PDA

View Full Version : On Wizards, Damage, and Tactics



Olethros
2007-03-08, 12:27 PM
So, many people have mentioned on many threads that a Wizard should (almost)Never include direct damage spells, or perhaps damage spells at all in there spell list.

Why?

Whats wrong with good ol' reliable Fire Ball? What he do to deserve our scorn? Maby its just me, and my still archaich 2nd ed AD&D thinking (for me sorcerer was just a different name for wizard) but arcane damage dealer is a fundamental part of the wizard contribution. Especially at higher levels, and especially without sourcerers and the like in the party.

What do you non-DD spell slingers put in your spell book/list instead? And for the most part Im not talking about spells over 4th lvl. I know that once I can call down the big boys magic missile is a little less sexy, but I play most of my games between levels 1 and 10.

Add into that a little "thought experiment" if you will. Whats in your spell book if the only source you can draw from is the PhB? How does it change?

Jasdoif
2007-03-08, 12:47 PM
Look at this way: you can cast fireball, a 3rd level spell, to do fire damage in a 20-ft burst. Or you can cast stinking cloud, a 3rd level spell, to make opponents in a 20-ft spread unable to do anything except take a move action for the next few turns. And spell resistance doesn't apply to stinking cloud.

Zincorium
2007-03-08, 12:55 PM
The problem with direct damage spells is that they generally don't take out even-CRed opponents with a single spell, whereas most of the save or be screwed variety most certainly do. They also tend to be more enemy exclusive, so instead of dealing those pretty little d6s (which don't do all that much when you really get down to it, fireball maxes out at 35 average damage) to your party members as well as the BBEG, you can cast sleep or the like and not worry about it.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 01:01 PM
Look at this way: you can cast fireball, a 3rd level spell, to do fire damage in a 20-ft burst. Or you can cast stinking cloud, a 3rd level spell, to make opponents in a 20-ft spread unable to do anything except take a move action for the next few turns. And spell resistance doesn't apply to stinking cloud.

Although, to finish out that thought, when the cloud clears, whatever was in it is still there and probably very upset with your for incapacitating it. You do have to do damage somehow...

(Thinks that save/suck spells in D&D are entirely too good for their levels, or at all)

iceman
2007-03-08, 01:02 PM
Not to mention that it is better to just buy or make wands and scrolls with your damage dealing spells rather than burn a spell slot on them. You can then fill your spell slots with spells that may not ordinarily be helpful except for in the right situations. I don't know how many times i've pulled my butt or the party out of a bad situation with the right spell selection for the day.

Marius
2007-03-08, 01:08 PM
It's simply better to use other spells. Trade "fireball" for "haste", you average fireball deals (at 5th level) 5d6=17.5 fire damage and at that level your party fighter could do the same or more damage with his attack if you haste him (and everyone else in your party) everyone now has another attack, more AC, more speed, etc. and it last 5 rounds not 1.
At 5th level you will also have Fly, Wind wall, Dispel Magic, Deep Splumber and slow they are all better than fireball and you can't even get them all.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 01:11 PM
It's simply better to use other spells. Trade "fireball" for "haste", you average fireball deals (at 5th level) 5d6=17.5 fire damage and at that level your party fighter could do the same or more damage with his attack if you haste him (and everyone else in your party) everyone now has another attack, more AC, more speed, etc. and it last 5 rounds not 1.
At 5th level you will also have Fly, Wind wall, Dispel Magic, Deep Splumber and slow they are all better than fireball and you can't even get them all.

Well, yeah. They're 5th level spells being compared to a 3rd level spell. They'd BETTER be superior.

Oh, and hasting everyone in your party? So, what you're saying is that using 4ish 3rd lvl slots will produce a superior result to using 1 3rd level spell slot.

...


BRILLIANT!

Marius
2007-03-08, 01:17 PM
Well, yeah. They're 5th level spells being compared to a 3rd level spell. They'd BETTER be superior.

Oh, and hasting everyone in your party? So, what you're saying is that using 4ish 3rd lvl slots will produce a superior result to using 1 3rd level spell slot.

...


BRILLIANT!

No, they are 3rd level spells (for a 5th level wizard).

And haste works on one creature/level so at level 5 you can haste 5 people
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 01:22 PM
No, they are 3rd level spells (for a 5th level wizard).

And haste works on one creature/level so at level 5 you can haste 5 people
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm

Ah, sunofva...

Sorry. Reading articles while at work is a tricky business. I completely misread yours. Apologies.

Jasdoif
2007-03-08, 01:25 PM
Although, to finish out that thought, when the cloud clears, whatever was in it is still there and probably very upset with your for incapacitating it. You do have to do damage somehow...That much is OK, the condition persists for 2-5 rounds after the cloud clears (like when it disperses at the end of the spell), your melee guys can take care of them then. And killing everything you meet isn't a requirement, you can move away from or past your opponents while they're nauseated.

And that there is the general argument against simple damage spells. Why cast a spell that can contribute to combat when you can cast a spell that more-or-less wins the encounter instead?

Marius
2007-03-08, 01:27 PM
Ah, sunofva...

Sorry. Reading articles while at work is a tricky business. I completely misread yours. Apologies.

It's, I'm at work right now, don't worry about it.

iceman
2007-03-08, 01:31 PM
Ray of exhaustion is one nasty 3rd level spell that you can prepare instead of fireball. Fly is an important spell at low levels when your party is to poor to buy items that grant flightprotection from energy is also an important defense against other enemy spellcasters. Deep slumber is good to use against ememies with poor will saves at lower levels. Spectral hand is good to use when you want to give an ally in melee a buff spell with the range of touch. I won't go any higher with other spell selections unless it comes up.
However, the point I guess I was trying to make earlier was that you can use wands and scrolls to cast your damage dealing spells from so that you can prep other spells instead. And that it is better to use the wand for the damage dealing spells because they can have an effect in almost any battle your in while some of the other spells are really only usable against certain enemies or in certain situations.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-08, 01:34 PM
The other aspect of damage spells is, frankly, everyone can do damage. Not everyone can do things like hold person, solid fog, invisibility, etc.

Ikkitosen
2007-03-08, 01:34 PM
I thought Haste was one target too - I just changed my new wizard's spell selection 'cos of this thread.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 01:40 PM
That much is OK, the condition persists for 2-5 rounds after the cloud clears (like when it disperses at the end of the spell), your melee guys can take care of them then. And killing everything you meet isn't a requirement, you can move away from or past your opponents while they're nauseated.

And that there is the general argument against simple damage spells. Why cast a spell that can contribute to combat when you can cast a spell that more-or-less wins the encounter instead?

