge damage. Show me.

PS: Make sure you can do it, like, 10 or more times a day, since at 11th level you can easily cast WS 10 or more times a day by burning higher level slots.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is what happens when you take a comment out of context.

I'm fairly positive I took nothing out of context.

Why clip THAT comment when you knew full well it was out of context when displayed that way?

Because it's not out of context and your other paragraph (you separated it, not me) was irrelevant to my point. Your take on the balance of this spell (or balance in general) is all I am responding to. It's not wrong if it works for you, but I think it's wrong advice in general. You need to instruct people about the dangers in it and not just tell them to go for it. IMO, that's the purpose of threads like this. Those who care to know those dangers and/or discuss them do so. They don't need people encouraging them to ignore the fact that this spell gives anywhere from +1 to +50 on attack rolls at 2nd level.

I think it's only right that people try it for themselves rather than depending on theoretical advice for stuff that could happen on paper.

No, absolutely not. This 'theoretical advice' is a litmus test. If the spell can't even remotely pass a simple test, then it should be nerfed, if not outright banned.

Is it really so bad that people try a spell before they ban it, if some others have said it seems to work fine in play?

Yes, absolutely it's that bad. Don't even try the spell because after it ruins your game it will be too late. It's much harder to remove spells after the fact.

Or do you really believe that your opinion is the only possible valid opinion on this issue?

If it weren't, then I wouldn't have that opinion. I'd be riding the fence. Could I be wrong? Yes, but so far nothing anyone has said on this spell or on the principles of balance in general have even remotely persuaded me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I find it very irritating when people demand multiple builds in great detail yet simply refuse to do any builds in return.

You must have been irritated at the following thread then.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=183070&highlight=ac