Wraithstrike balance evaluation examples

[SlagMortar]

At the very least we should be able to determine why we arrive at different conclusions. Sadly, that's not happening.

Actually, I think we are at agreement.
Iku Rex's: If your game includes melee oriented fighter/mage characters or melee oriented polymorphed arcane caster characters or a DM that likes to use wraithstrike with spellcasting monsters, then wraithstrike is broken.
Mistwell: If your game does not include melee focused fighter/mage characters or melee focused polymorphed arcane caster characters or a DM that likes to use wraithstrike with spellcasting monsters, then wraithstrike is not broken.

From there, it is a matter of what characters are common. My apologies to Mistwell if I poorly summarized your position, but that seems to me to be what you are saying. You do concede at least that the particular fighter/mage build Iku Rex has proposed is broken?

 

[XO]

The Statistics School "Cracker Jack Box" Diploma

***whistles in a descending tone, in perplexed and rather sardonic fashion***

Power Attack
"This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. "
Translation: Power Attack bonus (or switch) may not exceed BAB.
So this is really great for a dragon, and not so thrilling for any adventurer, is it?

Quick Calculation for Extra Damage = less than BAB x # of attacks
COST: about 3 levels of XP to do this once or twice a day, meaning cheap at low levels and really expensive at high levels (consider that XP to be the top tier of levels).

Do people ever try to apply common sense to this game, or does every thread need be concerned with finding which one of thousands of different factors / rules (counting every feat, spell and skill) does not combine or interface well with any of the other? Can DMs connect brain and apply judgment?

Add "Applicable to a maximum of BAB = 20", or any reasonable limitations thereof.

Want to nerf it completely? Add "Only BAB derived from the caster class may be used" and no one will ever use this spell.

Recap: before applying more feats and spells, and using the shortcut, it means a maximum of +68 damage at level 16+3 (say Ftr 16 + Wiz3) or (BAB 16 + BAB 1) x 4, and you'll need to keep tight reins on that Power Attack calculation.

Dex and Natural Armor, and Bracers will diminish the damage output.

Want a really GOOD damage output analysis? See http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/nwn/

Oh, and in passing, nobody should care what Andy Collins thinks! Do not use that name and the verb think in same sentence?

 

[satori01]

Wraithstrike as a spell is exacerbated by the 2 for 1 damage rule of Power Attack. Of all of the changes of 3.5, this has had the most significant change on the game, and not for the better imho.

With 1 for 1 Power Attack, I think you find less of a fuss.

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

At high level enemy tactics can realistically encompass anything. Think that Storm Giant or Dragon has never encountered a fighter/mage before in the centuries of their lives?

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

Spells or items or feats that add Dodge, or Deflection bonuses should be common on said creatures.

NPC warrior types should regularly take the Parrying Shield feat from Lords of Madness. This feat, unlike the one from PHB II, has the prerequisite of Shield Proficiency only, and lets you add your Shield Bonuses,(including enhancement ) to Touch AC.

Enough material has been published for 3.5, that for any combo you find, there is something else that can be used to negate it.
Elusive Target I am looking at you! Games that feature players with lots of synergistic pieces from a vast array of books will for the most part feature DMs of the same bent.

That said, as a DM I would never use it, as I know I could kill the party easily with a Giant, 3 non associated Sorcerer levels, Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave.

To bolster Mistwells argument, my group of 30 something professionals, that are actually decent min/maxers when they put the time into it, have chosen not to utilize the spell, or simply have not discovered it, in their forays into the Spell Compendium.

I am still firmly of the belief, that the crux of this problem is 2 for 1 Power Attack with 2 handed weapons. In other games I have seen an Enlightened Fist variant with this spell, and while impressive it was not game breaking.

 

[Mistwell]

I started the other thread mainly after a long talk with one of our groups DM. I have a Duskblade in play, after having seen many references to wraithstrike I became convinced that this would be ideal for my character. Over time, I saw several fighter/mage builds and began working on characters.

In the hands of a Duskblade, this spell is devasting against NPC's because the class has full base attack. Fighter mage builds could take advantage almost as well but also having access to up to 9th level spells. With arcane strike, they can do better than my duskblade at the higher level from 15-20.