Wait...I thought we had decided that melee characters were mechanically pointless and inefficient, and everyone should just play full casters. Otherwise they're just bad D&Ders. So, what's the group doing with fighters or such?

(sarcasm, BTW)

Olethros
2007-03-08, 01:46 PM
Im sory I mentioned fireball specifically, its more of a joke really. But somebody brushed on my question already again anyway. (Thanks Swordguy)

I stinky clouded (can a spell be a verb?) the monsters, someone has to kill them still. A move action can keep them away from the fighters, or at least some of the hits. and if they (or the DM) are smart, they can draw your team out away from each other untill the effect wears off. Now your group is out of position, or atleast not where they would like to be, and you're still facing the same number of opponents. This says nothing of those that saved.

As far as just moving past them, sure this "wins the encounter" in that you get xp for it, but now there are baddies behind you, who know where you are and what you can do. Fine if it was some wolves othe beast that will likelly move on to easier prey, but not if it was that group of brigands, scouts for the invading army, etc.

Who is dealing the arcane damage for the party if the wizard is packing all utility spells and you dont have another arcane caster?

What about the monster that has DR against what the fighters are swinging at him?

What about the incoporial, especially at low levels?

I agree, I love utility/tactical spells. There is alot more to good wizarding than kaboom, but sometimes ya need to solve your problem with violence. I do like the damage spells in wands/scrolls idea. I have tried to impliment that in characters I have played, but my recent DM's have been a little "tough" on item creation (when there is no down time, it is hard to make stuff) and iyou cant buy a wand in a podunc village.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 01:55 PM
Okay, the cool thing about Fireball is it'll do reasonable damage to a BUNCH of stuff. Hit a group with one or two (seeing how tough they are), and then let the fighter charge in there. With the damage already inflicted upon the group your fighter(s) should have an excellent chance to dropping the creatures and cleaving onto the next ones. We had this same thing happen in my game recently.

A 10 skeletal Trolls were coming at the party in a straight line across the room (presenting a broad front). The wizard dropped a fireball into the middle of them, weakening them by about 3/5ths hp. The two fighters then went straight up the middle. Hit, drop, cleave, drop. Hit, drop, cleave, drop. This happened every round until the skellies were gone. Had the fighters just rushed in without the softening-up process, they would have been in melee for a LONG time with a whole lot of fairly bad-ass opponents.

Saph
2007-03-08, 01:57 PM
Wait...I thought we had decided that melee characters were mechanically pointless and inefficient, and everyone should just play full casters. Otherwise they're just bad D&Ders. So, what's the group doing with fighters or such?

(sarcasm, BTW)

Heh, I've had the same thought reading some of the posts here.

But you can look at it another way. D&D is a team game. You don't fight enemies solo, you fight them as part of a group. So it's always made complete sense to me for the wizard not to focus on damage. Why should she? Damage is for the the big, beefy guys with high Strength scores. It makes more sense for the wizard to do what she's best at - debuffs, disables, control spells - and leave damage to the classes that specialise in fighting.

There is one big exception, though, and that's when the monster is low on HP. When a direct damage spell can finish an enemy off in one shot, do it.

- Saph

Marius
2007-03-08, 02:02 PM
I stinky clouded (can a spell be a verb?) the monsters, someone has to kill them still. A move action can keep them away from the fighters, or at least some of the hits. and if they (or the DM) are smart, they can draw your team out away from each other untill the effect wears off. Now your group is out of position, or atleast not where they would like to be, and you're still facing the same number of opponents. This says nothing of those that saved.

They will be nauseated for 1d4+1 after they left the cloud and unable to attack you can kill them pretty easily. And you don't have to go into melee you can shoot them as they leave the cloud.



Who is dealing the arcane damage for the party if the wizard is packing all utility spells and you dont have another arcane caster?

No one, you don't care about damage. And it's not only "utility" it's "battlefield control"



What about the monster that has DR against what the fighters are swinging at him?

Deep Slumber, my turn:
What about monsters with fire resistance? And what about Evasion?



What about the incoporial, especially at low levels?

What incorporeal creature do you find before having a few magic weapons? (and by the way there's a cleric spell called "magic weapon").



I agree, I love utility/tactical spells. There is alot more to good wizarding than kaboom, but sometimes ya need to solve your problem with violence. I do like the damage spells in wands/scrolls idea. I have tried to impliment that in characters I have played, but my recent DM's have been a little "tough" on item creation (when there is no down time, it is hard to make stuff) and iyou cant buy a wand in a podunc village.

Really? Give me examples.

Jasdoif
2007-03-08, 02:04 PM
Wait...I thought we had decided that melee characters were mechanically pointless and inefficient, and everyone should just play full casters. Otherwise they're just bad D&Ders. So, what's the group doing with fighters or such?

(sarcasm, BTW)Sorry, I must've missed that thread. I do recall people pointing out that at high levels, melee characters are decidely inefficient because casters and creatures at those levels have a ton of ways to avoid or escape melee contact, but that at lower levels melee fighters do their job admirably.

iceman
2007-03-08, 02:07 PM
well in that case you are definately going to need some extra fire power to help the rest of your party out by weakening the enemy a bit. However, i wouldn't trade in every spell in my arsenal for fireballs, lightning bolts, or scorching rays. Also a problem that my party faces with our dm/dms is that we routinely face challenges that would/could make one or more of the party members useless. In my case if I were to prepare the same spells everyday my dm would find a way around or to counter each one of them. If however I redo my entire spell selection every day or every other day then I can keep the dm and thus any enemies that we encounter off balance. The same goes for the rest of the party.
Never use the same tactics over and over again.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 02:10 PM
Sorry, I must've missed that thread. I do recall people pointing out that at high levels, melee characters are decidely inefficient because casters and creatures at those levels have a ton of ways to avoid or escape melee contact, but that at lower levels melee fighters do their job admirably.

You must also have missed the "(Sarcasm, BTW)" portion of my post.

At Marius: You are correct in that there are virtually no situations in D&D where the variety of save-or-suck/die spells aren't better than damage spells, with two exceptions:

1) when access to a direct damage spell is all you have. Some arcane power is better than no arcane power and all that.

2) When your character concept or player demand the DD spells. Some people just want to blow sh&t up every now and then. Dropping an enemy to 0 strength just isn't as satisfying sometimes. Or are people who rely on DD bad roleplayers?

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-08, 02:12 PM
One can come to battle in a wide variety of surroundings and conditions. The question arises, of all the magics that have been devised in all the millennia of civilization on Faerun, which ones should the wise war mage employ? There are those who favor spells that isolate or restrict one's enemies or rearrange the terrain in the mage's favor.

