PDA

View Full Version : Protective Spell a la WoW



Max Caysey
2013-11-30, 06:08 PM
Hello guys... I was hoping that this great community would be so helpful as to comment and rate my spell. ANy comment will be much appreciated. So by all means... PEACH away!

Angorielís Divine Ward
Abjuration
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Area: 5-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on target
Duration: 1 round/ 2 level (D)
Saving Throw: None; See text
Spell Resistance: No; See text
The spell creates a faintly shimmering golden globe of protective positive energy around a single target touched by the caster. While under the effect of Divine Ward, the recipient is completely safe from damage of any type. This includes damage from spells of any level. The ward absorbs 10 points of damage per 2 levels of the caster to a maximum of 50 points of damage at level 10. Since the ward is created of positive energy any healing receives while under the effect of Divine Ward are increased by 2 point per spell level. Being positive energy, this spell shuns out undead, which must succeed in a will save to enter the spell area. This however is produces a Hallow effect upon any undead inside the spells area.
Divine Focus: Holy symbol


Again thanks in advance!

TuggyNE
2013-11-30, 06:28 PM
Level: Clr 3

This is a very substantially better spell than protection from arrows, which is level 2, and in most respects significantly superior to stoneskin, which is level 4 (but level 6 for domains). Probably bump it to 6 or so, maybe 7, and perhaps add an expensive focus or material component or something. 7 would be good if you improve the cap.


Components: V, S, M

Should be V, S, DF, and leave out the Divine Focus entry at the end.


Range: Touch
Area: 5-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on target

I feel like the Range should be "Touch and 5'; see text"


Duration: 1 round/ 2 level (D)

Levels, and maybe even out the spaces around the slash.


The ward absorbs 10 points of damage per 2 levels of the caster to a maximum of 50 points of damage at level 10.

I'd suggest evening this out to "5 points of damage per caster level".

ngilop
2013-11-30, 06:31 PM
I like the spell.

its a great way to increase surviveability. in that a) is gives temp HP (up to 50) and b) bascially gives a caster free augment healing (+2 per spell level)

I think teh added hallow effect is a bit powerful for a 3rd level spell.

As fo right now this spell is basically an improved 2nd levle spell ( false life) with a first level spell ( heroics gives a bonus feat) and a limited Hallow but only in aspect of the +4 bonus to turn undead.

SO i think 4th level would be more appropiate for the Spells level.

Max Caysey
2013-12-01, 07:34 AM
First of all, thansk you for your feddback!

I have made a few modifications based on your comments.

It now looks like this:

Angorielís Divine Ward
Abjuration
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Area: 5-ft.-radius spherical emanation; see text
Duration: 1 round / 2 levels (D)
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell Resistance: No; see text
The spell creates a faintly shimmering golden globe of protective positive energy around a single target touched by the caster. While under the effect of Divine Ward, the recipient is completely safe from damage of any type. This includes damage from spells of any level. The ward absorbs 10 points of damage for every two levels of the caster to a maximum of 50 points of damage at 10th level. Since the ward is created of positive energy any healing receives while under the effect of Divine Ward is increased by 2 point per spell level. Being positive energy, this spell shuns out undead, which must succeed in a will save to enter the spell area.
Materiel Component: A sprinkling of diamond dust worth at least 50 gp

Dalebert
2013-12-01, 09:12 PM
Take a look at stoneskin and all the limitations on it.
1) It gives dmg reduction 10/adamantine so it only absorbs 10 pnts from any one attack and there's a way, albeit challenging, to get past that.
2) It does nothing for energy attacks.

It's 4th level and has a 250gp material component. It does last longer and can absorb more in the long run, but yours will absorb one really powerful attack that might kill someone. Stoneskin won't.

Plus your spell enhances healing.
Plus your spell blocks out undead.

I think it's dramatically overpowered for a 3rd level spell. I think you should probably raise the level a lot and also maybe make it more focused. Is it a force effect that blocks things (like mage armor or wall of force) and therefore maybe blocks straight damage, or is it a positive energy effect? Maybe the latter enhances healing or even give fast healing while also blocking undead or doing dmg to them if they attack.

Kazy
2013-12-02, 10:14 AM
I agree with the other guys.
I think it should be a lvl 5 Sanctified spell. (The ones that use the PC's stats as a component and can only be casted by truely good people.)