There is a good reason this spell is not on the Duskblade list. I disagree with you that a fighter mage could take more advantage. That is patently false. One of the primary reasons I think the spell is fine is because you have to split so many levels between a fighter and a mage, thus reducing the characters overall effectiveness in order to get to 10th level where the combo starts to pay off. Such balancing factors are not present with a Duskblade, that has both classes essentially present at once. To claim this spell is broken because you wanted it with a type of class that is expressly not supposed to get it doesn't help this debate in my mind, it just clouds issues even further.

You state that these builds are uncommon. On this we will have to disagree.

You think Duskblades with Wraithstrike are common?

I have come to the conclusion that this spell in it's current version should be banned.

You mean, like the rules as written for a Duskblade?

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like some form of this spell. Both lists were to discuss whether this spell is properly at the appropriate level. As a 2nd level spell, it is too good for those who take it.

I disagree, and from what I can tell you have never even bothered to try the spell out with the characters that have it on their spell list to find out for yourself. That's a shame, since you've heard from two people who think it is fine, and several who think it is not, and obviously experience plays a role in this issue.

You did request builds that BE provided. For these builds, the spell is rediculasly overpowered. Now, the real problem is the old MAD. Mutual assured destruction.

MAD, in a D&D context, is multiple attribute dependency, something these builds suffer GREATLY from. It's again one of the built in balancing factors for these builds.

If your country has nuclear weapons, then mine will want them.

MAD in a political context was both countries already having them, not one wanting them. If one has them and one does not, that's called SAD...single-assured-destruction.

Sooner or later, they will get used.

Usually not. Usually, if one has it, the other is prevented from getting it.

This spell is very mush like a nuclear weapon. It is devestating when used. If used by NPC's against the party, a TPK is much more likely than just about any other situation that I've seen.

But you have never seen it by your own admission. This is theoretical to you. In my actual experience, it doesn't happen that way. In some other people's experiences, it has. So you should try it in your game before you conclude on paper that such is the case.

Since you think that this spell from my take is a problem, could you tell us why it isn't without using the examples we have provided. Convince why you are right please.

No. I'm trying to convince you to try the spell in your game and see how it goes, and not come up with senarios where it is balanced that get whacked down as being hasty generalizations, and then whacky down other people's single examples as being hasty generalizations.

It is extremely difficult to convince a D&D player in a rules forum who has publicly entrenched on a position that they are wrong. Your own experience will be much more persuasive than anything I say here. So try it. What are you afraid of?

 

[Harm]

In those examples the amount of damage wraithstrike is doing without power attack isn't really all that special. Many no-save touch/ray-attack spells will do more and powered by assay spell resistance are pretty much auto-hit. Assay being for casters pretty close to what wraith strike is for melee. I think power attack needs to be looked at at least as much if not more than wraith strike. It's damage is grossly out of line with other feats, and when used by monsters that have decent attack bonuses it's pretty much one-shot kills on anyone rolling d4s for HPs.

As for wraithstrike, meh. The entire DnD magic system is a joke. Having it work on more than 1 attack may be a bit much, but most of the time it's not really a big deal. The 180 damage that you could potentially do to a dragon in your example is really nothing compared to a bare naked 11th level wizard with 1 feat tossing a maximized fireball into a crowd. 30 targets, 900-1800 damage, huzzah. 11th level cleric maximized holy storm, 24 damage/round for 11 rounds to all evil outsiders in it... 30 targets 7920 damage with no save, no spell resistance. And don't get me started on level drain spells such as Enervation...

 

[two]

What Mistwell is saying

What Mistwell is saying, and this is obvious, is that in the games he is playing in, WS is not a big problem.

Obviously, he knows, and he is right.

What other people are saying, who think WS overpowered, is that it's overpowered for D&D in general. In a specific campaign (such as Mistwell's) it might not be; but in a general sense, for a standard campaign, it quickly will be.

Again, this reminds me of the cranky and repetitive "Haste 3.0" debates that raged where people insisted Haste 3.0 was not "broken" or "too good" because it worked fine "in their campaign." That's super, but not really the point. And, of course, 3.5 proved who was right once and for all.

Since the "WS is too powerful" contingent has been very kind as to make builds, suggest builds, create spreasheets, etc. perhaps it would not be asking to much for a sample build of the type I am hearing a lot about in this thread. The, for example, "Scorching Ray" specialist doing huge damage, etc. And, to make the comparison even vaguely fair, the "Scorching Ray" specialist should manage the build using 1 spell-specific feat (power attack is the corollary for the fighter/mage build). And the "Scorching Ray" specialist should have at least two good saves and good hit points and good AC (like a typical fighter/mage). That's not asking a lot, simply... parity.