Strong points can be made in favor of the strategy of battlefield control. How can one criticize placing one's opponents at a disadvantage? Easily, of course. What is the purpose of war? To destroy one's enemies. Why let your foe live and fight and perhaps alter the situation to favor him when you can strike him down directly?

Why when that is the best choice, of course. A wise man, whether wizard or warrior, makes use of whatever advantages present themselves but one must not forget the purpose is not to seize advantage, but to kill. Battlefield control is thus revealed to be the preferred approach of those magic workers who cannot swiftly inflict devastating injuries upon their foes. In other words, it is the tactic of the weak.

I abhor weakness. The battlefield is controlled when all my foes are dead, preferably while still reaching for their weapons or with the words of their first spell frozen on their dead lips. They tend to be less troublesome that way.

As an aside, a glass dragon falling through the air is truly one of the most beautiful sights one can ever see.

-Nalifan D'Azurentien, in response to a criticism that his tactics lacked subtlety and effectiveness.
^ The in-character response of one of the characters of another person in my group. I won't post the more concise response of Nalifan's dear friend Trizkel, because it contains considerably more profanity despite comprising only two sentences. :smallamused:

Marius
2007-03-08, 02:13 PM
You must also have missed the "(Sarcasm, BTW)" portion of my post.

At Marius: You are correct in that there are virtually no situations in D&D where the variety of save-or-suck/die spells aren't better than damage spells, with two exceptions:

1) when access to a direct damage spell is all you have. Some arcane power is better than no arcane power and all that.

2) When your character concept or player demand the DD spells. Some people just want to blow sh&t up every now and then. Dropping an enemy to 0 strength just isn't as satisfying sometimes. Or are people who rely on DD bad roleplayers?

Well yeah, if you want to play a kabom wizard you should take fireball and other damage spells. But in that case I would play a Psion Kineticist ;)

Kantolin
2007-03-08, 02:18 PM
Um.

If you're in a party, and the melee-type is there, you may as well use him to do something. Usually 'something' is go poke the sleeping orcs in the face with your pointy thing now that the battle's relevantly over, but may as well have them do it since they are capable of it.

If you have a team of all-wizards or sommat, then you have to prepare some direct damage spells (And carry a backup scythe) amongst your team somewhere. Round one incapacitate the enemies such that the battle's relevantly over, round two start utilizing direct damage or summons or something to kill the enemy.

Not to mention if the fighter can kill people who you have made unconscious/sleeping/unable to defend themselves/unable to attack/weak, then it helps said fighter feel more generally valuable. So I'm all for letting the fighter play cleanup.

...if the cleric or druid don't get to the enemy first, but nevermind that.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-08, 02:28 PM
It's more fun when the 6 Strength Wizard CdG's the paralysed opponents. With his quarterstaff. Using just one hand. Because he lost the other one dropping a fireball on a Magmin. :P

^Rogues do the clean-up admirably too, since most of the save-or-lose spells probably won't work on Undead/Constructs/Plants/Oozes/Swarms, which would likely be the only times I would actively seek out DD. And even against Constructs, some of the DD spells become "Save or Suck".

Edit: Second paragraph added.

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-08, 02:33 PM
Mayhaps there were too many big words, so I'll paraphrase: The battlefield is controlled when your enemies are dead, so kill them as quickly as possible. Clue: Stinking cloud never killed anybody.

Marius
2007-03-08, 02:39 PM
Another clue: Fireball doesn't kill anybody unless they really suck.

And soon you'll have save-or-die spells while you wizard will be trying to kill enemies with his save-or-take-some-damage-or-not spells.

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-08, 02:40 PM
Who said anything about excluding save-or-die? Hell, who said anything about fireball? Battle is about killing your enemies as quickly as possible. Stinking cloud, Evard's black tentacles, or what have you just get in the way. Always.

Gamebird
2007-03-08, 02:40 PM
At first level, you can have Magic Missile and do a d4+1 (avg. 3.5 hp) to a single target, or you can do Grease and make a target fall down, take an AoO on getting up and a -4 to hit until he does. At second level your MM still does d4+1 to one target, but your Grease lasts twice as long.

At third level you can pick up Scorching Ray, which is really very nice. You now have to roll to hit, but it does 4d6 damage (avg 14) to one target and a touch attack is hard to fail... unless you're a 3rd level wizard. So don't expect to hit more than half the time. Or you could take Glitterdust, which negates invisibility and causes targets to save vs. blindness, making them 50% likely to miss and gives you bonuses to hit them. Against invisible creatures, it's mandatory.

At fifth level, you could take Fireball or Lightning Bolt and hope the creatures you're fighting arrange themselves within your AoE. If they do, then you can zap them for 5d6 (avg. 17.5) with a save for half. This won't drop most of your foes at this level, but it's nice for the occasional encounter with weenies. Except that if you're encountering weenies, then the fighters can mop them up easily. On the other hand, you could have cast Haste and given 5 people an extra attack each round for 5 rounds. Or you could have cast Stinking Cloud and reduced your foes to partial actions and possible nauseation. Which is better - 17.5 damage with a save, once, or 3 other characters getting an extra attack for 5 rounds? Heck, 3 extra attacks by itself is probably better than the fireball, and Haste will keep giving for another 4 rounds!

At 7th level you could get Ice Storm and do less damage than fireball... well, that sucks. Or you could ... um.. well, Shout does less damage too. And so does Wall of Fire. um... well, there's really nothing as a 4th level direct damage spell that's better than what you've already got. Or you could cast Solid Fog and STOP some of your enemies from moving at all, no save, allowing your allies to pick them off piecemeal.

Let's look at 9th level, where you get mighty 5th level spells! You can kill weenies with Cloudkill... of course, so can the fighters and they'll do a better job of it. Or you could do as much damage as Fireball, with Cone of Cold! Wow! And you only got Fireball, what? 4 levels ago? If you leave the domain of direct damage spells, you can save-or-die the enemy with Baleful Polymorph, Rock to Mud and mire him in place, Hold Monster and allow people to coup de gras him, or Dismiss them entirely if they happen to be an outsider.