Max Caysey
2013-12-03, 05:36 AM
First I want to say, that I wholly enjoy all the feedback that I have gotten here, when that has been said, I have some comments for the comments.

If we were to look at Mass Aid, which is a level 3 spell, we find that not only does is give +1 morale attack and saves vs fear, it also gives 1d8+ (max 15) temporary hit points. And is has a duration of 1 minute per spell level and on top of this is has multiple allies as target.

The spell I posted here gives a max of 50 temporary HP, which indeed is a lot, but it has a max duration of 5 rounds, it also does not aid directly in combat, nor has it multiple targets. The added augment healing feat effect is only good if the target en question receives any healing during the duration.

All this tells me, compared to Mass Aid, that this should be a level 3 spell.

Any further comments or ideas are always very welcome. I hope I dont come off as not listening to what comments are posted here, and I have already changed some based on the comments, but I wholly disagree that this spell should be a level 5 or 7 for that matter.

Again thanks in advance

Hamste
2013-12-03, 05:52 AM
It doesn't have a max duration of five rounds you only put a cl limit on the amount of damage it blocks.

Drachasor
2013-12-03, 06:08 AM
I think PF's Ablative Barrier, Ablative Sphere, and PF/3.5's Protection From Energy are good comparisons. All are 3rd level.

Ablative Barrier (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/ablative-barrier)

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a piece of metal cut from a shield)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance no

Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/ó. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.


Ablative Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/ablative-sphere)

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a crystalline sphere worth 10 gp)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 minute per level (D)

An immobile, crystalline, web-like globe surrounds you. When the ablative sphere winks into existence, it provides you with improved cover (see below). The barrier does not impede a spell's line of sight or effect.

The sphere is 1 inch thick per caster level, has hardness 5, and 3 hit points per inch of thickness. When an ablative sphere loses hit points, the level of cover it provides is reduced. When the ablative sphere has lost one-third of its hit points, it provides cover instead of improved cover. Once it has lost two-thirds of its hit points, it provides only partial cover. Finally, when the ablative sphere's hit points reach 0, the globe is destroyed. When an attack reduces an ablative sphere's hit points to 0, you take any remaining damage.

Improved Cover

In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

As we Protection From Energy does not stack with Resist Energy. Lasts 10 min/level, and absorbs 12 damage/level (max 120) from one specific energy type.

One thing all of these have in common, is that there's a way to deal damage through them. Ablative Barrier converts 5 damage at a time to non-lethal. Ablative Sphere doesn't block targeted spells and can doesn't fully block other attacks (AC bonus and the defense lowers with damage). Protection From Energy only works against one energy type.

Ablative Barrier is similar in that it converts any sort of damage. But it lasts much longer (1 hour/level). It also has a cap at 50 damage, so it lasts for essentially 10 hits at 10th level. Lastly, it provides a small +2 AC bonus if you don't wear armor (which is pretty worthless given Mage Armor is +4 and is a 1st level spell).

Ablative Sphere is similar in that it is also a sort duration. You also can't move, which effectively means it is just good for one battle. It has Hardness 5 and 3 HP/caster level. That's pretty good (hardness blocks any kind of damage) -- it's a bit like 8 HP per caster level or less though, but with no cap. However it doesn't block spells and can be bypassed if you get around the Improved Cover. This cover gets worse as you take damage.

Protection From Energy lasts for multiple Fights, protections for over twice as much, but only against 1 kind of damage. If PfE protected against ALL energy damage, then I think your spell would be balanced. It also provides no secondary effects, unlike your spell.

So, my thoughts:


I'd drop the material component. Expensive components are a bad way to balance spells. You never know what the situation at a particular table is going to be.

I think the buff needs to be reduced to something like 10HP + 3HP/Level. Or just provide Hardness 5 or 10 or something.

I'd also bump it up to 1 round/level. That's one combat which is easy to keep track of. You generally want to avoid having to keep track of how long a spell will last.

Alternatively, keep it at 5HP/level, but have it require a move action to maintain each round with no duration cap. That's a lot easier to remember.

+2 HP healed per spell level is pretty small, I think, so that's fine.

I'd drop the undead bit, since I think that's too powerful against undead. Plenty of positive energy things don't have any special effect against undead. Often it is better to have a spell be simple than complicated with several things to remember.