I am waiting a build. Any reasonable build. Ok. I was too restrictive. The "scorching ray" build can use THREE feats dedicated just to "scorching ray" i.e. that have little outside utility. But don't forget to get those saves and hit points high, and don't be a one-trick wonder! A Fighter/Mage with WS can also be a utility mage, have plenty of ranged feats, etc. after all.

PS: if you allow Touch attacks to ignore DR as may be the case in the RAW (debate still raging), WS becomes... well.. a god-killer.

 

[wildstarsreach]

There is a good reason this spell is not on the Duskblade list. I disagree with you that a fighter mage could take more advantage. That is patently false. One of the primary reasons I think the spell is fine is because you have to split so many levels between a fighter and a mage, thus reducing the characters overall effectiveness in order to get to 10th level where the combo starts to pay off. Such balancing factors are not present with a Duskblade, that has both classes essentially present at once. To claim this spell is broken because you wanted it with a type of class that is expressly not supposed to get it doesn't help this debate in my mind, it just clouds issues even further.



You think Duskblades with Wraithstrike are common?



You mean, like the rules as written for a Duskblade?



I disagree, and from what I can tell you have never even bothered to try the spell out with the characters that have it on their spell list to find out for yourself. That's a shame, since you've heard from two people who think it is fine, and several who think it is not, and obviously experience plays a role in this issue.



MAD, in a D&D context, is multiple attribute dependency, something these builds suffer GREATLY from. It's again one of the built in balancing factors for these builds.



MAD in a political context was both countries already having them, not one wanting them. If one has them and one does not, that's called SAD...single-assured-destruction.



Usually not. Usually, if one has it, the other is prevented from getting it.



But you have never seen it by your own admission. This is theoretical to you. In my actual experience, it doesn't happen that way. In some other people's experiences, it has. So you should try it in your game before you conclude on paper that such is the case.



No. I'm trying to convince you to try the spell in your game and see how it goes, and not come up with senarios where it is balanced that get whacked down as being hasty generalizations, and then whacky down other people's single examples as being hasty generalizations.

It is extremely difficult to convince a D&D player in a rules forum who has publicly entrenched on a position that they are wrong. Your own experience will be much more persuasive than anything I say here. So try it. What are you afraid of?

No game I play in will allow the spell. Strict statistics based on averages is usually considered good enough.

At 20th level, Duskblade BA is +20, A F2/W8/EK10 has a BA of +16. If both have Arcane Strike, the duskblade can get a +5 to hit and +5d4 damage. A Fighter mage can get upto +9 to hit and +9d4 damage. This puts both at +25 to attack but with the fighter mage doing an additional 4d4 of damage. This is where the fighter mage will do better. This is 16d4 more with 4 attacks. The arcane channeling while being able to do with a full attack still only affects one attack during that sequence.

Okay Mistwell, would you like a game where spellcasting monsters could use this spell against your characters? Most characters have a touch AC of 12-20. Most AC's range from 15-30. That 10-18 point difference will generally mean the difference between life and death for a PC. Added to that if the creatures have power attack, then damage becomes exacerbated.

 

[Votan]

No game I play in will allow the spell. Strict statistics based on averages is usually considered good enough.

At 20th level, Duskblade BA is +20, A F2/W8/EK10 has a BA of +16. If both have Arcane Strike, the duskblade can get a +5 to hit and +5d4 damage. A Fighter mage can get upto +9 to hit and +9d4 damage. This puts both at +25 to attack but with the fighter mage doing an additional 4d4 of damage. This is where the fighter mage will do better. This is 16d4 more with 4 attacks. The arcane channeling while being able to do with a full attack still only affects one attack during that sequence.

Okay Mistwell, would you like a game where spellcasting monsters could use this spell against your characters? Most characters have a touch AC of 12-20. Most AC's range from 15-30. That 10-18 point difference will generally mean the difference between life and death for a PC. Added to that if the creatures have power attack, then damage becomes exacerbated.

I incline towards the spell being unbalanced but I think that this is too extreme of an example. First, it is based on a level 20 comparison. Surprisingly bad character builds and ideas can mature by level 20 to be very reasonable (Mystic Theruge).

Duskblades balance better across 20 levels than fighter/mages. They are stronger at low levels and way more effective at high.