The problem is that evocation becomes steadily less useful. As you go up in levels, your opponents get more hit points while your evocation spells don't get much better than they were at 5th level. Your foes get better and better saves, whereas your evocation DC doesn't increase nearly as fast. As a result, your evocation spells take off a smaller and smaller percentage of your foe's hp and the foe is more and more likely to save (and more likely to have SR and resistances). No one has "Resistance to Solid Fog" (well, there's Free Action, but few foes have that). Most of the battlefield control spells don't allow SR or saves. They're just as effective at higher level as they were when they started - moreso even, since it becomes more and more important to immobilize certain enemies while the group tackles foes one at a time.

iceman
2007-03-08, 02:44 PM
You know there really is no right or wrong answer to this (unless of course you are playing a wizard who does not prepare spells and instead runs into melee with his quaterstaff/dagger to "destroy" those who oppose him). Either way you look at it the spells you prepare are there for a purpose and it is up to the player to know/decide when and how to use them.

Marius
2007-03-08, 02:45 PM
Who said anything about excluding save-or-die? Hell, who said anything about fireball? Battle is about killing your enemies as quickly as possible. Stinking cloud, Evard's black tentacles, or what have you just get in the way. Always.

Evard's black tentacles actually does damage. And those spells let you kill your enemies faster than other. But if you don't want fireball, what will you choose?

its_all_ogre
2007-03-08, 02:46 PM
the direct damage spells got a nerfing when 3.0/3.5 was born.
all monster got CON bonuses to hps, making them all tougher, the spells damage ability remained the same.

many players still prefer blasty spells though.

Saph
2007-03-08, 02:46 PM
Maybe there's a simpler way to do this . . .

Have your wizards, sorcerers, etc take whatever spells they like. You want direct damage? Go for it. You want battlefield control? Go for that instead.

The amount of fun you have playing D&D is not related to how effective/powerful your spells are. Seriously, if you looked through the entire universe for a skill which would have less relevance on how much you'll enjoy your leisure time, "Knowledge of How to Fully Optimise a D&D Spellcaster" would probably top the list.

So take whatever spells you think will be the most fun to cast / fit your character best, and do whatever you want.

. . . oh, who am I kidding, arguments like this practically power the Internet. :)

- Saph

Jasdoif
2007-03-08, 02:49 PM
You must also have missed the "(Sarcasm, BTW)" portion of my post.Sorry, I thought your sarcasm was saying something you didn't agree with, and I was clarifying that I don't agree with the exact meaning myself. I have difficulty placing sarcasm sometimes.


Back to the subject at hand, I personally wouldn't say that direct damage spells are necessarily bad, per se, it's that in a majority of cases the other spells are a lot more efficient (on the lines of "you'd need three or more fireballs to kill this one, instead of one cast of this other spell to put it out of the fight"). And since general questions on a spell list center around mechanical efficiency, that's what the answers to those questions involve.

Honestly I don't care much for the size of the "one cast one win" family of spells, as throwing fireballs and the like sounds a lot more fun to me, but since all those spells do exist it'd be silly to tell someone else not to use them. If they want their wizard to be mechanically efficient, they'll appreciate the knowledge; if not, no harm done.

Swordguy
2007-03-08, 02:50 PM
Maybe there's a simpler way to do this . . .

Have your wizards, sorcerers, etc take whatever spells they like. You want direct damage? Go for it. You want battlefield control? Go for that instead.

The amount of fun you have playing D&D is not related to how effective/powerful your spells are. Seriously, if you looked through the entire universe for a skill which would have less relevance on how much you'll enjoy your leisure time, "Knowledge of How to Fully Optimise a D&D Spellcaster" would probably top the list.

So take whatever spells you think will be the most fun to cast / fit your character best, and do whatever you want.

. . . oh, who am I kidding, arguments like this practically power the Internet. :)

- Saph

Oh, cursed posting restrictions.. CAN I link this to the "Boobies power the internet" video?

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-08, 02:52 PM
The problem is that evocation becomes steadily less useful. As you go up in levels, your opponents get more hit points while your evocation spells don't get much better than they were at 5th level.
Contingency
Evocation
Level:Sor/Wiz 6

Forcecage
Evocation [Force]
Level:Sor/Wiz 7

Need I go on?

Dausuul
2007-03-08, 02:53 PM
However, the point I guess I was trying to make earlier was that you can use wands and scrolls to cast your damage dealing spells from so that you can prep other spells instead. And that it is better to use the wand for the damage dealing spells because they can have an effect in almost any battle your in while some of the other spells are really only usable against certain enemies or in certain situations.

Not sure I get this. You have one spell (fireball) that's useful against nearly everything. You have other spells (protection from energy, wind wall, etc.) that are only useful sometimes. Why are you putting fireball into scrolls and wands and preparing the others? This approach means that half the time you'll have prepared spells that you don't use, while you're burning consumables every single combat.

Much better to use your daily slots, which cost you nothing, for the spell you know is going to be useful, and put the spells that are only occasionally useful in scroll form.

Of course, all this is tangential to the main topic, and you're often better off not prepping fireball at all.

Kantolin
2007-03-08, 02:55 PM
Actually, I just realized my previous post didn't answer the question. So, while Gamebird already explained it more clearly...


So, many people have mentioned on many threads that a Wizard should (almost)Never include direct damage spells, or perhaps damage spells at all in there spell list.

Why?

Because direct-damage spells tend to be less effective than save-or-suck spells.


Whats wrong with good ol' reliable Fire Ball?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with fireball. If you like fireball, then go with it. I'm more and more pleased by the abilities that are showing up so you can be a sorceror whos third level spells are leomund's tiny hut and Sepia Snake Sigil, but still do something in combat. ^_^


What he do to deserve our scorn?

Well... he started sucking.

Jerthanis
2007-03-08, 03:02 PM
I've actually had some experience with a variety of reasons to prepare damage spells. For one, there are creatures and characters you can fight which you would be MAD to try and fight with the standard save-or-lose spells. Imagine the boss of your dungeon is a 7th level dwarven cleric or monk? If you Stinking Cloud, you're just giving him the time he needs to throw on every buff he has, while hedging out the party damagers as his fort save is probably easily in the double digits especially versus your spell. Try casting web on fire elementals, try deeper slumber or Hold Person on undead. Using a variety of monsters with specific immunities can make it difficult or impossible to adequately apply save-or-loses, though the same can certainly be said for elemental damage spells.

Another very obvious and common enough threat is incorporeal undead. Ghost Touch weapons are equal to +3 modifiers, so unless your party is crazy paranoid, they'll suck up the 50% miss chance if they have magic weapons, but your damage spells will be hitting them a huge percentage of the time, and whittling down their low HP crazy fast. And against things like Shadows and Spectres, you need them taken down as fast as possible.