TuggyNE
2013-12-03, 06:39 AM
Ablative Barrier is similar in that it converts any sort of damage.

I'm not sure it does, actually, given the parallel of DR for non-lethal and conversion for lethal. I think it only works for weapon attacks, although the RAW is muddled.

Assuming this is correct, it is quite plain that the spell as written is more powerful than any of its peers, and should be releveled.

Max Caysey
2013-12-03, 06:54 AM
It doesn't have a max duration of five rounds you only put a cl limit on the amount of damage it blocks.

Thats a mistake... It was to have a max duration of 5 rounds! I will have to edit that. Thanks!

Drachasor
2013-12-03, 07:05 AM
I'm not sure it does, actually, given the parallel of DR for non-lethal and conversion for lethal. I think it only works for weapon attacks, although the RAW is muddled.

Assuming this is correct, it is quite plain that the spell as written is more powerful than any of its peers, and should be releveled.

Spells can do lethal or non-lethal damage. Technically speaking, "lethal" damage is really only defined as damage that isn't non-lethal (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Nonlethal-Damage). Note that this is just about damage in general, not only weapon damage. They do go over weapon damage in particular with regards to lethal and non-lethal damage, but that's after going over non-lethal damage in more general terms.

With metamagic like Merciful Spell (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/merciful-spell-metamagic) it becomes even more clear. Note that the brief description of Merciful Spell is "Spell inflicts nonlethal damage instead of lethal".


Thats a mistake... It was to have a max duration of 5 rounds! I will have to edit that. Thanks!

I think a short duration is problematic because it troublesome to keep track of something that lasts for less than a battle.

TuggyNE
2013-12-03, 07:16 AM
Spells can do lethal or non-lethal damage. Technically speaking, "lethal" damage is really only defined as damage that isn't non-lethal (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Nonlethal-Damage). Note that this is just about damage in general, not only weapon damage. They do go over weapon damage in particular with regards to lethal and non-lethal damage, but that's after going over non-lethal damage in more general terms.

With metamagic like Merciful Spell (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/merciful-spell-metamagic) it becomes even more clear. Note that the brief description of Merciful Spell is "Spell inflicts nonlethal damage instead of lethal".

Sure, but DR never applies to spells*, so DR that applies to non-lethal damage quite clearly only works for weapons. Thus, by parallelism, the lethal to non-lethal conversion should also only work for weapons, just like the +2 armor bonus to AC does.

Apparently the writer forgot that, for spell purposes, an "attack" is anything that harms, hinders, or does damage, and no attack roll need be involved, never mind weapons.


*Unless you're using DSP's rules, in which case only spells that do bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage suffer DR, which still leaves out the vast majority.

Drachasor
2013-12-03, 07:28 AM
Sure, but DR never applies to spells*, so DR that applies to non-lethal damage quite clearly only works for weapons. Thus, by parallelism, the lethal to non-lethal conversion should also only work for weapons, just like the +2 armor bonus to AC does.

Apparently the writer forgot that, for spell purposes, an "attack" is anything that harms, hinders, or does damage, and no attack roll need be involved, never mind weapons.

*Unless you're using DSP's rules, in which case only spells that do bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage suffer DR, which still leaves out the vast majority.

DR in that spell only applies to non-lethal damage. The Conversion has nothing to do with DR.

TuggyNE
2013-12-03, 06:06 PM
DR in that spell only applies to non-lethal damage. The Conversion has nothing to do with DR.

I already addressed that: the structure of the spell is such that it is clearly intended to work on weapon damage only, and to the extent that it works on spells by RAW, it is dysfunctional. As such, using its dysfunctional RAW as a touchstone for proper intended balance does not seem justifiable.

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-03, 09:11 PM
Keep in mind guys that Damage Reduction, as written, is terrible all round.

Tvtyrant
2013-12-03, 09:23 PM
It is really good and excessively abusable while only effect ting a single target, so it joins the ranks of polymorph. I would make it multi target, 10-20 temp HP and DR 5/escalating requirement (magic, adamantine, nothing.)

Drachasor
2013-12-03, 10:43 PM
I already addressed that: the structure of the spell is such that it is clearly intended to work on weapon damage only, and to the extent that it works on spells by RAW, it is dysfunctional. As such, using its dysfunctional RAW as a touchstone for proper intended balance does not seem justifiable.