I alos don't know about you, but my Fighter/mages seem to have a terrible time being able to set up full attacks at high levels because they suck at absorbing hits to position for a full attack. Reach helps enormously but, even so . . .

Last, there is a big deal made about Fighter/mages and power attack. I find defense is where my Fighter/Mages really need help and so I am much more likely to go with combat expertise than power attack. Wraithstrike would be a tool to be more defensive in most of my builds and make improved combat expertise a must have. It's true that at level 20 Power Attack was long the better choice but surviving to level 20 is tricky, in my experience, and these characters are really fragile from levels 2 to 6 or so.

Because thinking about it, unless I am suboptimal in my Fighter/Mage builds (seriously possible as I can put flavor over mechanics), you would have an "eggshells with hammers" situation. This is part of why Wraithstrike annoys me.

The other is the ability for it to bleed on other spell lists. Fighter Mages have to put a lot of work into making this combination effective (they need to be medium/high level, focus feats in way that pays off in the long run, go with a 2 handed weapon, etc . . .). It is unquestionably abusable by FMs after level 15 or so but other game balanbce problems are around at this point.

But any cleric who gets this feat will be devastating because they can afford the focus, have the BAB and are already great at defense (heck, Shield of Faith is one of the better counters to somebody who assumes that Wraithstrike is an automatic hit). It's unhelpful that there is already a mechanism to do this in the game . . .

 

[Infiniti2000]

Strict statistics based on averages is usually considered good enough.

I agree. This is the heart of the debate IMO. This was also the heart of the debate in the monk's belt scenario, too. Some people have the opinion that brokenness can only be ascertained through actual play while others (like me) think that play is not necessary. I go one step further in that I would rather initially disallow something than to have to nerf it later or, worse, ban it later. IMO that approach is FAR more detrimental because trying to understand, in character, why you suddenly don't know wraithstrike or that it changed makes for a crappy game.

So, once someone can show that you can gain +29 to hit from this second level spell, to all attacks in one round, then it's broken and should be banned.

 

[two]

defense

I incline towards the spell being unbalanced but I think that this is too extreme of an example. First, it is based on a level 20 comparison. Surprisingly bad character builds and ideas can mature by level 20 to be very reasonable (Mystic Theruge).

Duskblades balance better across 20 levels than fighter/mages. They are stronger at low levels and way more effective at high.

I alos don't know about you, but my Fighter/mages seem to have a terrible time being able to set up full attacks at high levels because they suck at absorbing hits to position for a full attack. Reach helps enormously but, even so . . .

Last, there is a big deal made about Fighter/mages and power attack. I find defense is where my Fighter/Mages really need help and so I am much more likely to go with combat expertise than power attack. Wraithstrike would be a tool to be more defensive in most of my builds and make improved combat expertise a must have. It's true that at level 20 Power Attack was long the better choice but surviving to level 20 is tricky, in my experience, and these characters are really fragile from levels 2 to 6 or so.

Because thinking about it, unless I am suboptimal in my Fighter/Mage builds (seriously possible as I can put flavor over mechanics), you would have an "eggshells with hammers" situation. This is part of why Wraithstrike annoys me.

The other is the ability for it to bleed on other spell lists. Fighter Mages have to put a lot of work into making this combination effective (they need to be medium/high level, focus feats in way that pays off in the long run, go with a 2 handed weapon, etc . . .). It is unquestionably abusable by FMs after level 15 or so but other game balanbce problems are around at this point.

But any cleric who gets this feat will be devastating because they can afford the focus, have the BAB and are already great at defense (heck, Shield of Faith is one of the better counters to somebody who assumes that Wraithstrike is an automatic hit). It's unhelpful that there is already a mechanism to do this in the game . . .

?

It is very easy to have a F/M with much, much better defenses than a straight melee build.

Fighter/Mage has better saves... better AC due to long-lasting buffs like alter self or polymorph.

Stir in mirror image or improved invis/blink/etc.

An extended Alter Self nets you +6 nat. ac for ages...where is the eggshell?

If you have poor defenses as a F/M it is out of choice.

"Fighter Mages have to put a lot of work into making this combination effective (they need to be medium/high level, focus feats in way that pays off in the long run, go with a 2 handed weapon, etc . . .). "

This is just false. You need one feat. PA. The spell is effective at level 5 or so as a nice bonus to hit. As you level up it gets better and better....and better...