I wouldn't say that a wizard is primarily responsible for damage, as there's practically no way they can possibly keep up with front liner types, but damage is sometimes the fastest way to take something down, and sometimes you can't depend on anyone to do it for you. Wizards aren't stupid for preparing a few damage spells, it's them being ready for anything. Wizards ARE stupid to prepare only damage spells, as they're really not playing to their strengths by doing that.

iceman
2007-03-08, 03:16 PM
Not sure I get this. You have one spell (fireball) that's useful against nearly everything. You have other spells (protection from energy, wind wall, etc.) that are only useful sometimes. Why are you putting fireball into scrolls and wands and preparing the others? This approach means that half the time you'll have prepared spells that you don't use, while you're burning consumables every single combat.

Much better to use your daily slots, which cost you nothing, for the spell you know is going to be useful, and put the spells that are only occasionally useful in scroll form.

Of course, all this is tangential to the main topic, and you're often better off not prepping fireball at all.

It is simple you can cast fireball or some other form of damage dealing spell from a newly created wand 50 TIMES. You can now spend your spell slots on spells that you think might come in handy and not have to worry about not having any firepower. It is a lot less expensive to carry around one or two wands that deal damage and preping the rest of the spells in spell slots rather than preping all damage dealing spells and purchasing and/or making 10-15 other wands for their various purposes.

And when you get into higher level spells that you can't make into wands evocation generally loses some of its potency like gamebird pointed out and most of the evocation spells that you are going to use you can simply put on scrolls so that those spells are always available to you

Lemur
2007-03-08, 03:31 PM
the direct damage spells got a nerfing when 3.0/3.5 was born.
all monster got CON bonuses to hps, making them all tougher, the spells damage ability remained the same.

many players still prefer blasty spells though.

Not only that, but physical combat damage is generally greater in 3/3.5 than it was for characters like fighters and rogues in 2nd ed. A fireball was comparitively worth more, since damage options like power attack didn't exist.

That being said...


Maybe there's a simpler way to do this . . .

Have your wizards, sorcerers, etc take whatever spells they like. You want direct damage? Go for it. You want battlefield control? Go for that instead.

The amount of fun you have playing D&D is not related to how effective/powerful your spells are. Seriously, if you looked through the entire universe for a skill which would have less relevance on how much you'll enjoy your leisure time, "Knowledge of How to Fully Optimise a D&D Spellcaster" would probably top the list.

So take whatever spells you think will be the most fun to cast / fit your character best, and do whatever you want.

...I wholeheartedly agree with Saph. When all is said and done, the essence of a "good" roleplayer is someone who has the most fun, while simultaneously increasing the amount of enjoyment of the other people playing the game.

It never hurts to have that extra edge in combat in D&D, but what's important is that you defeat your opponents with the proper style. Being a murder machine isn't worth a damn if you're like every other murder machine that came off the assembly line.

Wolf53226
2007-03-08, 03:31 PM
Contingency
Evocation
Level:Sor/Wiz 6

Forcecage
Evocation [Force]
Level:Sor/Wiz 7

Need I go on?

Well, Greater Shadow Evocation gets you Contingency.

And Forcecage is quite expensive to use all the time, so it limits it's usefulness. Of course it is a great spell, but it is high level and expensive, so you can live without.

Gamebird
2007-03-08, 03:31 PM
Contingency
Evocation
Level:Sor/Wiz 6

Forcecage
Evocation [Force]
Level:Sor/Wiz 7

Need I go on?

Nope, because the OP specified levels 1-10, which translates to 5th level spells and lower. He also specified direct damage, which is not the same thing as Evocation. Both of the spells you mention are NOT direct damage. Forcecage, in fact, is battlefield control.


I've actually had some experience with a variety of reasons to prepare damage spells. For one, there are creatures and characters you can fight which you would be MAD to try and fight with the standard save-or-lose spells. Imagine the boss of your dungeon is a 7th level dwarven cleric or monk?

Oh yeah, baby. Let's see how Fireball works against either of those! The cleric will probably have some form of resistance or protection up and the monk has Evasion.


Try casting web on fire elementals,

Try casting fireball on them.


...try deeper slumber or Hold Person on undead. Using a variety of monsters with specific immunities can make it difficult or impossible to adequately apply save-or-loses, though the same can certainly be said for elemental damage spells.

Yeah, and that's the point. In order to foil save-or-lose, you have to dig out off-brand monsters with special immunities. The standard run of dragons, humanoids, abberations, magical beasts and most undead are still going to save well against direct damage, take a small percentage of their hit points from it, and yet be fully affectable by save-or-lose.


Another very obvious and common enough threat is incorporeal undead.

Remind me again how direct damage spells work against these guys? 'Cuz other than force effects (Magic Missile), they don't do to hot. You'd be better off Hasting your allies or Slowing your foes so your group is getting multiple chances at punching through that miss chance.



I wouldn't say that a wizard is primarily responsible for damage, as there's practically no way they can possibly keep up with front liner types,

That's the other point. If the fighters do more direct damage than the mage can, then the mage is better off letting the fighters be good at their thing (dishing out direct damage), while the mage does other things (like crippling the enemy).

Wolf53226
2007-03-08, 03:33 PM
Actually, if your just looking for direct damage, the Orb spells in the conjuration school are great.

Jerthanis
2007-03-08, 04:19 PM
Oh yeah, baby. Let's see how Fireball works against either of those! The cleric will probably have some form of resistance or protection up and the monk has Evasion.

...

Try casting fireball on them.

*facepalms* Because we all know Fireball is the only direct damage spell ever invented, and there's no such thing as Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, the conjuration orbs, or any sort of actually worthwhile damage spells.



Yeah, and that's the point. In order to foil save-or-lose, you have to dig out off-brand monsters with special immunities. The standard run of dragons, humanoids, abberations, magical beasts and most undead are still going to save well against direct damage, take a small percentage of their hit points from it, and yet be fully affectable by save-or-lose.

Depends entirely upon what type of game you're playing, but I'll give you that, creatures immune to the most common save-ors are more rare than those with resistances to the most common types of elemental damage. I'm simply pointing out that there exist those situations where applying save-ors in inefficient compared to certain weaponlike spells.



Remind me again how direct damage spells work against these guys? 'Cuz other than force effects (Magic Missile), they don't do to hot. You'd be better off Hasting your allies or Slowing your foes so your group is getting multiple chances at punching through that miss chance.

Remind me again how it is that you're forced not to choose the best direct damage spells? cuz Magic Missile and Orb of Force are two staples of direct damage as far as I'm concerned. And we understand, Haste is really good. We know.



That's the other point. If the fighters do more direct damage than the mage can, then the mage is better off letting the fighters be good at their thing (dishing out direct damage), while the mage does other things (like crippling the enemy).