One could just as easily argue that the DR part is an oversight. Or that you are just reading too much into the spell.

The spell does not seem to be too powerful for a third level spell. In fact, it is weaker in several ways than other protective spells of its level. Taking non-lethal damage means that you still get taken out of the fight at the same point overall, for instance. Using it as a touchstone seems to work pretty well to me. Or do you disagree with the conclusions I made from using it along with other spells as a touchstone?

TuggyNE
2013-12-04, 03:39 AM
One could just as easily argue that the DR part is an oversight.

That's pretty weak, since that is a terribly obvious consideration. "DR does not apply to most spells" is not some weird niche of the rules; it's something anyone with any experience in spellcasting or running monsters should know.


Or do you disagree with the conclusions I made from using it along with other spells as a touchstone?

Yes. You downplayed several of the important considerations that explain why those spells are lower level than this should be. For example, PfE protects against one of five flavors of elemental energy. It does nothing for any physical type of damage, nothing for force or negative or positive, nothing for vile or divine or city, and each casting only works for a single chosen one of the five. Contrast a spell that works on all of those named at the same time, and it's not difficult to see that the general version is considerably more powerful, to the tune of several spell levels right there. Or ablative sphere: many spells will bypass it in whole or in part, it only works if you stay in place, and even weapons can often (*coughImprovedPreciseShotcough*) either entirely ignore or often avoid the protection, so it's essentially a temporary battlement that can be chipped away or just attacked around.

There are no 3rd-level spells that I would consider a good match for this, power-wise.

Drachasor
2013-12-04, 04:04 AM
That's pretty weak, since that is a terribly obvious consideration. "DR does not apply to most spells" is not some weird niche of the rules; it's something anyone with any experience in spellcasting or running monsters should know.

Eh, granted. That doesn't mean that the spell is of an unreasonable power level as it is written. Seems about right for 3rd level (Ablative Barrier, that is).


Yes. You downplayed several of the important considerations that explain why those spells are lower level than this should be. For example, PfE protects against one of five flavors of elemental energy. It does nothing for any physical type of damage, nothing for force or negative or positive, nothing for vile or divine or city, and each casting only works for a single chosen one of the five. Contrast a spell that works on all of those named at the same time, and it's not difficult to see that the general version is considerably more powerful, to the tune of several spell levels right there. Or ablative sphere: many spells will bypass it in whole or in part, it only works if you stay in place, and even weapons can often (*coughImprovedPreciseShotcough*) either entirely ignore or often avoid the protection, so it's essentially a temporary battlement that can be chipped away or just attacked around.

There are no 3rd-level spells that I would consider a good match for this, power-wise.

Obviously the original and updated versions are too powerful, hence my list of suggestions to dramatically tone the power down to keep it as a 3rd level spell.

Heck, if anything my suggestions make the spell less powerful than what you suggested. So I am not sure what you are complaining about here.

Max Caysey
2013-12-04, 04:39 AM
I hope I have not come accross as complaining. I personally think that my spell should be 3rd level, but that does not mean that I dont listen and that the comments posted here are not interesting or somehow become less valid in my mind.

I want to stress that 50 points of damage at level 10 or call it 50 points of temporary HP I personally dont think should be raised to a higher level.

The spell is sopposed to work as Power Word: Shield from wow. Make someone survive for a short period of time, save them from something nasty or something like that.

I will remove the anti undead aspect of the spell, but were I to raise the level I would feel the need to increase the duration and amount of temporary HP... for instance raise the level bar to level 20 so it would be 100 HP for 10 rounds at level 20. And make it level 6 or something.

Any further comments are much appriciated!

Thanks

Drachasor
2013-12-04, 04:45 AM
I hope I have not come accross as complaining. I personally think that my spell should be 3rd level, but that does not mean that I dont listen and that the comments posted here are not interesting or somehow become less valid in my mind.

I want to stress that 50 points of damage at level 10 or call it 50 points of temporary HP I personally dont think should be raised to a higher level.

The spell is sopposed to work as Power Word: Shield from wow. Make someone survive for a short period of time, save them from something nasty or something like that.

I will remove the anti undead aspect of the spell, but were I to raise the level I would feel the need to increase the duration and amount of temporary HP... for instance raise the level bar to level 20 so it would be 100 HP for 10 rounds at level 20. And make it level 6 or something.

Any further comments are much appriciated!

Thanks

It's just quite a bit more powerful than other 3rd level protection spells out there. I mean you can compare it to mass aid if you want, but look at single target protection spells of that level, level 4, and level 5.

I do get the reference. However, extra HP and healing in D&D is a lot harder than it is in WOW. Bear that in mind.

TuggyNE
2013-12-04, 05:25 AM
Heck, if anything my suggestions make the spell less powerful than what you suggested. So I am not sure what you are complaining about here.

I have to admit I only skimmed the two most important parts of your proposal.
I think the buff needs to be reduced to something like 10HP + 3HP/Level. [Ö] Alternatively, keep it at 5HP/level, but have it require a move action to maintain each round with no duration cap. That's a lot easier to remember.

I'd still consider that a fourth-level spell, but it's rather closer than the current form, at any rate.


were I to raise the level I would feel the need to increase the duration and amount of temporary HP... for instance raise the level bar to level 20 so it would be 100 HP for 10 rounds at level 20. And make it level 6 or something.

That would make a lot of sense, since generally powerful effects are not hamstrung by having tiny caps. I think that would work fairly well, although I might shove it to level 7 and raise the cap still further. *shrug*

Max Caysey
2013-12-04, 05:48 AM
Maybe our difference of oppinion comes from my view that a total potential power like that stoneskin kan absorb 150 points of damage makes it a lot stronger. Also duration has a lot to say in my view, and indeed number of targets. Thats why I plead for 3rd level, even though that 50 points are a lot. its one target and for a very short duration.

I do agree thought that other level 3 spells are weak, but they have their strengths.

It did take me a long time to design the spell, because I thought it was difficult to get the powerword shield basic idea down on paper in a d20 game.

Drachasor
2013-12-04, 06:08 AM
I'd still consider that a fourth-level spell, but it's rather closer than the current form, at any rate.

As a third level spell that's 19 temp hp (basically), +3/level, capping at 40 HP at 10th.

I think that's notably weaker than Stoneskin overall. Sure, there are lots of types of damage besides physical, but a significant portion of the damage you take is physical.

Stoneskin at 7th level blocks 70 damage, 10 at a time. It lasts for 10 min/level, so that can work over multiple combats. It blocks 100hp at 10th level and 150hp of damage at 15th level.

This would block 25hp of damage at 7th, though there's no limit. Still, that's almost 1/3 of the same total blocking power. It would last for 1 round/level, so it is really only good for one fight. Even at max power, 40HP is nice, but not stellar. Stoneskin is definitely a far superior spell overall, in no small part due to the duration.

Compare to Cure Serious Wounds. That heals 3d8+1/level (max +15). So that's an average of 18.5 at 5th level. At 10th level it it is only 23.5, but that's HP that doesn't go away once healed, whereas the above protection only lasts for mere rounds.

Compared to Protection from Energy, it is about 1/4 as effective and lasts for a much, much shorter time. That seems a pretty fair trade for protecting against a lot more things.

Compare to Aid, generally I don't think this is considered a very good spell. It has an average of 9.5 HP at level 5, and 14.5 at level 10. But it also gives a +1 attack/fear saves. It lasts for minutes, so you can more easily cast it ahead of time. Dropping that bonus is worth at least another 1d8 hp, I'd think. Dropping the bonus, upping the level by 1, and reducing the duration should be worth 1d8+1/level hp or so, I think. 2d8+2/level is a bit worse than 10+3/level, though aid isn't a very good spell.

Hmm, that said. If we made it so damage was reduced from this shield before any other effect (Protection From Energy, Resistances, Damage Reduction, Hardness, etc), then that would weaken in a good bit. I think this should be done.

I grant this is a bit hard to judge. There aren't many defensive spells that block damage or provide temp HP. Still, 10+3/level (max +30) for 1 round/level is pretty weak.

And I think 5/level (max 50) requiring a move action to maintain is another route. The loss of mobility alone without giving up a standard action is absolutely huge.