...you realize I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm just pointing out there are times where having some direct damage on hand is NOT a bad idea.

cupkeyk
2007-03-08, 06:01 PM
It is so sad for Evocation that they wrote the craft contingent spell and spellbound familiar feats. Really, contingency and imbue familiar with spell-like ability are the only remaining good evocation spells.


Not sure I get this. You have one spell (fireball) that's useful against nearly everything. You have other spells (protection from energy, wind wall, etc.) that are only useful sometimes. Why are you putting fireball into scrolls and wands and preparing the others? This approach means that half the time you'll have prepared spells that you don't use, while you're burning consumables every single combat.

Actually, situationally useful spells like protection from x, knock or windwall belong in scrolls. Repeat use spells belong in wands with their maxed out caster level, like shivering touch, ray of enfeeblement/exhaustion, touch of idiocy/ray of stupidity, since you will be casting them over and over and they don't scale with higher levels. As for preparing stuff, you should stick to dailies like, mage armor, create magic tattoo and ropetrick and your offensive and defensive spells: glitterdust, stinking cloud, haste.

Teloric
2007-03-08, 06:44 PM
I'm currently running a Wizard that specializes in Conjuration. Battlefield control is his thing, especially when he gets up to higher levels. Having said that, I think it is important to have at least some direct damaging spells in his arsenal.

Right now he's level 2, and I have only the PHb to work with. When he hits level 3, I'm going to take Glitterdust first because it is so useful; blinding enemies is practically the same as making the party invisible during combat. However, I'm at odds about which other spell to take (I gain 2 per level). Invisibility is intriguing, but I'm considering Acid Arrow. I have no other way of inflicting damage at range, and Acid Arrow looks like a good spell that improves as you go up in level. And it's a ranged touch attack.

Any suggestions?

greenknight
2007-03-08, 07:07 PM
Wait...I thought we had decided that melee characters were mechanically pointless and inefficient

No, that's just Fighters and Barbarians after 4th level. A Wildshaped Druid (along with an animal companion) does just fine in melee, as can a higher level Cleric with Divine Power and Righteous Might (even Divine Favor + Divine Power can make an impact at lower levels).


and everyone should just play full casters.

Well, someone needs to be the scout (Rogue/Ranger), but I guess that character could have UMD to cast from scrolls, wands etc at higher levels to sort of emulate a full caster.


Otherwise they're just bad D&Ders.

Not bad D&Ders, just not playing the most powerful group possible for their level. The optimal group wouldn't have a Fighter or Barbarian beyond level 4.


So, what's the group doing with fighters or such?

People like playing Fighers and Barbarians. Pity that after level 4, those characters begin losing out at what they should be the very best at.

Marius
2007-03-08, 07:08 PM
I'm currently running a Wizard that specializes in Conjuration. Battlefield control is his thing, especially when he gets up to higher levels. Having said that, I think it is important to have at least some direct damaging spells in his arsenal.

Right now he's level 2, and I have only the PHb to work with. When he hits level 3, I'm going to take Glitterdust first because it is so useful; blinding enemies is practically the same as making the party invisible during combat. However, I'm at odds about which other spell to take (I gain 2 per level). Invisibility is intriguing, but I'm considering Acid Arrow. I have no other way of inflicting damage at range, and Acid Arrow looks like a good spell that improves as you go up in level. And it's a ranged touch attack.

Any suggestions?

Web or Alter Self, shoot a crossbow if you want some damage.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-08, 07:10 PM
Acid Arrow actually has use, though, as does Magic Missile.

Magic Missile strikes targets (even ethereal ones) 100% of the time, which means that you can ping away at an incorporeal target should you need to. Acid arrow is much the same, being startlingly useful against regenerating targets.

Ikkitosen
2007-03-08, 07:20 PM
Scorching Ray is the standard L2 damage dealer - scales reasonably too.

I recently discovered that a staff that casts only magic missile costs the same as a CL1 wand, and scales with level nicely. You have to be 12th to make it though. And I would houserule that a staff must have 2+ spells in it (MM+Shield = about 1300gp), but RAW don't buy wands!

Jasdoif
2007-03-08, 07:41 PM
I recently discovered that a staff that casts only magic missile costs the same as a CL1 wand, and scales with level nicely. You have to be 12th to make it though. And I would houserule that a staff must have 2+ spells in it (MM+Shield = about 1300gp), but RAW don't buy wands!http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingStaffs
The minimum caster level for a staff is 8, though, even if all the spells in it are low-level. If the spell scales up that high or higher (like magic missile does), that's fine; but it's not as cost-efficient as if CL 1 was enough.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/staffs.htm
That says that staff spell combinations are predefined (unlike wands where a player can choose to put in any spell that's allowed), and that's just...no fun.

tobian
2007-03-08, 07:59 PM
Maybe there's a simpler way to do this . . .

Have your wizards, sorcerers, etc take whatever spells they like. You want direct damage? Go for it. You want battlefield control? Go for that instead.

The amount of fun you have playing D&D is not related to how effective/powerful your spells are. Seriously, if you looked through the entire universe for a skill which would have less relevance on how much you'll enjoy your leisure time, "Knowledge of How to Fully Optimise a D&D Spellcaster" would probably top the list.

So take whatever spells you think will be the most fun to cast / fit your character best, and do whatever you want.

. . . oh, who am I kidding, arguments like this practically power the Internet. :)

- Saph

:smallwink: Finally, someone who speaks the truth.

BCOVertigo
2007-03-08, 08:09 PM
I really don't know why everyone is arguing.

DD, while not likely to drop an enemy in one blow, is usually reliable and easy to deliver. Plus you're attacking on the same front as the fighter so you have that synergy going for you. DD spells are (barring resistance) good for general purpose combat.

Control spells have the potential to take an opponent out of the fight, which in most cases is interchangeable with a kill. They have the disadvantage of being fairly useless if an opponent can properly handle them (get out of range, pass the save, undo the effects like freedom of movement, etc.)

Claiming one or the other to be useless is stupid, but few if any here have made that claim. Instead of asking "which one of these categories should the wizard use" we should realize there is a time and place for both. Personally I am thankful my group employs a healthy mix of the two. Example: the mage threw a stinking cloud onto an enemy party and I(paladin with double digit saves) walked in and grappled the mage to death. That single spell negated all but one of the enemy party for it's duration and then some, and we made short work of him since he got the focus of the entire group. The remaining two were handled with minimum effort, and what should have been a fight for our lives was turned into a cake walk due to smart application of spells.