Another option, which the OP doesn't like, would be having the spell give Hardness (which does protect against all damage sources). Hardness 5 or Hardness 10 with a damage cap of 5/level (max 5) would be another way to really weaken it. Again, the duration would be a major limiting factor here.

I know the OP likes the idea of an extra-short duration. But I want to emphasize that 1 round/level is probably for the best. Shorter doesn't do much but make it more annoying to keep track of.

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-04, 11:54 AM
It is really good and excessively abusable while only effect ting a single target, so it joins the ranks of polymorph. I would make it multi target, 10-20 temp HP and DR 5/escalating requirement (magic, adamantine, nothing.)

DR 5 for a spell that is being gotten at level 5 at it's earliest? It's not the only thing that is being given mind you, but DR 5 stopped mattering at level 1.

Tvtyrant
2013-12-04, 06:49 PM
DR 5 for a spell that is being gotten at level 5 at it's earliest? It's not the only thing that is being given mind you, but DR 5 stopped mattering at level 1.

I don't know about that. A Brown bear does 26 average damage on a full attack (8+8+10) and it is reduced down to 11 by this. More than half of the damage reduced.

I suppose you could make it a percentile reduced instead of a flat amount; that would make it work better at higher levels and stack with other defenses better. A Tarrasque does about 90 damage a round, so we could make it a 30% of all damage reduced spell to get it to 60.

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-04, 07:52 PM
I don't know about that. A Brown bear does 26 average damage on a full attack (8+8+10) and it is reduced down to 11 by this. More than half of the damage reduced.

I suppose you could make it a percentile reduced instead of a flat amount; that would make it work better at higher levels and stack with other defenses better. A Tarrasque does about 90 damage a round, so we could make it a 30% of all damage reduced spell to get it to 60.

The flaw here is you're using unoptimized statted monsters to base your math.

Let's go with a semi-optimized beatstick using the following assumptions:

18 base in Strength.
+2 racial bonus
Two-handing a longsword
Level 1 Warrior

So, on a successful attack roll you're looking at 8 to 15 damage on a regular hit, with the average being 11 damage. On a critical hit, that changes to 16 to 30 damage, with the average now being 22 damage. Even on the lowest roll for the die, we're already outpacing DR 5.


Let's optimize a little more, shall we?

18 base in Strength.
+4 racial bonus (Orc)
Two-handing a longsword
Level 1 Fighter (Power Attack and Weapon Focus for feats)

So now, on a successful attack roll, you're looking at 13 to 20 damage on a regular hit, with average damage being 16. On a critical hit, that changes to 26 to 40 damage, with the average damage being 32. DR 5 maybe just stopped you from dying, but you better make the next round count.



Now, finally, let's make a few unlikely but still potentially plausible optimization tweaks.

18 base in Strength
+4 racial bonus (Orc)
Two-handing a +1 bastard sword (either large bastard sword or assuming magic gear re-sizes)
Level 1 Fighter (Exotic weapon prof, Power Attack and Weapon Focus as feats)
Mitigated Flaw
Under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell

This is one bad Orc taking a swing at our DR sporting test dum...sorry, "character". The damage he's bringing to the table is 16 to 30, with the average being 23 damage on that nasty hit. If he happens to get a critical? Well, now we're looking at 32 to 60 damage, with average being 46. DR 5 meant nothing to this ambitious first level Orc Warlord and his potion or tribal shaman.

Now, I know assuming he'd have a +1 weapon may be stretching belief some, but keep in mind that only added 1 damage on average, 2 on a crit. He doesn't even need it for size purposes, since the Enlarge Person takes care of that.


Edit:

I'm personally testing a fusion of old DR/ER and Next's concept of Resistance right now. You subtract the initial value (the old DR/ER value) from the damage and then cut the rest in half.

TuggyNE
2013-12-04, 08:01 PM
The flaw here is you're using unoptimized statted monsters to base your math.

No, really? That's clearly completely unreasonable, since no one ever plays with monsters right out of the MM.

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-04, 08:10 PM
No, really? That's clearly completely unreasonable, since no one ever plays with monsters right out of the MM.

We can play this game if you want.

Yes, because all that matters is how the game designers made the game and intended it to be played. Damage Reduction is so hard to deal with; a party is sure lucky to have its blaster wizard to help them take care of those difficult beasties that are practically insurmountable to the big, strong, party fighter.

Seriously, this is the homebrew subforum. If you want to design things that adhere to the original design philosophies of 3.X and that's your goal, more power to you. But a lot of 3.X is flawed from the ground up (shocker) and it's disingenuous to not do better when your goal is to improve where the design team failed or at least admit that you didn't know that aspect of the game is flawed and may need improvement (and either you don't want to improve it or need to consider improving it).

Edit:

And you know what, your snark is really not called for since a Level 1 Human warrior with half intelligent stat allocation and item choice is not something that people who just plop open the MM and pull stuff out would find strange throwing at a bog standard group.

Edit Edit:

Even the second example Orc is something realistically facing seriously vanilla groups.


Edit Edit Edit:

I also just looked up the Brown Bear and, on average, it actually deals 35 damage, not 26: Claw 1 is 12 damage (4.5 plus 8, rounded down), Claw 2 is 12 damage (4.5 plus 8, rounded down), and Bite is 11 (7 plus 4).

TuggyNE
2013-12-04, 09:01 PM
Yes, because all that matters is how the game designers made the game and intended it to be played. Damage Reduction is so hard to deal with; a party is sure lucky to have its blaster wizard to help them take care of those difficult beasties that are practically insurmountable to the big, strong, party fighter.

Seriously, this is the homebrew subforum. If you want to design things that adhere to the original design philosophies of 3.X and that's your goal, more power to you. But a lot of 3.X is flawed from the ground up (shocker) and it's disingenuous to not do better when your goal is to improve where the design team failed or at least admit that you didn't know that aspect of the game is flawed and may need improvement (and either you don't want to improve it or need to consider improving it).

I don't care about the original designer intent much (as most of my homebrew shows) but I do care about the different levels of optimization in actual play. And, strange as it may seem, the level of op you assume is actually one that a fair percentage of players would consider absurdly high. People are weird like that.

Generally, too, I look with a critical eye at any spell that is balanced with the assumption of being played only with, say, Mineral Warrior Water Orc Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarians, since spells are already quite capable of keeping up in most cases.


And you know what, your snark is really not called for since a Level 1 Human warrior with half intelligent stat allocation and item choice is not something that people who just plop open the MM and pull stuff out would find strange throwing at a bog standard group.

Elite array, Str high, no racial stat bonus, longsword two-handed with Weapon Focus. +4 for 1d6+3 slashing. About a 1/3 chance of doing no damage, and maximum of 4 damage possible on a regular hit, or 13 on a crit. Against 15 AC, that's the difference between 3.58/round and 0.92/round, average. Sure, that's clearly pretty meaningless.

Or consider an archer: Elf Warrior 1 with a longbow (can't afford composite Str bonus), does 1d8 piercing, so DR 5 would mean 5/8 chance of no damage; average goes from 2.72/round to 0.45/round. Which is really the key point: there are many encounters that will reasonably be substantially neutered by DR 5, even if there are also numerous encounters that will be unaffected, and that's all it needs to do to be useful*. The difference between "18 Str Orc with far overbudget gear and customized feats to do maximum damage in a single hit" and "spellcaster that ignores all DR" is not all that large for this consideration.

*Unless the DM only uses encounters specifically designed to bypass DR, which is not, to my mind, terribly good DMing, any more than using encounters that always target touch AC or encounters that always ignore blur and displacement at low-mid levels.

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-04, 09:04 PM
Tugg, I'd love to get into this with you, but I don't want to derail the thread any further than we have. Especially since neither one of us seems to plan to be 100% civil about this.

TuggyNE
2013-12-04, 09:05 PM
Tugg, I'd love to get into this with you, but I don't want to derail the thread any further than we have.

Fair enough.


Especially since neither one of us seems to plan to be 100% civil about this.

My apologies, that was not my intent. :smallfrown:

Tanuki Tales
2013-12-04, 09:11 PM
My apologies, that was not my intent. :smallfrown:

No harm, no foul. I'm sorry that I'm being a little more sharp edged then I usually would be; it's the week before finals amongst other things. And let's just say that it's not been a good month on GitP; a lot of negativity going around.

Anyways, I want to apologize for derailing this thread as I have. The DR discussion was tangential to the spell itself, as I was being more critical on the mechanic than actually giving any critique for the betterment of this piece of brew.