Damage spells were used when it was time to take down our opponents, but a control spell was used to break up their team first. Each had their place and knowing how and when to use the weapons in our arsenal resulted in an easy victory.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-08, 08:38 PM
Let's look at 9th level, where you get mighty 5th level spells! You can kill weenies with Cloudkill... of course, so can the fighters and they'll do a better job of it. Or you could do as much damage as Fireball, with Cone of Cold! Wow!
In general, I agree with the argument you're making. However, you've missed the big boost direct-damage casting got in 3rd Edition: Metamagic Feats.

The best 5th-level direct damage spell isn't Cone of Cold, it's either Maximized Scorching Ray or Empowered Fireball (assuming the target doesn't resist fire...).

(That said... those still pale in comparison to the massive utility of Rock to Mud, Telekinesis, Teleport, Prying Eyes, Overland Flight...)

Talya
2007-03-08, 08:39 PM
You can always do both! I like Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion.

BCOVertigo
2007-03-08, 08:44 PM
You can always do both! I like Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion.

Now equipped with the Evil and Force descriptors!

Callos_DeTerran
2007-03-08, 09:15 PM
Maybe there's a simpler way to do this . . .

Have your wizards, sorcerers, etc take whatever spells they like. You want direct damage? Go for it. You want battlefield control? Go for that instead.

The amount of fun you have playing D&D is not related to how effective/powerful your spells are. Seriously, if you looked through the entire universe for a skill which would have less relevance on how much you'll enjoy your leisure time, "Knowledge of How to Fully Optimise a D&D Spellcaster" would probably top the list.

- Saph

THANK YOU SAPH! Every time I see a discussion like this, even if its only a joke, makes my brain swell up and come so much closer to exploding. So thank you for posting the only reasonable thing on this entire friggin thread! I'd hug you if it was possible!

Who cares if Hold Monster is better then Fireball? Fireball is prettier to watch to some people. Or maybe they just like fire. Maybe someones inclinations run moreso towards Solid Fog and its ilk. THEIR ALL JUST AS EFFECTIVE AT WHAT THEY'RE MEANT FOR!

Kantolin
2007-03-08, 09:47 PM
Uh. The opening poster asked 'What is wrong with good ol' reliable fireball'. The topic, therefore, pretty much automatically is a 'Why it is less efficient to use direct damage' topic from the very beginning.

And nobody said 'it is more fun to use non-direct-damaging spells', simply 'it's more effective to use non-direct-damaging spells'.

Personally, the most fun spells in the book are Enlarge Person, Leomund's Tiny Hut, and Baleful Polymorph. But that's a manner of personal taste. :P I am, after all, the sorceror who likes using sepia snake sigil; it's just less effective, so if I posted a topic 'Is this effective?' the answer would be no.

kamikasei
2007-03-08, 09:51 PM
THANK YOU SAPH! Every time I see a discussion like this, even if its only a joke, makes my brain swell up and come so much closer to exploding. So thank you for posting the only reasonable thing on this entire friggin thread! I'd hug you if it was possible!

Okay, I think this is perhaps something of an overreaction... Sure, if people are having fun playing a caster with any given spell list, that's no problem. But that doesn't mean its unreasonable to explain how a caster could use different spells to greater effect, or how to take advantage of the things a caster's best at that other classes can't duplicate - especially given that that's precisely what the OP started the thread to ask. I don't imagine you'd deny that a fighter built to 2HF with a greatsword is more mechanically effective than one who TWF's with daggers, or that you'd see red over a thread where someone asked why people keep saying the former is superior, and was answered.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-03-08, 10:19 PM
A lot depends on game and campaign. This is a game so have fun. A common theme starting off is mostly about surviving a hit or two IMO so I like combat oriented like Color Spray, Magic Missile and Sleep (Preferably with a "partially charged" prorated wand or two vice a fully charged wand) initially. Charm Person and Silent Image are generally more situational and depends on the campaign. After that first adventure you can start expanding your spellbook and making backup scrolls which are easily accessible from your Hewards Handy Haversack.

I don't find it a lot of fun just running around being a magical tool box to overcome obstacles with spells many that can be handled without spells with a little thought. It's more fun to do some blasting. Your party won't thankyou for getting their characters killed for lack of combat support.

I like the sorcerer or wizard to help soften up the BBEGs in combat particularly at low levels when one or two lucky hits can take out a BBEG or a PC and now you need to spend an hour or two making up a replacement.

Besides if your games gets to tactical the BBEGs should respond accordingly so I like Scorching Ray, Web, Invisibility and a Scupted Grease is nice because it covers a larger area for my initial second level spells. Knock is usally nice regardless if it is memorized or on a scroll or a device like a wand. Read Thoughts can be useful for learning information.

(No Barbarian coaching the Wizard or Sorcerer about spell casting unless it's Kill them). Alter Being is nice for flying with wings and mirror image can help a fighter through a tough fight.

At level 3 I prefer at least one variant Acid Ball or Sonic Ball vice Fireball although it is still pretty effective at that level against most monsters and other damage causing spell casters who are generally trying to damage your party not buff themselves or their comrades or subordinates. Suggestion can be nice.

I prefer SM3 because it can be applied to more situations than a simple Hold Person or Slow which can be saved against. Dispel Magic can be useful and the same for Major Image but both are more situational.

After level 5 when you get down to the basics "most" character advancement is by defeating enemies in combat and killing them and Rope Trick starts becoming more useful for resting in dangerous places at 10 hours+.

For level 4 spells I really like Charm Monster, Confusion, Evards, Greater Invis, Phantasmal Killer, SM4 and Shadow Conjuration for all the utility in the spells it duplicates particularly Create Enchanted Tattoo from the Spell Compendium and Other sources or a short Dimensional Jaunt. Regular use of Enervation is a Evil act according to the rules so it depends on your group and alignment. Personally I think Polymorph and Wild Shaping are subject to much abuse and so it is quid pro quo for the BBEGs. The PCs get crazy with those abilities so do the BBEGs. Empowered Scorching Ray is looking good now. Arcane Eye will becoming into it's own shortly along with Scrying. I prefer a Horn of Goodness/Evil to the Spell or Scrolls over the long term.

For Level 5 Cone of Cold, Feeblemind, SM5 over Hold Monster (Will Save), Sending, Wall of Force, Baleful Polymorph, Teleport Self +3 med usefulness depends on party size normally as noone likes being left alone.

PaladinBoy
2007-03-08, 10:30 PM
I don't think anything's wrong with DD spells. Frankly, I think that both battlefield control and DD spells are necessary.

The latest wizard I've created is based off of a simple philosophy. He has some battlefield control spells and debuff spells, mostly intended to make it difficult/impossible for enemies to get near him. While the enemies are struggling through his spells, he peppers them with magic missile scrolls and other DDs until they die. Which might take a while, but hey, that's why we've got the half-dragon with the greatsword along to help.

Raum
2007-03-08, 11:50 PM
Once past the first couple spell levels, all the multipurpose spells available should allow you to cause damage even without pure damage spells such as Magic Missile or Fireball. Acid Fog, Disentegrate, Orb of Acid, and Evard's Black Tentacles all do more than just hit point damage.

If you really do want to stick to damage though, I'd recommend the spells doing stat damage.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-03-09, 01:02 AM
Okay, I think this is perhaps something of an overreaction...

No, no its not.


I don't imagine you'd deny that a fighter built to 2HF with a greatsword is more mechanically effective than one who TWF's with daggers,

Yes, yes I would.


or that you'd see red over a thread where someone asked why people keep saying the former is superior, and was answered.

Yes, yes I do. I do and I have and will probably continue to do so. But this thread (And Saph's post) was enough of an outlet I can go another year or so without another one of these outbursts.

kamikasei
2007-03-09, 01:14 AM
I don't imagine you'd deny that a fighter built to 2HF with a greatsword is more mechanically effective than one who TWF's with daggers,
Yes, yes I would.

Really? On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious. I might be missing some obvious point of the rules, but that seems to me a clear case where one build is genuinely better at the job of fighting than the other. What leads you to disagree?

Note that I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that one is more mechanically effective than the other. Even if you disagree with this specific example, do you think it's possible for one build to be genuinely better at some function than another, and therefore legitimate for one person to advise another to choose a particular feat or weapon over another, in order to be more effective?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what about this thread (as opposed to any other threads you may have read that annoyed you, but which weren't this one) so raises your ire.

Kantolin
2007-03-09, 01:16 AM
I see. Someone should post a topic stating 'Hey, are wizards useful if they have an intelligence of 8?'

Or to be more accurate, 'Why is a wizard with stats of 10/14/14/8/10/10 less effective in combat than a wizard with stats of 10/14/14/18/10/10'?

As that's pretty much what's happening here.

Solo
2007-03-09, 01:17 AM
I suppose if you went with two light weapons that had insane criticals, and were a rogue with sneak attack, it would be better than THF.

Or if you went into the Dervish PrC

Maybe.... maybe.....

Callos_DeTerran
2007-03-09, 01:23 AM
Really? On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious. I might be missing some obvious point of the rules, but that seems to me a clear case where one build is genuinely better at the job of fighting than the other. What leads you to disagree?

Note that I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that one is more mechanically effective than the other. Even if you disagree with this specific example, do you think it's possible for one build to be genuinely better at some function than another, and therefore legitimate for one person to advise another to choose a particular feat or weapon over another, in order to be more effective?

Sneak attack and such things like that with a TWFing rogue has always seemed more effective to me then a greatsword wielding fighter, and I've never seen anything IRL to prove that wrong either. But thats neither here nor there.


I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what about this thread (as opposed to any other threads you may have read that annoyed you, but which weren't this one) so raises your ire.

Not sure. Just does. Its why I, generally, stay out of the Gaming Forum unless something catches my eye when I'm scrolling down the scream. Less aneurisms that way.

kamikasei
2007-03-09, 01:29 AM
Sneak attack and such things like that with a TWFing rogue has always seemed more effective to me then a greatsword wielding fighter, and I've never seen anything IRL to prove that wrong either. But thats neither here nor there.

You misunderstand. My example was not a rogue, had no Sneak Attack, nor any other means of adding damage die. It was a fighter, equipped with two light weapons dealing 1d4 damage each. Hence my point: regardless of whether you can play both and have fun doing so, one is more mechanically capable than the other.

Indeed, saying "go Rogue to make TWF effective" reinforces that point.

Kantolin's example is a good deal simpler and clearer, and more to-the-point, to boot.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-03-09, 01:39 AM
You misunderstand. My example was not a rogue, had no Sneak Attack, nor any other means of adding damage die. It was a fighter, equipped with two light weapons dealing 1d4 damage each. Hence my point: regardless of whether you can play both and have fun doing so, one is more mechanically capable than the other.

Indeed, saying "go Rogue to make TWF effective" reinforces that point.

Hehe. Yeah, I did misunderstand. Didn't notice the "Fighter" part of it. Still isn't that hard though. Grab TWF feats with normal levels (And some bonus ones) and the Weapon Focus/Specialization tree. Throw in Improved Critical and Robilar's Gambit/Karmic Strike...and I no longer know what I'm talking about. Though I'll have to try that build some day just for kicks.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-09, 04:31 AM
I wouldn't lump Cloudkill in with the DD. It does Constitution damage, making the enemies easier to kill, bypasses regeneration, and lowering their Fortitude save(in case you want to Disintegrate them on the spot, or some other tactic that involves them making a Fort save or lose). Ironically, it still does better "damage" than a Direct Damage spell, since every 2 points of Con damage is equal to 1 HP per HD of the monster, vs roughly 3.5 damage per your (caster)HD(which are usually 20-30% lower than the HD of the monster, if it's CR appropriate or higher.).

tobian
2007-03-09, 04:39 PM
I don't think anything's wrong with DD spells. Frankly, I think that both battlefield control and DD spells are necessary.

The latest wizard I've created is based off of a simple philosophy. He has some battlefield control spells and debuff spells, mostly intended to make it difficult/impossible for enemies to get near him. While the enemies are struggling through his spells, he peppers them with magic missile scrolls and other DDs until they die. Which might take a while, but hey, that's why we've got the half-dragon with the greatsword along to help.

I <3 my half dragon:smallbiggrin:

In the last campaign, I generally would memorize fireball once a day. All my other spells tended towards control/utility/pyrotechnics (I love that spell) w/ an everburning torch. I like to play the utility caster who finds whole new ways to defeat/complete encounters. And let me say, there is more than one use for grease hehehehe.

It is all dependent on what you prefer-some like towards control a little more, while some like DD more.

In our current campaign, we have a warmage who blasts stuff. And he BLASTS stuff. Like, I didnt know how scary a fist full of d6s were until they were in his hands. He could probally have killed anything we faced by himself if he didnt have the low hit dice curse.

I'm currently playing the aformented half-dragon; he is a bard with some utility spells/control spells. And, honestly, he has been more fun than my wizard because now I have to be even more creative when I cast spells since I have a limited amount known :smallwink: