# Magic missile too strong?



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

I've heard the idea that _magic missile_ is too strong bandied about quite a bit. _Tome and Blood_ said that magic missile was too strong for its level. Monte Cook designed the Arcana Unearthed spell list to weaken 1st level attack spells so that there wasn't a _magic missile_ equivalent.

I don't understand this line of thinking. A 1st level wizard with _magic missile_ is not a very useful addition to the party. He has 6 hit points. He does a 1d4+1 damage twice per day. The human fighter with a greatsword, on the other hand, has 12 hit points and the ability to deal 2d6+4 damage every round (and probably will deal that damage about one every other round or so).

How is the character with half the hit points and much less damage per round the overpowered one? It seems like _magic missile_ would be more balanced if it did 3d6 damage or so, the same as the like-leveled fighter. Am I the only one who thinks that 1st level spells are miserably underpowered?

It seems to me that 1st level spells would be more balanced if they looked more like this.







> *MAGIC MISSILE*
> Evocation [Force]
> *Level:* Sor/Wiz 1
> *Components:* V, S
> ...





> *MISSILE OF PATIENCE*
> Evocation [Fire]
> *Level:* Sor/wiz 1
> *Components:* V, S
> ...



That way, you've got a damage-dealing spell at 1st level that makes you somewhat competitive with the fighters and barbarians of the world.


----------



## Bad Paper (Jun 7, 2006)

_MM_ is too powerful because it's an automatic hit, not because of its damage.  There are so few automatic hit spells out there (even 8th-level _Polar Ray_ requires an attack roll).

_MM_ has that weird can't-target-an-object rule:
"Is that thing over there a golem or merely a statue?"
"Dunno.  Let's see what _MM_ does..."

Too powerful, not too weak.  Your piddly first-level spell makes the fighters look like chumps when fighting incorporeal opponents.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

It's an automatic hit, sure, but for pathetic damage. It is less than 1/3 the fighter's damage. I fail to see how a tiny amount of assured damage twice per day is better than that fighter's greatsword.


----------



## green slime (Jun 7, 2006)

Its autohit, scaling with level, means that it supercedes even 2nd level spells in effectiveness at later levels. Many is the time my sorcerors have run out of first level slots, and continued to cast _magic missile_ with 2nd level spell slots. The only possible drawback is the existance of _shield_.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

You're casting _magic missile_ in preference to _scorching ray_? _Magic missile_ is a 17.5 damage auto-hit, while _scorching ray_ is a 42 damage ranged touch. You'd have to be missing more than half the time to make that a good idea. (Except at 5th and 6th level, where you'd have to be missing more than 25% of the time, and 9th and 10th level, where you'd have to be missing more than 40% of the time).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 7, 2006)

Remember force damage is also not resistable and can hit incorporeal enemies with no miss chance. Some creatures have high Touch ACs or are harder to hit because of being in melee (+4 AC). _Magic missile_ is also long range. It's a really good all-around spell with no drawbacks.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

_Magic missile_ is medium range, and it does have one big drawback--it deals very small amounts of damage compared to like-level characters with no usage limit on their abilities.

_Magic missile_ aside, would people feel that a spell like this is problematic?







> *Burning Beam*
> Evocation [Fire]
> *Level:* Sor/Wiz 1
> *Components:* V, S
> ...



It's not a force effect, so it only works half the time against incorporeal opponents. It is a ray, rather than a targeted effect. This spell would allow a 1st level wizard to deal as much damage as a 1st-level fighter does, albiet at range with a touch attack, but only twice per day.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jun 7, 2006)

I substituted *Arcane Bolt* for _MM_ in my campaign. Even this is a little on the high end for a 1st level spell.

_Scorching ray_ - you still have to take into consideration the average damage times the frequency of making the to Hit roll to get the true average. But then, _scorching ray_ is often considered on the high end of powerful for 2nd level.


----------



## Victim (Jun 7, 2006)

Magic Missile isn't really that great in terms of damage, as 3d6 shows.  The main difference between magic missile and most other spells is that MM scales up slowly but remains useful, while stuff like burning hands maxes out early and becomes subpar even faster.  Damaging spells usually degrade in impact pretty quickly.

At low levels, sleep and color spray are the main powerhouses anyway.  At higher levels, 17.5 damage is nothing to write home about.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 7, 2006)

3d6 said:
			
		

> _Magic missile_ aside, would people feel that a spell like this is problematic?




Compare it to _burning hands_. _Burning hands_ is an area spell that does 1d4/lvl max 5d4 damage but you have to be within 15 feet of your enemy. I would say that the range of the spell balances out with the are. I'd say 1d6 per level maxingo out at 3d6. Perhaps make it 1 ray/level each doing one die of damage and max it out at 3 rays so that multiple enemies can be targeted.

But 3d6 damage at 1st level is right out, IMO.

EDIT: For the record, I consider _scorching ray_ on the same power cusp as _magic missile_.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

Why is 3d6 at first level right out? That's what the fighter does every round.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 7, 2006)

It's problematic comparing magic missile damage to that from a human fighter with a greatsword.  Many have mentioned that there's no hit roll, no DR, no incorporeal chance.  Also, often there's no real possibility of retaliation.

You're better off comparing it to a bow than a greatsword, and it there that you see magic missile become better in comparison.  Magic missle does 1 point less damage than a regular bow per missile, and you get more missiles slightly faster than the archer gets more arrows.  If the archer got a ghost touch bow that always hit and ignored incorporeal and DR at 1st level, that would be overpowered, no?

Magic Missile is so powerful because it's an automatic choice.  You can nearly always do damage with it.  It scales up to 9th level, when most other 1st level spells are forgotten or of otherwise limited utility.  17.5 damage at 9th level is nothing great, but from another perspective, it's 2 more damage than you do with a fireball against enemies that make their saving throw, and 17.5 more than you do against things immune to fire or with evasion.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 7, 2006)

No matter how you crunch the numbers, an automatic hit with no chance of energy resistance or damage reduction will always have an advantage.  Not necessarily a great advantage, and not necesarily in all (or even many) situations, but it is always valuable.  Even a range touch attach against a giant redwood fails 5% of the time.  

Magic Missle: When it absolutely, positively has to cause damage.


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 7, 2006)

A 1st level archer could easily have Rapid Shot, which increases his damage per round substantially.

There's also a big difference between a wizard using _magic missile_ twice per day and an archer using a bow every round. The wizard _should_ deal more damage for those two rounds he's casting spells. That's pretty much the only way he meaningfully contributes. As it stands now, over 4 rounds, the archer probably has dealt more damage. Over 8 rounds I guarantee it.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 7, 2006)

For me, it's about the game.  And in 6 years of weekly D&D games Magic Missile has never been seen to be too powerful.  Ya, it's a good spell.  The auto hit is nice for a class that really can't hit that well.  Incorporal creatures are rare especially at first level so that part doesn't bother me.  And compairing it to a area effect spell is not a good comparison at all.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 7, 2006)

3d6 said:
			
		

> Why is 3d6 at first level right out? That's what the fighter does every round.




It's a ranged touch attack. Compare to an archer as Benimoto says.

Archer has to roll an attack roll against the enemy's full AC, not just touch. At first level the archer does around 1d8+1 damage.

The wizard's spell damage will attack the touch AC of the opponent and thus deal less damage, 1d6 damage. At 2nd level the wizard can attack two opponents and deal 1d6 to each or 2d6 to one vs. the archer's 1d8+1.

At third level the archer gets 2d8+2 damage (rapid shot so -2 attack) and the wizard goes up to 3 rays at 1d6 damage each. Things are keeping up with each other quite nicely.

Now the question becomes, since the wizard is giving up more resources than the archer, shouldn't he be doing more damage than the archer? Well, he is. He's rolling touch attacks so he hits more often, or more precisely, he's able to end the battle more quickly than the archer. If the wizard is ending the battle more quickly, then he doesn't need to do more damage to be equally as useful to a party.

EDIT: Oh yeah, 3d6 damage is out, because its practically an automatic kill at a range. Make it a melee attack that has to hit full AC and you're golden. I don't even see 1st level fighters and barbarians doing 3d6 melee damage per hit.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 7, 2006)

3d6 said:
			
		

> The wizard _should_ deal more damage for those two rounds he's casting spells. That's pretty much the only way he meaningfully contributes. As it stands now, over 4 rounds, the archer probably has dealt more damage. Over 8 rounds I guarantee it.




As stated above, the "issue" (if it can be called that) isn't the amount of damage.  1d4+1 isn't anything special, even at 1st level.  5d4 + 5 isn't that great at later levels.  What MM has that other spells don't is longetivity.

The ability to have a guarenteed hit at 1st level is great, although sleep or mage armor may actually be a better bet at that level.  

At 5th or 10th level the first level spell is still useful.  High touch AC?  Magic Missile.  Evasion?  Magic Missile.  Incorporial?  Lots and lots of Magic Missile.

At 20th level, a first level spell still gives a guarenteed hit*.  That is something a 20th level fighter can't boast on a kobald (he might roll a 1 - even on a the rerolls - well, except for Weapon Supremecy from PHB2 - I guess he can boast it: after 18 levels - my point still stands).  Magic Missile still has certain uses at high levels.  A first level spell.  

Magic Missile: when you absolutely, posatively have to kill that wraith in the room; accept no substitute.

Note that I don't think it's overpowered.  The damage isn't that great.  People who do think it's over powered (I'm not one of them) raise the issues described above.

*There is Shield, SR, Wall of Force, Brooch of Shielding, etc.  But you know what I mean.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 7, 2006)

Magic Missile is strong, but I think ray of enfeeblement is better. Ah, greeting my BBEG barbarian adversary. I have brought Brutus my 1st level wizard follower...would you care to surrender now?


----------



## Question (Jun 8, 2006)

While MM is a auto-hit, your chances to miss with a touch attack spell is absurdly low, unless you are using it against incorporeal, etc enemies, which isnt that often.


----------



## Legildur (Jun 8, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> While MM is a auto-hit, your chances to miss with a touch attack spell is absurdly low, unless you are using it against incorporeal, etc enemies, which isnt that often.



In an ideal situation I would agree with you.  But with penalties for firing into melee, Dex not being a prime stat for Wizards/Sorcerors, and environmental issues like concealment, Magic Missile has a very secure place in the standard arsenal and I would NEVER not take it.


----------



## sydbar (Jun 8, 2006)

Magic missle is overpowered, depending on what rules you use.  In the 2nd ed games in our group, we use spell points(you get spell points equal to level of spell, ie a 2nd level spell is 2 spell points) with a system like that in 2nd, magic missle is overpowered since there is no concentration checks, but using the regular 3e/3.5 rules its not overpowered, but a powerful and useful spell, at least in my opinion.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT: Oh yeah, 3d6 damage is out, because its practically an automatic kill at a range. Make it a melee attack that has to hit full AC and you're golden. I don't even see 1st level fighters and barbarians doing 3d6 melee damage per hit.




They can do 2d6 + 3 or 4 pretty reliably (greatsword and 14+ Str); 2d6 + 3 is arguably better than 3d6 (slightly less on average, but more predictable), and 2d6 +4 (almost any raging barbarian will have a 16+ str) is certainly better.


----------



## green slime (Jun 8, 2006)

The point is, the spell MM keeps those 1st level spell slots useful even later in the game. Low level wizards don't need to be dealing humungous amounts of damage. They have _sleep_, _charm person_, _jump_, _feather fall_, and a myriad of other spells which, together with scribe scroll, means they can contribute meaningfully to the party's adventuresome success. 

They shouldn't be doing what the fighter does. Does the fighter leap about expecting to charm people, (or fascinate them), and determine if found loot is magical?

If your game entails a lot of fight, and some players are feeling that the low level wizard is "boring" or being left out of the action too much, perhaps they should try some of the variant spellcasters?


----------



## green slime (Jun 8, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> While MM is a auto-hit, your chances to miss with a touch attack spell is absurdly low, unless you are using it against incorporeal, etc enemies, which isnt that often.




I think the OP is talking about low-level casters (i.e. 1st to 3rd level), in which case, it isn't "absurdly low": BAB +0 Dex +1 = +1 vs Touch AC 11 = 55% chance to hit.


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 8, 2006)

There's Alot of useful level 1 spells that can help you at highlevels...

And well... in general it isn't that strong, sure its an autohit for a few times per day.. so it isn't overpowered unless you run a "1 encounter a day" campaign...

On the other hand, level 3 spells like Fireball, affect all creatures in an area... The overall damage difference between magic missile (at lvl 9) and a well placed Fireball is HUGE (even on succeded saves)


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jun 8, 2006)

If the Wizard really wants to be able to do the damage of a fighter then why doesn't he put Strength as his best stat and use his Feat to get a Martial Weapon proficiency.  The BAB difference between a Wizard and a Fighter is only +1 at first level.  When you are adding the result of a D20 roll it kind of pales in significance.

As green slime stated, the fighter doesn't get to do all of the things that a wizard does (not even just once per day) so why should the wizard get to move in on a fighter's territory.

For the record I like to play rogues.  All you other classes stay away from my sneak attack and skill points!     

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 8, 2006)

For a Wizard, it's just balanced.

For a Sorcerer, it's definitely a powerful spell, especially at higher levels when you have lots of slots per day. It somtimes happens to me, that when better spells are blocked by some immunity or protection, maybe Magic Missile isn't blocked (of course, it could be the other way around too...). In that case, you can even afford to use higher level slots to cast more MM.

So IMHO it's truly powerful for sorcerers, and yet that does NOT make them overpowered, but rather keeps them balanced with Wizards.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2006)

Meh. When magic missile has the ability to dominate encounter planning the way greater invis, teleport, fly, wall of force, dominate et al do, I'll start worrying about it.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 8, 2006)

The main advantage of magic missle is that its a first level slot that is still usable as an attack spell at the upper mid levels.  Ray of enfeeblement and colorspray are still pretty good too though.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 8, 2006)

Magic Missile is not too powerful at any level.  What it has going for it is consistency, both in effect and usefulness as you climb to higher levels.  

Unless you are fighting something highly weird or incorporeal, Grease and Ray of Enfeeblement are more effective in most combats. 

99% of the time my mid-level Wizard casts MM, it is because he does not have a great ideas what to do and does not think it is worth  bothering to Delay.  17.5 points damage is pretty boring when you are an 11th level Wizard.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jun 8, 2006)

I'll agree with Crothian.
I've played with Magic Missile for years and have never felt that it was overpowered in the slightest.
The only thing it is guilty of is being used too often because there were no other replacements for it until the Lesser Orb spells came out.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 8, 2006)

The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times.

In fact she used it so often that she found the need to calculate how many times she could use it, assuming she was converting higher level spell slots into magic missles.

She ROUTINELY used 4th level spell slots to cast magic missle.

When a spell becomes so all-encompassing that you are willing to forget about most of your charaacter's other abilities so that you can zap a person behind cover while they are grappling, then yeah it is probably overpowered.

And WOTC knew this going in.  That's why they included magic items to defend specifically against this spell, and other spells that protect against this spell.  They admitted in playtesting that magic missle dominated a lot of combats.

Monte Cook's fix recently to make it an exotic spell was a good one.


----------



## Question (Jun 8, 2006)

Why didnt your sorcerer do something use a orb of X? Unless the DM was throwing tons of incorporeal enemies with high energy resists, even a orb of force is better.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 8, 2006)

Some time ago, I threw my PCs up against an orc shaman...  he had a whole bunch of levels in Sorcerer, and I'd decided to alter the descriptions (but not the mechanics) of the effects of some of his spells just to change things up a bit.  Of course, he had Magic Missile as one of his first level spells.  After a few rounds of the PCs tussling with the shaman's bodyguards, the shaman decides to throw a magic missile at the party's heavily armored fighter.  I described it like so...

"The Shaman, standing nearly a hundred feet away, mutters a chant and slashes at the air in front of him with an oddly shaped ceremonial dagger.  With each slash, you feel a stinging, burning cut drawn deep across your chest.  Even though your armor hasn't even been scratched, you can feel the blood beneath it dribbling down your chest and soaking into your tunic.  Take... [DICE ROLL] ...12 points of damage."

"Doesn't he get a saving throw?" asks the party wizard.
"No," I reply.
"But you didn't make an attack roll," he wonders.
"That's right," I answer.
"So..." he concludes, incredulously, "It's a spell that did 12 points of damage from a hundred feet away without requiring an attack roll or a saving throw, and it bypasses armor?"
"You got it," I confirm.
"Wow, he says to the other players, "I hope he's got that spell on a scroll or something...  I've GOT to scribe that into my spellbook."

Without explicitly knowing which spell it was, and only seeing the end results, the player was boggling...  Until I told him that it was just a magic missile, it was a must have spell that seemed too good to be true.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 8, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Why didnt your sorcerer do something use a orb of X? Unless the DM was throwing tons of incorporeal enemies with high energy resists, even a orb of force is better.




Like I said, she was targeting things behind cover and in a grapple for example.  Orb of force requires a ranged touch attack.  Those are not that difficult normally, but when cover and chances of hitting your ally come into play, then it's not nearly as good as the sure-thing of a MM.

With many encounters, it's not about the quantity of hit points your opponant has.  It's about their strategy and protections.  Magic Missle foils most strategy and protections of an opponant.  Orb of force foils some, but not as many.

Plus, why waste a precious "Spells Known" choice on a redundant spell like Orb spell when you already have magic missle that scales well for many levels?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 8, 2006)

Magic Missile sucks...  At low levels it does crappy damage, and can easily be negated with Shield spell.  At higher levels, the damage still sucks, and there are even more ways to negate it.


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2006)

Keep also in mind that most wizards and sorcerers don't take precise shot. I know the ones I create almost ALWAYS do, because ranged touch spells are so prevalent. For the ones who don't, magic missile is much better than stocking up with yet another feather fall, jump, or exped. retreat.


----------



## Wilphe (Jun 8, 2006)

Other people have said it better, but I'll say it shorter:

For a 1st Level characters I wouldn't even consider it, there are way better things you can be doing than 1d4+1.

For a fifth level character it starts to look more interesting

For a ninth level or above, it's probably the best thing to do with your 1st level slots.


----------



## brehobit (Jun 8, 2006)

With folks comparing MM to the damage dealt by a fighter and the like, I think one important issue needs to be raised.  A lot of how powerful MM is depends on how character stats are done.  If you are using a 25 point point-buy, then magic missile looks a whole lot nastier than it does if you are using a 40 point buy.  

At more points everyone has a CON of 14 or better (other than maybe elves), so MM does less % of hitpoint damage.  And the fighters-types all have a 16 or 18 STR.  At 25 points, neither of those things will likely be true.  

That may explain some of the differences folks are noticing.  Plus, as others have noted, I'd only start _thinking_ about using it at 3rd level.  And only seriously useing it starting at 5th...


----------



## Caliban (Jun 8, 2006)

I don't think it's useful until 3rd level, when it outdamages your light-crossbow.  =)

At higher levels, my sorcerer usually has more interesting spells to cast, but I could see a sorcerer stocking up on utility spells and using metamagic feats to keep MM useful.

My  Sorcerer 10/Argent Savant 2 uses Magic Missile and Force Orb as his most common damage spells (+2 on attack rolls and +1 per die of damage from the prestige class on Force spells makes them very effective). 

For him:

1st level spell slot = MM for 5d4+10, average of 22 points of damage, no save

3rd level spell slot = Empowered MM for (5d4+10)x1.5,  average of 33 points of damage, no save).

4th level spell slot = Force Orb for 10d6+10, average of 45 points of damage, no save but requires a ranged touch attack. 

6th level spell slot (when he gets it) = Empowered Force Orb (10d6+10)x1.5, average of 67 points of damage, no save but requires a ranged touch attack. 

If I had taken twin spell, it would have given me twinned magic missiles in the 5th level spell slot, for 10d4+20 , (average 45 points of damage, no save, no attack roll). 

Without the boost from Argent Savent on damage, the average damage drops significantly, making other spells of higher level more optimal.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 8, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Why didnt your sorcerer do something use a orb of X? Unless the DM was throwing tons of incorporeal enemies with high energy resists, even a orb of force is better.



Because the orb spells require a to-hit roll.

Magic missiles, in terms of average damage, do around 1d6/2 levels.  Most other damage spells go with 1d6/level.  So that means that any time you have more than a 50% chance of missing, magic missle's better.

So, assuming you have around a +2 dex bonus, and the enemy has around a 12 touch AC, magic missile is doing the same damage as orb of force against an enemy with cover, up until you hit level 10 or so.  If your enemy has any additional modifiers, like melee, concealment, improved cover, an exceptionally high touch AC, or is grappling a friend, then magic missile is outdamaging a 4th level spell.  That's why those other orbs have additional effects, and a 15d6 level cap.  Because otherwise they'd be embarassed by magic missile in many circumstances.

I'm not really arguing that "magic missile is too powerful, and needs to be banned" or anything.  I just know it's a powerful spell, and want it to be given its full consideration.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 8, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> With folks comparing MM to the damage dealt by a fighter and the like, I think one important issue needs to be raised.  A lot of how powerful MM is depends on how character stats are done.  If you are using a 25 point point-buy, then magic missile looks a whole lot nastier than it does if you are using a 40 point buy.
> 
> At more points everyone has a CON of 14 or better (other than maybe elves), so MM does less % of hitpoint damage.  And the fighters-types all have a 16 or 18 STR.  At 25 points, neither of those things will likely be true.
> 
> That may explain some of the differences folks are noticing.  Plus, as others have noted, I'd only start _thinking_ about using it at 3rd level.  And only seriously useing it starting at 5th...




Maybe that is what I was seeing.  I'd say the majority of our fights in that game took place while we were between 5th and 9th level.  And the sorceror was pumping MM's out left and right at that point, every battle, often more than once.  She probably would have done well with the metamagic rule (that makes it a standard action and not a full round action for sorcerors) from PHBII and Arcane Thesis on Magic Missle and Quicken Spell and/or Empower Spell.  Getting a quickend magic missle out with that fourth level spell slot would have been a better use of that slot than a normal magic missle.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 8, 2006)

How does _magic missile_ compare to a warlock's eldritch blasts? People say the warlock is fine and balanced with his unlimited blasts. Without crunching the numbers myself, at a glance, it seems that a sorcerer throwing out _magic missiles_ is about the same.

Quasqueton


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 8, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> How does _magic missile_ compare to a warlock's eldritch blasts? People say the warlock is fine and balanced with his unlimited blasts. Without crunching the numbers myself, at a glance, it seems that a sorcerer throwing out _magic missiles_ is about the same.
> 
> Quasqueton




Eldritch Blast is a ranged touch attack.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Jun 8, 2006)

*Beware the Baron de Belleme!*



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> … "The Shaman, standing nearly a hundred feet away, mutters a chant and slashes at the air in front of him with an oddly shaped ceremonial dagger.  With each slash, you feel a stinging, burning cut drawn deep across your chest.  Even though your armor hasn't even been scratched, you can feel the blood beneath it dribbling down your chest and soaking into your tunic.  Take... [DICE ROLL] ...12 points of damage."
> 
> "Doesn't he get a saving throw?" asks the party wizard.
> "No," I reply.
> ...




Wow!  That is quite possibly the best description of magic missile I have ever seen (and I've been gaming since 1977).  It evokes traditional imagery of a sorcerer or a witch rather than a cowboy.  In fact it reminds me of the scene from Robin Hood & the Sorcerer (pilot episode of the 1984 British series) when the Baron de Belleme strikes with his sword from a distance.

Thanks Pbartender for the imagery.  I will use this in my next game!


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 8, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Why didnt your sorcerer do something use a orb of X? Unless the DM was throwing tons of incorporeal enemies with high energy resists, even a orb of force is better.




Orb spells may also be hard to come by if you are playing in a core-only game, or if your DM has banned them for being horribly written (as I have when I DM, which I admit isn't much these days).


----------



## Huw (Jun 8, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times.




Sounds about right. That's what it's for.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> She ROUTINELY used 4th level spell slots to cast magic missle.




Sorcerors don't have the flexibility of wizards. A wizard can afford to choose fireball, lightning bolt or shout according to circumstances. A sorceror is going to pick something generic. Does she have any 4th level offensive spells? IME, sorcerors have so many slots that they can afford to cast lower level spells.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And WOTC knew this going in.  That's why they included magic items to defend specifically against this spell, and other spells that protect against this spell.  They admitted in playtesting that magic missle dominated a lot of combats.




Always has done! Brooch of Shielding and Shield were present in 1e. 2e introduced the great spell "magic missile reflection", which was 2nd level and reflected all magic missiles straight back at the caster.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Monte Cook's fix recently to make it an exotic spell was a good one.




Don't know that one, but I do know of some clever variants from Earthdawn. Don't have the names handy, but one minor spell does a lot of damage, but has a very visible build-up, giving observers a chance to get out of range. Another one came in two varieties - a force one, which did very little damage, and an illusionary one, which did lots of damage but could be disbelieved.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Lot of player hating going on against my favorite spell from way back in AD&D.  I can't believe the hate. 

I don't think the spell is broken, what I think is broken is how some classes can break the spell, like the sorcerer for instance.  Anyway, you all got me fired up so I apologize ahead of time if I go a bit far on defending the spell, but I have to make a lot of comments against the player haters.

I do ask that those that have a problem with the spell ask themselves if the problem is with it cause the spell is broken or from the way it was used.  I think if you reflect back on the situations where you think the spell is broken, you will 9 times out of ten find that a sorcerer was causing all the problems.

So me a 9th level wizard with all magic missiles and I will show you someone who doesn't understand how to play a wizard.



			
				Bad Paper said:
			
		

> _MM_ is too powerful because it's an automatic hit, not because of its damage.  There are so few automatic hit spells out there (even 8th-level _Polar Ray_ requires an attack roll).
> 
> _MM_ has that weird can't-target-an-object rule:
> "Is that thing over there a golem or merely a statue?"
> ...



Uh, not sure what you are saying here.  Plenty of spells are automatic hits.  Almost every evocation and necromancy spells are automatic hits, fireball, lightning bold, cold of cold.

I think what you mean to say is that ALL ray spells require a ranged touch attack, which they do, just like the PHB says under ray effects.

Notice, magic missile is not a ray spell, so yes, like all other non ray spells, it automatically hits

Now, I could see you being pissy cause it doesn’t offer a save, but since it will most likely only target one creature, even at higher levels, and has a low damage cap, even compared to other 1st level spells, it is fairly balanced.





			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> It's problematic comparing magic missile damage to that from a human fighter with a greatsword.  Many have mentioned that there's no hit roll, no DR, no incorporeal chance.  Also, often there's no real possibility of retaliation.
> 
> You're better off comparing it to a bow than a greatsword, and it there that you see magic missile become better in comparison.  Magic missle does 1 point less damage than a regular bow per missile, and you get more missiles slightly faster than the archer gets more arrows.  If the archer got a ghost touch bow that always hit and ignored incorporeal and DR at 1st level, that would be overpowered, no?
> 
> Magic Missile is so powerful because it's an automatic choice.  You can nearly always do damage with it.  It scales up to 9th level, when most other 1st level spells are forgotten or of otherwise limited utility.  17.5 damage at 9th level is nothing great, but from another perspective, it's 2 more damage than you do with a fireball against enemies that make their saving throw, and 17.5 more than you do against things immune to fire or with evasion.




I think it is important to note that you are most likely going use it against only one target, even though you can target up to five, so it is weaker in the respect that it only does really good damage to one creature.



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> No matter how you crunch the numbers, an automatic hit with no chance of energy resistance or damage reduction will always have an advantage.  Not necessarily a great advantage, and not necesarily in all (or even many) situations, but it is always valuable.  Even a range touch attach against a giant redwood fails 5% of the time.
> 
> Magic Missle: When it absolutely, positively has to cause damage.



You do realize that it is only a first level spell, thus also subject to higher SR failure and also subject to many common protections like Globe of Invulnerability.  A simple shield spell kills the spell and brooches of shield absorb them like made.  Sure, force gets by DR and hardness and is one of the most useful descriptors, but that was an add on for 3.0 and 3.5.  If anything, WOTC made it more useful by changing the way magic works.





			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Magic Missile: when you absolutely, posatively have to kill that wraith in the room; accept no substitute.



Hmm, I guess the cleric would do nothing against it, or any other properly made character.  For christs sake, if your world about a fighter getting on even ground with a spellcaster against a wraith, then get a ghost touched weapon, I'm sure the spellcaster would be happy to make you one, if ya would stop whining about his ability to do a max of 5d4+5 to a wraith.  I realize you weren't the original poster for this, so apologies for that, just needed the quote.



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> The point is, the spell MM keeps those 1st level spell slots useful even later in the game. Low level wizards don't need to be dealing humungous amounts of damage. They have _sleep_, _charm person_, _jump_, _feather fall_, and a myriad of other spells which, together with scribe scroll, means they can contribute meaningfully to the party's adventuresome success.
> 
> They shouldn't be doing what the fighter does. Does the fighter leap about expecting to charm people, (or fascinate them), and determine if found loot is magical?
> 
> If your game entails a lot of fight, and some players are feeling that the low level wizard is "boring" or being left out of the action too much, perhaps they should try some of the variant spellcasters?




Well, I guess once you get to be, hmm, what, 10th level all your first levels spells should just suck and be unuseful.  Tell me what kind of sense that makes.  Magic Missile and Burning Hands were staples of AD&D, since the begining and with the 3.0/3.5 stat scores easier to get a CON bonus to hit points, these spells are actually weaker that 1st edition cause on average everything has more hit points.  

I don't think it is a matter of characters thinking that low level wizards are boring, cause they know, or should know, that things get better for them very quickly.  I can't believe that so many people on this thread think that Magic Missile is the second coming of the anti-christ.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> For a Wizard, it's just balanced.
> 
> For a Sorcerer, it's definitely a powerful spell, especially at higher levels when you have lots of slots per day. It somtimes happens to me, that when better spells are blocked by some immunity or protection, maybe Magic Missile isn't blocked (of course, it could be the other way around too...). In that case, you can even afford to use higher level slots to cast more MM.
> 
> So IMHO it's truly powerful for sorcerers, and yet that does NOT make them overpowered, but rather keeps them balanced with Wizards.



I agree that Sorcerers are just plain broken in general.  You get way more spells, incredible flexability when casting spells, including meta magic flexability.  The only down side to playing a sorcerer is that you know fewer spells, which is not that big of a deal, if you do enough research to take the good ones, which in the case, magic missile happens to be.

It really doesn't matter what spell you have, if you can cast it over and over and over, it is good, for the most part.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Magic Missile is not too powerful at any level.  What it has going for it is consistency, both in effect and usefulness as you climb to higher levels.
> 
> Unless you are fighting something highly weird or incorporeal, Grease and Ray of Enfeeblement are more effective in most combats.
> 
> 99% of the time my mid-level Wizard casts MM, it is because he does not have a great ideas what to do and does not think it is worth  bothering to Delay.  17.5 points damage is pretty boring when you are an 11th level Wizard.



I concur.

Whenever I play a wizard I always have a few magic missiles in store, but I use them mainly as a last resort since there are far better spells that deal a lot more damage to many more targets.  Really, at higher levels, the only time I cast magic missile is when I run out of fun spells and have to rely on lower level staple spells.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times.
> 
> In fact she used it so often that she found the need to calculate how many times she could use it, assuming she was converting higher level spell slots into magic missles.
> 
> ...



You are making an unfair comparison since you are talking about a broken class.  Your typical wizard won't memorize every spell as a hieghtened Magic Missile.  It is the Socerers ability to convert other spells into 1st level spells that breaks the spell, not the spell itself.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And WOTC knew this going in.  That's why they included magic items to defend specifically against this spell, and other spells that protect against this spell.  They admitted in playtesting that magic missle dominated a lot of combats.
> 
> Monte Cook's fix recently to make it an exotic spell was a good one.



For the record, they had magic items to protect against Magic Missile in AD&D too, WOTC didn't come up with them.  But, MM was more powerful back then, cause things had fewer hit points and of course MM dominated play testing, I'm sure many of them played sorcerers to test the new class, which happens to be a class that can and will abuse it.

Monte Cook have some very interesting ideas for magic, I like the different levels of spells, how they can be made stronger and such, but really, I think his magic system is more geared towards a lower magic setting.  That is fine and all, but I think that helps explain some of his theorys on things like MM.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> How does _magic missile_ compare to a warlock's eldritch blasts? People say the warlock is fine and balanced with his unlimited blasts. Without crunching the numbers myself, at a glance, it seems that a sorcerer throwing out _magic missiles_ is about the same.
> 
> Quasqueton



I this this is a vaild point.  I don't understand everything about the warlock cause I think the premuse for the character class is broken and won't read further into it, but Warlocks do get eldritch blasts as many times as they want and they get invocations, and from my understanding, as many times a day as they want too.

Not only do they get eldritch blasts an umlimited number of times a day, they also can add to the blast effects like, every time someone is hit with one, they are sickened and stuff.

Both the blasts and the invocations are spell-like abilities so with a quicken spell like ability feat, you can use each quickened once a day.  I think if you guys want to complain about a broke spell like ability, pick on the warlock blast.  Personally, I would cast a teleport spell if confronted by a warlock, cause the shear number of blasts they can cast will always out weigh a wizard and even a sorcerer, doesn't matter if it is not a force effect like magic missile.  Eventually they will get you.



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Orb spells may also be hard to come by if you are playing in a core-only game, or if your DM has banned them for being horribly written (as I have when I DM, which I admit isn't much these days).



That seems to be a popular opinion.  The orb spells are broken, mostly cause of no SR, but other reasons as well.    I even agree they should be stricken from the record.  I won't let players use them either.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm a big boy, I can take your rebutle heat.  Bring it on.

Just be civil and I will try to be too


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Maybe that is what I was seeing.  I'd say the majority of our fights in that game took place while we were between 5th and 9th level.  And the sorceror was pumping MM's out left and right at that point, every battle, often more than once.  She probably would have done well with the metamagic rule (that makes it a standard action and not a full round action for sorcerors) from PHBII and Arcane Thesis on Magic Missle and Quicken Spell and/or Empower Spell.  Getting a quickend magic missle out with that fourth level spell slot would have been a better use of that slot than a normal magic missle.




Wouldn't an _Orb of Force_ been better?  Isn't _Evard's Black Tentacles_ or _Ennervation_ a better overall spell for the level than a magic missle?  it's possible to make an effective magic missle artillery character but it doesn't seem like this would dominate compared to other arcane options.  

Good spell does not always equal overpowered; just means that it's a nice spell.


----------



## Question (Jun 9, 2006)

Has anyone tried spamming MMs as a force missle mage(Dragon compendium) yet?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> Wouldn't an _Orb of Force_ been better?  Isn't _Evard's Black Tentacles_ or _Ennervation_ a better overall spell for the level than a magic missle?  it's possible to make an effective magic missle artillery character but it doesn't seem like this would dominate compared to other arcane options.
> 
> Good spell does not always equal overpowered; just means that it's a nice spell.




Orb of Force and Enervation are both ranged touch attacks.  Her dex isn't great, she doesn't have precise shot, and she would be hitting her allies more often than is reasonable.  Both are out.

Evard's Black Tentacles would be nice for battlefield control, but again if the opponant is already engaged in combat, it would just hurt allies as well.

Magic Missle is one of those few spells you can use in almost any tactical situation.  If you can see the opponant at all, you will damage them unless it's an issue of spell resistance or they have shield up or a magic item that stops magic missles specifically or something like that.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I agree that Sorcerers are just plain broken in general.  You get way more spells, incredible flexability when casting spells, including meta magic flexability.  The only down side to playing a sorcerer is that you know fewer spells, which is not that big of a deal, if you do enough research to take the good ones, which in the case, magic missile happens to be....You are making an unfair comparison since you are talking about a broken class.  Your typical wizard won't memorize every spell as a hieghtened Magic Missile.  It is the Socerers ability to convert other spells into 1st level spells that breaks the spell, not the spell itself.




At the point where I am debating someone who thinks sorcerers are overpowered and "just plain broken", I think the discussion is useless.  We are coming from different planets, nay, different galaxies.  The mere thought that you think that about sorcerers is so stunning that I don't even think we are writing in the same language.  You look like you are speaking English, but the conclusion you draw is so opposite-world that I even doubt my own reading comprehension abilities.  One of us must be drunk, and I have to look suspiciously at my diet Squirt Can now and contemplate the odds that the cat tipped some hither-to-unknown tasteless hard liquor in it.  Because that old Sherlock Holmes quote comes to mind here, "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  And it is surely impossible that you think sorcerers are overpowered and broken, particularly relative to the wizard.  Hence, however improbable, I must be hallucinating.  Therefore allow me to depart and go check my vital statistics, as something here is quite amiss.  

That is, unless that something is you.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Uh, not sure what you are saying here.  Plenty of spells are automatic hits.  Almost every evocation and necromancy spells are automatic hits, fireball, lightning bold, cold of cold.




It's gotten to the point where half of my party doesn't care if I catch them in the fireball range;  they all have evasion and they aren't going to fail the reflex save. Fireball may not require a to-hit roll, but it's certainly not auto-hit.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I agree that Sorcerers are just plain broken in general.  You get way more spells, incredible flexability when casting spells, including meta magic flexability.  The only down side to playing a sorcerer is that you know fewer spells, which is not that big of a deal, if you do enough research to take the good ones, which in the case, magic missile happens to be.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what spell you have, if you can cast it over and over and over, it is good, for the most part.




I didn't mean to say that it's broken, I think not, I think it's balanced in 3.0 and actually quite weak in 3.5 (because of feats and spells nerfing). You are probably one of the very few who think that the Sorcerer is too good


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times
> 
> ....
> 
> When a spell becomes so all-encompassing that you are willing to forget about most of your charaacter's other abilities so that you can zap a person behind cover while they are grappling, then yeah it is probably overpowered.




Well, I've had seen many more characters doing nothing except swinging the same weapon every_single_combat_multiple_times than sorcerers doing the same with MM. But you don't think that the attack action is overpowered right?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> You are probably one of the very few who think that the Sorcerer is too good




I too think that Sorcerers (and Warmages) are very good compared to Wizards (I do not think they are broken). That is, if the character takes metamagic feats. If not, then the character is just ok.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

Magic Missile is a very useful spell but due to its limitations it is roughly "balanced" with other spells.

True it "automatically hits" targets that don't have total cover. (Don't forget that part - you have to be able to "see" the target in order to hit it with a magic missile and total cover would negate the line of effect).  But a caster only gets 1 missile fer every 2 levels up to a maximum of 5.  So a 1st level caster only has so many 1st level spell slots he can use for spells.

The following (very commonly available things at 1st level) will negate a magic missle.

Shield spell

Tower Shield

Smoke stick

So, while it is IMO a "must have" first level spell it is not overpowered in any means.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Orb of Force and Enervation are both ranged touch attacks.  Her dex isn't great, she doesn't have precise shot, and she would be hitting her allies more often than is reasonable.  Both are out.
> 
> Evard's Black Tentacles would be nice for battlefield control, but again if the opponant is already engaged in combat, it would just hurt allies as well.
> 
> Magic Missle is one of those few spells you can use in almost any tactical situation.  If you can see the opponant at all, you will damage them unless it's an issue of spell resistance or they have shield up or a magic item that stops magic missles specifically or something like that.



I don't6 know why people keep brining up the whole range touch attack things.  It is really hard to miss on a touch attack.

And Magic Missile is not always usefull, against multiple targets, it is greatly weakend, in fact, against more then one, some times two, a good fireball is much better.  However, yes, if you are always fighting 4 hit point orcs or 2 hit point kobolds, sure, it becomes better, but even then, a good fireball will kill more.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 9, 2006)

> Eldritch Blast is a ranged touch attack.



Yes, I know that much. But what is the damage by level for the EB? Does its damage make up for its miss chance, compared to MM? And the fact that it is unlimited, versus the sorcerer's limited spell slots? A sorcerer has at most 7 MM per day (not counting using higher level slots), for 17.5 damage a round. With a 50% chance to hit, a warlock would need a 10d6 EB to equal the damage per round, for unlimited times.

I don't know how a warlock's EB scales up. I'm just asking that someone look at the comparison closer than just resting the whole thing on "ranged touch attack". I'm not saying EB equals or betters MM, I'm just thinking it deserves some attention, rather than being dismissed off hand.

Quasqueton


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 9, 2006)

The rate at which a thing becomes overpowered or unbalanced increases as the DM's competence decreases.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> The following (very commonly available things at 1st level) will negate a magic missle.
> 
> Shield spell
> 
> ...




These types of arguments are not very helpful.

Yes, all of these COULD apply. But, examine each one at first level:

1) If an opponent Wizard or Sorcerer has cast a Shield spell, then he is not casting an offensive spell. He is taking away the advantage that he has (offensive spells) in order to do what? Fight with a weapon and a Shield spell? Sure, this might happen once in a blue moon, but it will be rare and even if he casts Shield, there might be a good chance that enemy spell casters might use Spellcraft to determine that, tell their allied arcane caster, and he can still use Magic Missile on a different opponent.

2) Tower Shield. It does not matter that this can give total cover. It does not protect against targeted spells (read the description of a Tower Shield), hence, the caster can Magic Missile someone hiding behind it all he wants.

3) Smoke Stick. At 20 GP a pop, this is an expensive way at low level to delay a Magic Missile spell. Plus, it is not very effective. It is the same as a Fog Cloud, but with a 10 foot radius. That means that no matter where a character stands within it, he is visible (with 20% concealment) from half of the battlefield. Walk around the smoke, cast Magic Missile. It also only lasts for a round at full effect, so at best it is a delaying tactic. It will not really protect against Magic Missile.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> At the point where I am debating someone who thinks sorcerers are overpowered and "just plain broken", I think the discussion is useless.  We are coming from different planets, nay, different galaxies.  The mere thought that you think that about sorcerers is so stunning that I don't even think we are writing in the same language.  You look like you are speaking English, but the conclusion you draw is so opposite-world that I even doubt my own reading comprehension abilities.  One of us must be drunk, and I have to look suspiciously at my diet Squirt Can now and contemplate the odds that the cat tipped some hither-to-unknown tasteless hard liquor in it.  Because that old Sherlock Holmes quote comes to mind here, "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  And it is surely impossible that you think sorcerers are overpowered and broken, particularly relative to the wizard.  Hence, however improbable, I must be hallucinating.  Therefore allow me to depart and go check my vital statistics, as something here is quite amiss.
> 
> That is, unless that something is you.




Well, Sorcerers are over powered.  If they coundn't convert higher levels spells into lower ones no one would play one.  There is a reason it is a variant rule to spontaneously cast cleric domain spells, cause it is broken.  Just like spell points, and yes, even psionics (but don't get me started on that).

So, I agree, you are drunk, I'll call AA and tell them you'll be in later for a meeting.  I'll also call the Beddy Ford clinic
cause you are smoking somthing other than Kools.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> It's gotten to the point where half of my party doesn't care if I catch them in the fireball range;  they all have evasion and they aren't going to fail the reflex save. Fireball may not require a to-hit roll, but it's certainly not auto-hit.



There are very few classes that offer evasion, so this would just be an example of your characters front loading your game with oneof the best anti magic abilities in the game.  Either that or you have a mere band of rogues, either way, the party seems unbalanced from whatyou are telling me.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 2) Tower Shield. It does not matter that this can give total cover. It does not protect against targeted spells (read the description of a Tower Shield), hence, the caster can Magic Missile someone hiding behind it all he wants.




I thought of that at first but then read the description for magic missile and tower shield again.

Magic missile can not target objects so it can't be used against an opponent using a tower shield for full cover.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) If an opponent Wizard or Sorcerer has cast a Shield spell, then he is not casting an offensive spell. He is taking away the advantage that he has (offensive spells) in order to do what? Fight with a weapon and a Shield spell? Sure, this might happen once in a blue moon, but it will be rare and even if he casts Shield, there might be a good chance that enemy spell casters might use Spellcraft to determine that, tell their allied arcane caster, and he can still use Magic Missile on a different opponent.




Well since the most likely target to fall becasue of a 1st level magic missile spell is indeed a sorcerer or wizard, this is indeed a great protective measure.

Other classes can withstand the damage from a 1st level magic missile (2-5) fairly easily. After the first one they retaliate and then the caster (a sorcerer or wizard) has to suffer the damge from something that causes more damage. And since they are liekly to have a lower AC than most there is an increased shot of them getting hit.




> 3) Smoke Stick. At 20 GP a pop, this is an expensive way at low level to delay a Magic Missile spell. Plus, it is not very effective. It is the same as a Fog Cloud, but with a 10 foot radius. That means that no matter where a character stands within it, he is visible (with 20% concealment) from half of the battlefield. Walk around the smoke, cast Magic Missile. It also only lasts for a round at full effect, so at best it is a delaying tactic. It will not really protect against Magic Missile.




Again it is about buying time. A wizard/sorcerer would have to move then cast in order to get past the cover (unless the target stayed within the smoke - always an option). And since we are talking about a low level caster the fact that he has to move will allow someone else to get to him (and target him) easier.


----------



## ARandomGod (Jun 9, 2006)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> _MM_ is too powerful because it's an automatic hit, not because of its damage.  There are so few automatic hit spells out there (even 8th-level _Polar Ray_ requires an attack roll).
> 
> _MM_ has that weird can't-target-an-object rule:
> "Is that thing over there a golem or merely a statue?"
> "Dunno.  Let's see what _MM_ does..."




Ok. So I don't do that effect quite the same way you seem to.  Use the above scenario:  MM is cast, a missile streaks towards the statue/golem.  Golem is not visibly effected, neither is the statue.  I'll make a roll for either one, and I'll let you shoot pretty and ineffective lights at a statue forever if you wish.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Remember force damage is also not resistable and can hit incorporeal enemies with no miss chance. Some creatures have high Touch ACs or are harder to hit because of being in melee (+4 AC). _Magic missile_ is also long range. It's a really good all-around spell with no drawbacks.




Translated:  Remember, in certain very specialized circumstances in which a low level fighter OR wizard will certainly die no matter what, MM is a good spell for a high level caster.



			
				Bad Paper said:
			
		

> Too powerful, not too weak.  Your piddly first-level spell makes the fighters look like chumps when fighting incorporeal opponents.




Unless, of course, the fighter is prepared with a ghost touch weapon. Yup. 

And I've been there, on both ends.  It's a GOOD thing that the mage had MM to deal with that unexpected ghost.  And the fighters picked up an alternate sword with a ghost touch enchant, after kicking themselves for selling the one handed out two sessions earlier. 


Meh. MM is a good spell, you should pick it up, certainly.  But it's not all that great.  I've played many a wizard, and I've cast MM only as a small percentage of the spells any of them cast.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I thought of that at first but then read the description for magic missile and tower shield again.
> 
> Magic missile can not target objects so it can't be used against an opponent using a tower shield for full cover.



 Tower shield says: "The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."  This explicitly eliminates a tower shield's cover as protection from targeted spells.  Is magic missile targeted?  Yes: "Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart."

QED


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yes, I know that much. But what is the damage by level for the EB? Does its damage make up for its miss chance, compared to MM?




Warlocks EB is a ranged touch, doing 1d6 damage per 2 levels, with no save. It's weaker than magic missile, when considering the touch attack issue, but is made versatile by being an unlimited effect, and able to target objects.



			
				DM Rocco said:
			
		

> I don't6 know why people keep brining up the whole range touch attack things. It is really hard to miss on a touch attack.




Not that hard. Your average mage has - what, a +2 to +7 ranged attack between 1st and 10th level? A touch attack can be anywhere from a 9 to a 16, on average in those levels. This means that a 1st level mage attacking someone with a 9 touch AC will be missing about 35% of the time. even at 9th level, assuming about a +6 bonus to hit, that's still missing % of the time. Very few things in D&D suck as hard as seeing a "1" or a "2" on a to hit roll.  A 10th level caster, with a +7 to hit, will miss a 16 touch AC 45% of the time -- that's good odds, but not great odds. Add in a -4 for lack of precise shot if your ally is in melee with your enemy, and the chance just rose by 20%.

That's why some people harp on touch AC as much as they do. You can get better to hit scores (using weapon focus, using point blank shot, upping your DEX, taking other classes besides arcane casters), but all of them don't address your average PC, and what the better choice is. Magic Missile isn't grossly overpowered, I'll agree, but I do believe as the earlier poster that it's high-end of 1st level. As Monte Cook once said, if the designers had carried through with the brainstorming of making a list of spells for every caster level, instead of every other caster level, then magic missile would be that "second level spell". Now, it's more like it's a "one-and-a-half level" spell.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Very few things in D&D suck as hard as seeing a "1" or a "2" on a to hit roll.



 But then there's the natural 20 (or 19 with improved crit) that DOUBLES the damage of the attack spell.  There's nothing like rolling 80d6 for a critical disintegrate.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Well since the most likely target to fall becasue of a 1st level magic missile spell is indeed a sorcerer or wizard, this is indeed a great protective measure.
> 
> Other classes can withstand the damage from a 1st level magic missile (2-5) fairly easily. After the first one they retaliate and then the caster (a sorcerer or wizard) has to suffer the damge from something that causes more damage. And since they are liekly to have a lower AC than most there is an increased shot of them getting hit.




Basically irrelevant.

At first level, an arcane caster's best defense is a good offense. Some arcane casters might indeed be defensively minded with regard to spells: cast Mage Armor and/or cast Shield. But, Magic Missiles from NPCs should be rare enough that the majority of defensive casters choose Mage Armor instead of Shield due to the duration. So, having a Shield up at first level should be very rare.

The majority (if played well) should understand that they only get a few spells per day. So, in order to cast Shield before it will stop Magic Missile, such a caster would have to have a round in which to do that. If he has a round to go defensive, he has a round in which to attack first. 2-5 points of damage is hurtful, but not typically deadly (many PC adventuring arcane casters have a CON of at least 12).

So, yes, this rare situation could occur. But, it typically will not and even if it does, that does not prevent an opponent from casting the Magic Missiles on somebody else.

The fact that Shield can prevent Magic Missiles is a hiccup at real low levels. A blip on the radar and not really that important in the large scheme of things. The vast majority of the time, Magic Missiles hit their intended target at low level (and especially at first level).



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> Again it is about buying time. A wizard/sorcerer would have to move then cast in order to get past the cover (unless the target stayed within the smoke - always an option). And since we are talking about a low level caster the fact that he has to move will allow someone else to get to him (and target him) easier.




Again, mostly irrelevant.

If a first or low level character is using up a pricey Smoke Stick, they are doing it for a life or death reason. Typically, because they are seriously injured. A Cure Light Wounds potion in that situation works better than a Smoke Stick. And smoke is not really going to stop other opponents from entering the smoke and still dispatching the character.

Also, your scenarios here assume that the user of the Smoke Stick KNOWS that he will be targeted by some spell. Smoke Stick will not stop Color Spray or Burning Hands. So, the utility of such a tactic is limited at best (maybe so that a Rogue can hide in the concealment). Considering that the target can still be attacked with Magic Missile anyway (only not from some directions), it's hardly what one would call a worthwhile defense. Mostly, it is a waste of an action since most of the time, an arcane opponent could just target someone else instead (or area effect the smoke).

Actions matter in the game. Using them to hide behind spells or concealment works well against archers. It does not work well against spells.


PS. On this note, I have had some players in my campaigns often not know what to do. So, they will move their character, or delay, or some other basically non-productive action. It can turn a moderately difficult encounter into a deadly one. Sure, there are times when delaying is helpful or even necessary. But, most of the time, a group's best chance of success is when all PCs are being productive in some manner. Casting Shield spells, hiding behind Tower Shields, and hiding behind smoke are generally not very productive (they can be productive situationally dependent, but typically, there are better actions that can be done). Even firing a Light Crossbow at a low armored opponent for a Wizard out of spells is typically better than hiding behind a Tower Shield.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But then there's the natural 20 (or 19 with improved crit) that DOUBLES the damage of the attack spell.  There's nothing like rolling 80d6 for a critical disintegrate.




Our poor DM last week witnessed a 34d6 disintegrate, and we thought he was going to have a heart attack.  But that nat-20 bunch o'dice is nice, but requires some pretty good luck, and improved crit is not likely to be taken by any straight mages until 16th level, or mixed-mages until 12th level or so.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Tower shield says: "The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."  This explicitly eliminates a tower shield's cover as protection from targeted spells.  Is magic missile targeted?  Yes: "Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart."
> 
> QED





True enough.

I was reading the info in magic missile spell description.



> The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. *Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell.*




Which doesn't say the same thing, so while it is probably a reasonable house-rule that a tower shield provides cover against a magic missile it is not strictly per the RAW.

Most other targeted spells do not work the same way as does magic missile they are more along the lines of "touch" type spells or or "charm person" type ones.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Most other targeted spells do not work the same way as does magic missile they are more along the lines of "touch" type spells or or "charm person" type ones.




Most touch spells and charm person type spells target a creature exactly like Magic Missile.

Target: Creature

No real difference (except for number of opponents).


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Orb of Force and Enervation are both ranged touch attacks.  Her dex isn't great, she doesn't have precise shot, and she would be hitting her allies more often than is reasonable.  Both are out.
> 
> Evard's Black Tentacles would be nice for battlefield control, but again if the opponant is already engaged in combat, it would just hurt allies as well.
> 
> Magic Missle is one of those few spells you can use in almost any tactical situation.  If you can see the opponant at all, you will damage them unless it's an issue of spell resistance or they have shield up or a magic item that stops magic missles specifically or something like that.




I don't believe that you can hit your allies by mistake using the core D&D rules but I am willing to be mistaken.  I thought that the rule (at least as I use it) was -4 for firing into melee and -4 if you have friend between you and the target (soft cover) for a total of -8 when firing from behind a fighter into melee.  

Magic Missle peaks in power at 9th level doing 5d4+5 points of damage.  Spell Resistance affects it.  

Orb of Force has the same range, does 9d6 points of damage (double) and ignores spell resistence.  You require a ranged touch spell but it is actually a better spell if there are things like Drow around.  

It's a good spell, no doubt, but it hardly breaks the things around it.  At medium levels (say 5) spells with damage per level are doing more damage (Burning hands averages double damage from levels 2 to 5 and can hit multiple targets).  

At high levels (say 18) is it really worth casting this spell instead of "Wail of the Banshee"?  Or a Quickened Disintegrate?  Do you 18th level casters actually miss touch ACs all that often?  

Metamagic can improve the spell and it is rarely a waste of an action but that makes the spell balanced and scalable.


----------



## harmyn (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Orb of Force and Enervation are both ranged touch attacks.  Her dex isn't great, she doesn't have precise shot, and she would be hitting her allies more often than is reasonable.  Both are out.
> 
> Evard's Black Tentacles would be nice for battlefield control, but again if the opponant is already engaged in combat, it would just hurt allies as well.
> 
> Magic Missle is one of those few spells you can use in almost any tactical situation.  If you can see the opponant at all, you will damage them unless it's an issue of spell resistance or they have shield up or a magic item that stops magic missles specifically or something like that.




Most Wizard spells don't require a to-hit roll, just a saving throw. Magic Missile is a potent spell, but its reasonable for 1st level too I would say. Its damage is minimal, if guaranteed. I have seen it used over many levels, but I have never been too worried about it. Now at the high end of characters though Magic Missile can become a wee bit problematic again if the person lacks a Brooch of Shielding or the protection of a Shield Spell. If a Wizard of level 17 casts Quickened-Empowered-Magic-Missile (level 8 equivalent), and Energy Substitution (sonic) Delayed Blast Fireball and actually makes the Save in one round, he would deal an average of 59 pts of damage (89 pts if save is failed) Now if you follow that up next round with another Quickened-Empowered Magic Missile (7th level equivalent) for 25 pts damage on average and then finish that same round off with Power Word Kill your average damage would guarantee the death of anyone living target with 184 hit points or less. If they failed their save against DBF then any character with 215 hit points or less would be dead. Four spells, all of higher level, cast over only 2 rounds one allows a single save and requires no to-hit roll and target is dead if their Hit Points aren't sufficiently high (of course this is better if the wizard in round 1 lets his Cleric buddy cast Harm first then skips straight to his round 2 quickened spell combo).

As for how hard it is to fire into melee combat with a ranged touch attack, I have a good deal of experience from one the group I DM. I have a player playing a Warlock who has finally come around to realizing that while handy, Precise Shot isn't really important to Ranged Touch Attacks. Same is basically true for Wizards and Sorcerers after about 6th level. Now keep in mind I didn't give the fighter below a magic sword which he would probably have, but I did give him Weapon Focus. The wizard also has no additional bonuses, but could easily be under the effect of Cat's Grace which would give him a +2 to hit.

Lemme 'splain what I mean.....

Wizard Base Attack at Levels 6/7 = +3; Not a very good Dex for a Wizard (say 12/13) = +1; -4 firing into melee Total Attack Bonus: +0
Wizard Base Attack at Levels 8/9 = +4; Not a very good Dex for a Wizard (say 12/13) = +1; Total Attack Bonus: +1
Total Attack Levels 6-9 Fighter with a Strength of 16 and Weapon Focus swinging sword = +10, +11, +12, +13

CR 6 Monster Examples
Annis (Hag) Touch AC 10; L6 Wizard needs to roll a 9+
Annis (Hag) Regular AC 20; L6 Fighter needs to roll a 10+
Chain Devil (Kyton) Touch AC 12; L7 Wizard needs to roll a 12+
Chain Devil (Kyton) Regular AC 20; L7 Fighter needs to roll a 9+
Dragon, Blue, Young, Touch AC: 10; L6 Wizard needs to roll a 10+
Dragon, Blue, Young, Regular AC: 21; L6 Fighter needs to roll a 11+
Girallon Touch AC 12; L6 Wizard needs to roll a 11+
Girallon Regular AC 16; L6 Fighter needs to roll a 6+

CR 7 Monster Examples
Bulette Touch AC 10; L7 Wizard needs to roll a 10+
Bulette Regular AC 22; L7 Fighter needs to roll a 11+
Dragon, Red, Young, Touch AC 9; L7 Wizard needs to roll a 9+
Dragon, Red, Young, Regular AC 21; L7 Fighter needs to roll a 10+ 
Giant, Hill Touch AC 8; L7 Wizard needs to roll a 8+
Giant, Hill Regular AC 20; L7 Fighter needs to roll a 9+
Medusa Touch AC 12; L7 Wizard needs to roll a 12+ (but can avoid the gaze effect because of range) 
Medusa Regular AC 15; L7 Fighter needs only a +4 if they make a Fort Save, +8 if averting their gaze

CR 8 Monster Examples
Bodak Touch AC 12; L8 Wizard needs to roll a 11+ (but can avoid gaze effect because of range)
Bodak Regular AC 20; L8 Fighter needs to roll a 9+
Giant, Stone Touch AC 11; L8 Wizard needs to roll a 10+
Giant, Stone Regular AC 25; L8 Fighter needs to roll a 13+
Gorgon Touch AC 9; L8 Wizard needs to roll a 8+
Gorgon Regular AC 20; L9 Fighter needs to roll a 9+

Monstrous Spider, Gargantuan Touch AC 9; L8 Wizard needs to roll a 8+
Monstrous Spider, Gargantuan Regular AC 19; L9 Fighter needs to roll a 8+

CR 9 Monster Examples
Delver Touch AC 9; L9 Wizard needs to roll a 8+
Delver Regular AC 24; L9 Fighter needs to roll a 11+
Dragon, Black, Young Adult Touch AC 9; L9 Wizard needs to roll a 8+
Dragon, Black, Yound Adult Regular AC 24; L9 Fighter needs to roll a 11+
Giant, Frost Touch AC 8; L9 Wizard needs to roll a 7+
Giant, Frost Touch AC 21; L9 Fighter needs to roll a 8+
Nessian Warhound (hellhound) Touch AC 11; L9 Wizard needs to roll a 10+
Nessian Warhound (hellhound) Ranged AC 24; L9 Wizard needs to roll a 11+


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> But that nat-20 bunch o'dice is nice, but requires some pretty good luck, and improved crit is not likely to be taken by any straight mages until 16th level, or mixed-mages until 12th level or so.



 Part of this discussion is on the warlock, and I'd say improved crit is much more desirable for a warlock than a wizard/sorcerer.  All of his attacks are ranged touch! 


			
				Votan said:
			
		

> I don't believe that you can hit your allies by mistake using the core D&D rules but I am willing to be mistaken.



 Only in a grapple or a cover rules variant can you hit your allies with a non-area spell.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 9, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> "The Shaman, standing nearly a hundred feet away, mutters a chant and slashes at the air in front of him with an oddly shaped ceremonial dagger.  With each slash, you feel a stinging, burning cut drawn deep across your chest.  Even though your armor hasn't even been scratched, you can feel the blood beneath it dribbling down your chest and soaking into your tunic.  Take... [DICE ROLL] ...12 points of damage."
> 
> "Doesn't he get a saving throw?" asks the party wizard.
> "No," I reply.
> ...




You've told this story before and it remains the coolest implementation of creativity within the rules that I have ever seen on these boards.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by irdeggmanWell since the most likely target to fall becasue of a 1st level magic missile spell is indeed a sorcerer or wizard, this is indeed a great protective measure.Other classes can withstand the damage from a 1st level magic missile (2-5) fairly easily. After the first one they retaliate and then the caster (a sorcerer or wizard) has to suffer the damge from something that causes more damage. And since they are likely to have a lower AC than most there is an increased shot of them getting hit.
> 
> 
> Basically irrelevant.




Why is it irrelevant?  They are the classes that are most likely to be adversely affected by a magic missile at low levels. Other than the potentially dropping to 0 or less hit points there is also the disrupting spells potential. So in reality they are the classes that should be the most focus when talking about how balanced a magic missile is.



> At first level, an arcane caster's best defense is a good offense. Some arcane casters might indeed be defensively minded with regard to spells: cast Mage Armor and/or cast Shield. *But, Magic Missiles from NPCs should be rare enough that the majority of defensive casters choose Mage Armor instead of Shield due to the duration.* So, having a Shield up at first level should be very rare.





So if it is that rare then the spell being overpowering isn’t really an issue I guess and this entire thread is pretty much mote.




> *The majority (if played well) should understand that they only get a few spells per day.* So, in order to cast Shield before it will stop Magic Missile, such a caster would have to have a round in which to do that. If he has a round to go defensive, he has a round in which to attack first. 2-5 points of damage is hurtful, but not typically deadly (many PC adventuring arcane casters have a CON of at least 12).




Purely an opinion and very less likely for an elf character (-2 to Con). Many adventuring arcane casters also have a STR of at least 12 – but neither is their prime attribute and as such, logic would dictate that neither score should be very high. Even with a 12 CON a first level wizard can be dropped to 0 hit points by a magic missile (2-5 points of damage per missile)

So, yes, this rare situation could occur. But, it typically will not and even if it does, that does not prevent an opponent from casting the Magic Missiles on somebody else.




> The fact that Shield can prevent Magic Missiles is a hiccup at real low levels. A blip on the radar and not really that important in the large scheme of things. The vast majority of the time, Magic Missiles hit their intended target at low level (and especially at first level).




Purely a matter of opinion. Shield was designed specifically to counter magic missiles and to dismiss it as a mere hiccup fails to look at the balance of the overall system.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by irdeggmanAgain it is about buying time. A wizard/sorcerer would have to move then cast in order to get past the cover (unless the target stayed within the smoke - always an option). And since we are talking about a low level caster the fact that he has to move will allow someone else to get to him (and target him) easier.
> 
> 
> ...




Again why is this irrelevant?  Survival is what it is all about, especially for characters with low hit points (wizards and sorcerers).



> Also, your scenarios here assume that the user of the Smoke Stick KNOWS that he will be targeted by some spell. Smoke Stick will not stop Color Spray or Burning Hands. So, the utility of such a tactic is limited at best (maybe so that a Rogue can hide in the concealment). Considering that the target can still be attacked with Magic Missile anyway (only not from some directions), it's hardly what one would call a worthwhile defense. Mostly, it is a waste of an action since most of the time, an arcane opponent could just target someone else instead (or area effect the smoke).




True enough. If surprised any party is in trouble regardless of whether or not the opponents are using magic missiles or not.

If the caster is close enough to use burning hands or color spray then why is the caster using magic missile?




> Actions matter in the game. Using them to hide behind spells or concealment works well against archers. It does not work well against spells.
> 
> 
> PS. On this note, I have had some players in my campaigns often not know what to do. So, they will move their character, or delay, or some other basically non-productive action. It can turn a moderately difficult encounter into a deadly one. Sure, there are times when delaying is helpful or even necessary. But, most of the time, a group's best chance of success is when all PCs are being productive in some manner. Casting Shield spells, hiding behind Tower Shields, and hiding behind smoke are generally not very productive (they can be productive situationally dependent, but typically, there are better actions that can be done). Even firing a Light Crossbow at a low armored opponent for a Wizard out of spells is typically better than hiding behind a Tower Shield.




Mostly accurate, IMO.  But this is predicated off of personal experience in a set group (or groups) and does not really address the overall argument – so I guess it is really irrelevant.

Casting a shield spell is really important for a wizard who is not wearing armor and needs to be “productive”.  It is probably one of his best low level protective spells and when combined with mage armor offers a substantial amount of protection for a character that really needs it.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to say that it's broken, I think not, I think it's balanced in 3.0 and actually quite weak in 3.5 (because of feats and spells nerfing). You are probably one of the very few who think that the Sorcerer is too good



What I guess I meant to say is that I think your original point was valid and I guess I should have made a seperate comment stating that I thought sorcerers where broken.

I think the ability to spontaneously cast any spell, with meta magics to boot, make them very dangerous.  Ditching your familiar to gain meta-magic mastery, as per the PHBII, makes them even meaner.  Sure they have very few spells known, but like I said, if you have half a brain, you can make the most of the spells you do choose.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Well, I've had seen many more characters doing nothing except swinging the same weapon every_single_combat_multiple_times than sorcerers doing the same with MM. But you don't think that the attack action is overpowered right?



Lmao, good point 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I too think that Sorcerers (and Warmages) are very good compared to Wizards (I do not think they are broken). That is, if the character takes metamagic feats. If not, then the character is just ok.



Don't forget the Dread Necromancer too.  Mass Harm, yikes.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yes, I know that much. But what is the damage by level for the EB? Does its damage make up for its miss chance, compared to MM? And the fact that it is unlimited, versus the sorcerer's limited spell slots? A sorcerer has at most 7 MM per day (not counting using higher level slots), for 17.5 damage a round. With a 50% chance to hit, a warlock would need a 10d6 EB to equal the damage per round, for unlimited times.
> 
> I don't know how a warlock's EB scales up. I'm just asking that someone look at the comparison closer than just resting the whole thing on "ranged touch attack". I'm not saying EB equals or betters MM, I'm just thinking it deserves some attention, rather than being dismissed off hand.
> 
> Quasqueton



I think they go up every other level by 1d6 for a max of 9d6 at higher levels, either 19 or 20.  But, don't forget, you can add invocations directly to your EB.  I don't know all of the different effects you can add, but you will never be doing just *d6 damage per hit.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But then there's the natural 20 (or 19 with improved crit) that DOUBLES the damage of the attack spell.  There's nothing like rolling 80d6 for a critical disintegrate.



Okay, I forgot about the crit factor, another strike.  So, warlocks get unlimited blasts topping out at 9d6, no save, its critable and you can add other effects to your blasts through invocation, which correct me if I'm wrong, are also unlimited.

Hmm, not broken at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

harmyn said:
			
		

> Most Wizard spells don't require a to-hit roll, just a saving throw.




It's actually split almost 50-50 for offense spells.  And the designers did that intentionally.  You have an bunch of ray spells and energy spells like ray of enfeeblement, exhaustion, frost, scorching ray, enervation, etc., and those are ranged touch attacks.  And then you have the saving throw spells, such as fireball and charm person.  I think you will find it's split fairly well.



> Magic Missile is a potent spell, but its reasonable for 1st level too I would say.




Which is why I've been focusing on the levels where magic missle is powerful, which is 5th to 9th levels.



> Its damage is minimal, if guaranteed. I have seen it used over many levels, but I have never been too worried about it. Now at the high end of characters though Magic Missile can become a wee bit problematic again if the person lacks a Brooch of Shielding or the protection of a Shield Spell.




If 99% of your NPCs DON'T lack a brooch of shielding and an already-up shield spell, you're probably metagaming as a DM.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but not the norm either.



> As for how hard it is to fire into melee combat with a ranged touch attack, I have a good deal of experience from one the group I DM. I have a player playing a Warlock who has finally come around to realizing that while handy, Precise Shot isn't really important to Ranged Touch Attacks. Same is basically true for Wizards and Sorcerers after about 6th level. Now keep in mind I didn't give the fighter below a magic sword which he would probably have, but I did give him Weapon Focus. The wizard also has no additional bonuses, but could easily be under the effect of Cat's Grace which would give him a +2 to hit.




Then I again think your game is a bit off from the average.  Ranged touch attacks should be missing around a third of the time from your typical sorceror or wizard.  If you are running a high powered game (32 point ability score array, or easily available magic items to boost attacks) then that will change.  But in your typical 25 point ability array with the highest stat in your spellcasting ability and second highest in constitution, your sorceror or wizard should be missing about a third of their ranged touch attacks, or at best a quarter.  If they are hitting almost every time, you've varied from the average game.

Magic missle always hits, with no save, and it's a force attack so nothing has resistance or immunity (beyond spell resistance which applies to almost all spells, and those that do not are often touted as being the "other" overpowered spells like the orb spells).  Even a 20th level fighter has a chance of missing, and most mid to high level opponants have resistances and immunities to the energy spells like fireball.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Casting a shield spell is really important for a wizard who is not wearing armor and needs to be “productive”.  It is probably one of his best low level protective spells and when combined with mage armor offers a substantial amount of protection for a character that really needs it.




Shield and Mage Armor are fine for a fighting first level Wizard. But, it does take up two of his two (or three) spells and makes him mostly worthless except as a combatant. If he is doing that, Magic Missile is the least of his worries.

And given the choice, I do not know of anyone who would take Shield over Mage Armor at lower levels unless the player knew the character would be fighting an arcane spell casting opponent.


I think you are grossly overestimating the value of a Shield spell against Magic Missile in the vast majority of situations since the vast majority of opponents (in most campaigns) do not have Magic Missile, nor do the vast majority of characters in a game have a Shield spell available.


Your original point with the Shield spell, Tower Shield, and Smoke Stick examples was that Magic Missile is a balanced spell because these defenses exist. Since most characters do not have the Shield spell, the Tower Shield does not stop Magic Missile at all, and a Smoke Stick can at best delay it for few rounds (and not necessarily for a single round), I do not think your original point had much weight to it since these defenses are mostly worthless and minimally few and far between.

In the big picture of the game, these defenses hardly help at all against Magic Missile. Your balance claim is like saying that a defense against getting bombed in Iraq by the U.S. is that one day out of the month, you will not be in Iraq. That one day doesn't really help on the other days of the month if an attack does occur. If you do not use or have a Smoke Stick or a Shield spell (which is true for the vast majority of characters and situations), you can still get Magic Missiled.


PS. A smart tactic is to use Magic Missile against ant seriously wounded opponent at most levels. They tend to have no defense (except maybe SR at higher levels) and if you drop them, then you shift the number of opponent vs. allies odds towards your side's favor. Targeting a spell caster is usually only decisive if he is already wounded or he is in the midst of casting a spell. Except at first level, most spell casters at most (equivalent) levels have enough hit points to absorb two Magic Missile spells, even Empowered ones.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And given the choice, I do not know of anyone who would take Shield over Mage Armor at lower levels unless the player knew the character would be fighting an arcane spell casting opponent.



 I would, especially at lower levels.  Shield is better than mage armor except for the duration.  The only benefit of mage armor is the duration and at low levels that is rendered largely useless, except in dungeon crawls.  The encounters will not necessarily be spaced that closely together making both shield and mage armor a single combat spell, advantage to shield.  Bracers of armor are also more likely going to be available and are a better option for a wizard not wanting to tie up a hand (somewhat) with a mithral shield.

All in all, I just want to point out that it's more of a toss-up than you give it credit for.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> What I guess I meant to say is that I think your original point was valid and I guess I should have made a seperate comment stating that I thought sorcerers where broken.
> 
> I think the ability to spontaneously cast any spell, with meta magics to boot, make them very dangerous.  Ditching your familiar to gain meta-magic mastery, as per the PHBII, makes them even meaner.  Sure they have very few spells known, but like I said, if you have half a brain, you can make the most of the spells you do choose.




PHBII options and non-core books aside, you get that sorcerors learn their spells later than wizards, right?  That they cannot use metamagic very well due to the full round casting time? That they get very few spells known and MUST make choices that WILL hurt the character (with any level of intelligence, you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip, nor can you get the full array of useful spells from that few choices)?  That they get a LOT fewer feats than wizards? That their key casting ability is less useful in general than the wizards key casting ability?  That wizards get to specialize in schools to increase their spell slots to about where sorceror's are at? That Wizatds can still write almost any spell into their spell book and leave slots open to memorize a new spell in the middle of the day?  That wizards can use spellbooks found on opponants but sorcerors cannot?

To put it a different way, why do you think virtually every D&D game designer, and almost all players and DMs, disagree with you on this subject?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

When drafting the new 3.0 rules by the way, the designers mentioned that they tried to change magic missle to a d6 damage base with a save for 1/2. The playtesters apparantly said they thought it was more balanced, but hated it anyway because it wasn't the flavor of D&D. So back it went to auto-hitting with no save.

I don't think magic missle breaks the game.  I just think it's overpowered and that D&D shouldn't have ANY spells that auto-hit with no save.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Your original point with the Shield spell, Tower Shield, and Smoke Stick examples was that Magic Missile is a balanced spell because these defenses exist. Since most characters do not have the Shield spell, the Tower Shield does not stop Magic Missile at all, and a Smoke Stick can at best delay it for few rounds (and not necessarily for a single round), I do not think your original point had much weight to it since these defenses are mostly worthless and minimally few and far between.





Actually my original point was all of the following:



> Magic Missile is a very useful spell but due to its limitations it is roughly "balanced" with other spells.
> 
> True it "automatically hits" targets that don't have total cover. (Don't forget that part - you have to be able to "see" the target in order to hit it with a magic missile and total cover would negate the line of effect). But a caster only gets 1 missile fer every 2 levels up to a maximum of 5. So a 1st level caster only has so many 1st level spell slots he can use for spells.
> 
> ...




You selectively chose part of the total and tried to make it "my point".

The point I was trying to make that all of the things I listed work towards making it balanced.

To sum up:

A caster gets a limited number of missiles to cast (1 + 1 every other level up to a max of 5).

A caster has a limited number of spells to use. A sorcerer knows few and must decide which to "learn". Hence the caster is using up his major resources to cast magic missile instead of other spells.

There are spells and tactics available at 1st level that can be used to negate magic missiles. {You may disagree with how valuable they are, but they do exist and are available. SO it is not like the spell can't be defeated at all.}


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The only benefit of mage armor is the duration and at low levels that is rendered largely useless, except in dungeon crawls.




You say "except in dungeon crawls" as if it's the same tone as "except during a blue moon" as opposed to "except when the sun shines".  It's DUNGEONS and dragons.  We all know that the majority of adventures take place in a dungeon, and while some adventures do not they are  more the exception than the rule.  In your average game, the duration of mage armor will last through all or almost all of the combat encounters in that days adventure.  Even an hour long spell will last through most or all of the combats, given the dungeon-bias of this game.  

Or are you really saying that in your own games hr/lev and rd/lev usually mean the same thing?  I think this is one of those times where Infinit2k is playing devils advocate and hoping nobody notices


----------



## Grog (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times.
> 
> In fact she used it so often that she found the need to calculate how many times she could use it, assuming she was converting higher level spell slots into magic missles.
> 
> She ROUTINELY used 4th level spell slots to cast magic missle.




Your sorceror was casting Magic Missile instead of Confusion (stand back and watch your enemies kill each other), Polymorph (arguably the *best* buff spell in the entire game), Eneveration (1d4 negative levels is _nasty_, especially vs. spellcasters), Evard's Black Tentacles (grapple multiple opponents at once), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (take one meele-type enemy out of the fight with a Reflex save spell), Greater Invisibility (keep yourself safe or give the rogue unlimited sneak attack potential), or Stoneskin (DR 10/adamantine is *huge* at 8th-9th level)?

If I was grouped with a sorceror who did that, either he or I would be looking for a new party at the end of the adventure. There are so many things you can do with a 4th level spell slot that are _vastly_ more effective than casting a Magic Missile (and I'm even just limiting myself to core spells here) that I really have to wonder about someone who would use them for that purpose over and over again.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 9, 2006)

Griffith Dragonlake said:
			
		

> Wow!  That is quite possibly the best description of magic missile I have ever seen (and I've been gaming since 1977).  It evokes traditional imagery of a sorcerer or a witch rather than a cowboy.  In fact it reminds me of the scene from Robin Hood & the Sorcerer (pilot episode of the 1984 British series) when the Baron de Belleme strikes with his sword from a distance.
> 
> Thanks Pbartender for the imagery.  I will use this in my next game!




Thanks, I'm glad you like it...  As a DM, I take pride in my alternate descriptions.

But...  I can't honestly take full credit for it.  I originally stole the idea from the movie Red Sonja.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> PHBII options and non-core books aside, you get that sorcerors learn their spells later than wizards, right?  That they cannot use metamagic very well due to the full round casting time? That they get very few spells known and MUST make choices that WILL hurt the character (with any level of intelligence, you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip, nor can you get the full array of useful spells from that few choices)?  That they get a LOT fewer feats than wizards? That their key casting ability is less useful in general than the wizards key casting ability?  That wizards get to specialize in schools to increase their spell slots to about where sorceror's are at? That Wizatds can still write almost any spell into their spell book and leave slots open to memorize a new spell in the middle of the day?  That wizards can use spellbooks found on opponants but sorcerors cannot?
> 
> To put it a different way, why do you think virtually every D&D game designer, and almost all players and DMs, disagree with you on this subject?



Well, if you put aside variant rules form PHBII, sorcerers are still over powered IMO cause of the spontaneous casting ability.  Who cares if it is a full round action, your ability to add Meta magics feats on the fly at the cost of your movement for the round is huge.  So is your ability to ditch higher level spell slots to get more lower level spells.  You still get more spells than a wizard and don't tell me you haven't, either in the past or currently, thought about adding in 2 levels of paladin to get awesome saving throws.  Why, cause sorcerer is a class made to be broken and used as a metagame machine.

I don't think you are looking at it objectively and I think that, IMOP, it stems from the fact that you probably play sorcerers over wizards all the time.

And, I don't hink I am along in my thoughts on this, in fact I know I am not, so please don't speak for the whole community.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make that all of the things I listed work towards making it balanced.
> 
> To sum up:
> 
> ...




And my point is that the spells and tactics you listed as useable against it aren't worth squat in a balance discussion, hence, they did not add to your point. They are white noise.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You say "except in dungeon crawls" as if it's the same tone as "except during a blue moon" as opposed to "except when the sun shines".



 Actually, I meant it as a sweeping generalization for "except when combats occur very close together and not spread out over the day."  



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Or are you really saying that in your own games hr/lev and rd/lev usually mean the same thing?  I think this is one of those times where Infinit2k is playing devils advocate and hoping nobody notices



 I had not realized I garnered that reputation.  

Oh, and _shield _ is min/lev, thank-you-very-much!


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> To put it a different way, why do you think virtually every D&D game designer, and almost all players and DMs, disagree with you on this subject?




Speak for yourself.

A Metamagic Sorcerer (in the core rules) is the most powerful and even versatile at higher levels class in the game. They are only weak at low levels.

Thanee kicks butt with his (her?) Sorcerer all of the time.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I don't think you are looking at it objectively and I think that, IMOP, it stems from the fact that you probably play sorcerers over wizards all the time.




Let's not make this personal, huh? I've played both a wizard and a sorceror, and find my limited spell list to be crippling. I never get to cast utility spells; why take Dispel Magic when the clerics can cast it? Adding a metamagic feat means adding a material focus--a big disc with concentric red circles on it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Your sorceror was casting Magic Missile instead of Confusion (stand back and watch your enemies kill each other), Polymorph (arguably the *best* buff spell in the entire game), Eneveration (1d4 negative levels is _nasty_, especially vs. spellcasters), Evard's Black Tentacles (grapple multiple opponents at once), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (take one meele-type enemy out of the fight with a Reflex save spell), Greater Invisibility (keep yourself safe or give the rogue unlimited sneak attack potential), or Stoneskin (DR 10/adamantine is *huge* at 8th-9th level)?
> 
> If I was grouped with a sorceror who did that, either he or I would be looking for a new party at the end of the adventure. There are so many things you can do with a 4th level spell slot that are _vastly_ more effective than casting a Magic Missile (and I'm even just limiting myself to core spells here) that I really have to wonder about someone who would use them for that purpose over and over again.




Monte Cook said the same thing was happening in his games.  So did Sean K Reynolds I believe.  It's really not that unusual, particularly at the end of the day where that 4th level slot is still there and you NEED to hit the target more than you need to do massive damage.  Given the extremely small number of 4th level spells known by a mid level caster, it's not even uncommon they would know NO offensive spells of that level.  

And she DID know and use greater invisibility, and fly, and many non-offense spells.  We are discussing offensive spells however, not the rest of it.  In fact, her knowledge of those other spells is WHY magic missle is so useful - it's an all-purpose offense spell that can take the place of knowing other offensive spells so you can learn the non-offense spells.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, if you put aside variant rules form PHBII, sorcerers are still over powered IMO cause of the spontaneous casting ability.  Who cares if it is a full round action, your ability to add Meta magics feats on the fly at the cost of your movement for the round is huge.  So is your ability to ditch higher level spell slots to get more lower level spells.  You still get more spells than a wizard and don't tell me you haven't, either in the past or currently, thought about adding in 2 levels of paladin to get awesome saving throws.  Why, cause sorcerer is a class made to be broken and used as a metagame machine.




Not only have I never considered adding a non-casting class to a casting class, but I think you just went from an extremely small minority to an island of one on this opinion.  Unless you are doing it for RP purposes (which is a legit reason), NOBODY should be considering multiclassing in that way as it is about the least optimal thing you can do.  



> I don't think you are looking at it objectively and I think that, IMOP, it stems from the fact that you probably play sorcerers over wizards all the time.




I am looking at it objectively, and I do not play sorcerors, ever, because they are so underpowered. 



> And, I don't hink I am along in my thoughts on this, in fact I know I am not, so please don't speak for the whole community.




I was not speaking for the whole community, just the vast majority.  And it's based on polls we have done on this board since 3.0 came out.  Would you like me to dig some of them up?  Would it help if I held a new poll and asked people whether they thought the sorceror was more or less powerful than the wizard?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself.
> 
> A Metamagic Sorcerer (in the core rules) is the most powerful and even versatile at higher levels class in the game. They are only weak at low levels.
> 
> Thanee kicks butt with his (her?) Sorcerer all of the time.




Thanee is THE ruler of the sorceror.  The undisputed master of that class.  If it can be twinked, fiddled, gamed, or munched into being a powerful class, Thanee can do it.  But you know, I know, and everyone knows that it took Thanee a huge amount of work and experience to get to the point where the sorceror is power in his/her hands.  I think we are talking about your average player, in your average game.  And, like the bard, the sorceror is a fine class that just ins't quite up to the power of the wizard class.  They can be fun, there are times where their strengths outweigh their weaknesses, but on-balance they are not as powerful as the wizard class, and not "broken" in general as far as classes go (which is what I was disputing, the accusation that the class is not just overpowered, but it was literally called Broken in this thread).

Do you honestly think the sorceror class is broken?  If not, why not speak up and tell that person your opinion on the brokeness of that class.


----------



## Nail (Jun 9, 2006)

FWIW (and siding with Mistwell), the groups I've played in (levels 1st thru 23rd) have *never* found Sorcerers to be over-powered.  Sorcerer is a fine class, and for some player-types it's better than others.  

But over-powered?  Not a chance.  Heck, I'd call 'em "weak" and give 'em d6 HD to compensate.

Now: Magic Missile is a fine spell.  I've seen it used (or used it myself) often enough.  But it's not broken: both its average damage and its damage cap keep that from happening.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If 99% of your NPCs DON'T lack a brooch of shielding and an already-up shield spell, you're probably metagaming as a DM.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but not the norm either.




IIRC, a Brooch of Shielding costs 1500gp to buy, 750gp to make, and can be made by a 3rd level character. It's not metagaming for NPCs to have one, it's common sense. Anyone above 5th level who expects to someday encounter a hostile arcane caster (ie: lots of NPCs with class levels) should have one. In other words, it might not be everywhere, but it stands to reason that it should.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And my point is that the spells and tactics you listed as useable against it aren't worth squat in a balance discussion, hence, they did not add to your point. They are white noise.



Actually, they do have merit in the confines of the debate, otherwise you can't bring in things like, "but fireballs has a saving throw and everyone has evasion," or "ranged touch attacks require you to roll."  If you think it doesn't have merit, then fireball is superior to magic missile cause you will always out damage a magic missile and no one will have SR or evasion so it will alwyas do damage and more often than not, full damage versus half.


----------



## Victim (Jun 9, 2006)

It's not like MM exists in a vacuum.  Ray of Enfeeblement is still good at high levels - it's not as reliable since it needs an RTA, but it's also far more crippling in most cases.  Grease has an effect that triggers on a Balance check - full plate fighters will end up on their rear.  At low levels, the area incapacitation spells are usually better than MM.

I haven't had the problem with hitting allies with area spells that many people seem to have.  There's usually some way to place the spell such that it avoids hitting allies, especially when you take the z axis into account.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Let's not make this personal, huh? I've played both a wizard and a sorceror, and find my limited spell list to be crippling. I never get to cast utility spells; why take Dispel Magic when the clerics can cast it? Adding a metamagic feat means adding a material focus--a big disc with concentric red circles on it.



Lmao     

Well, I find the limitations on wizard spells crippling at times too, or where you refering to a sorcerer?

I'm not saying picking 5 spells a spell level is an easy task, but you can definatily pick very useful spells and be a power house.  If you play with blood line feats, you are even better cause you basically get free spells to add to your known list.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not only have I never considered adding a non-casting class to a casting class, but I think you just went from an extremely small minority to an island of one on this opinion.  Unless you are doing it for RP purposes (which is a legit reason), NOBODY should be considering multiclassing in that way as it is about the least optimal thing you can do.



Yes, lots of people take 2 paladin levels for the high save and even a greater number of them have in 3.0 when you only needed one level, thus why they moved it to a 2nd level ability.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am looking at it objectively, and I do not play sorcerors, ever, because they are so underpowered.



Hmm, there is no reasoning with you then.  You probably think the warlock is under powered too?

I wonder, what is your take on the War Mage or the Dread Necromancer?




			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I was not speaking for the whole community, just the vast majority.  And it's based on polls we have done on this board since 3.0 came out.  Would you like me to dig some of them up?  Would it help if I held a new poll and asked people whether they thought the sorceror was more or less powerful than the wizard?




Sure, whatever turns your crank.  No, seriously, go ahead.
Really though, you and I will not agree on this subject so in the end it won't really matter.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And my point is that the spells and tactics you listed as useable against it aren't worth squat in a balance discussion, hence, they did not add to your point. They are white noise.





Can you please be a little more civil in you comments?


This is not the first time I have perceived your tone as being just down right rude.


----------



## Grog (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Monte Cook said the same thing was happening in his games.  So did Sean K Reynolds I believe.  It's really not that unusual,




It's very unusual IME. I've been playing 3.x since it came out and I've never once seen a sorceror burn a 4th level slot to cast Magic Missile.



> particularly at the end of the day where that 4th level slot is still there and you NEED to hit the target more than you need to do massive damage.  Given the extremely small number of 4th level spells known by a mid level caster, it's not even uncommon they would know NO offensive spells of that level.
> 
> And she DID know and use greater invisibility, and fly, and many non-offense spells.  We are discussing offensive spells however, not the rest of it.  In fact, her knowledge of those other spells is WHY magic missle is so useful - it's an all-purpose offense spell that can take the place of knowing other offensive spells so you can learn the non-offense spells.




Then perhaps the problem is with her spell selection? An 8th level sorceror knows 2 3rd and 1 4th level spell. Greater Invisibility is a good 4th level spell, but probably not the most effective one a sorceror could pick for their first choice.

Although, if you want to just compare damage, Greater Invis on the party rogue is going to deal significantly more damage in most cases than a Magic Missile will. Average damage on a Magic Missile from an 8th level caster is 14 points. Average damage from an 8th level rogue's sneak attack is 14 points. So the rogue only has to hit once to do the same amount of damage. Plus, the Greater Invis greatly improves his survivability. It's going to be a much better choice in most cases.

And I'm puzzled by the choice of Fly as one of the two 3rd level spells, especially with it's greatly reduced duration for 3.5 - there are several more effective spells a sorceror could choose for that level as well. It sounds like this sorceror has a suboptimal spell list for combat - which is fine if the campaign's focus is on other things, but it doesn't mean Magic Missile is overpowered. It just means she simply doesn't have many other options for combat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> IIRC, a Brooch of Shielding costs 1500gp to buy, 750gp to make, and can be made by a 3rd level character. It's not metagaming for NPCs to have one, it's common sense. Anyone above 5th level who expects to someday encounter a hostile arcane caster (ie: lots of NPCs with class levels) should have one. In other words, it might not be everywhere, but it stands to reason that it should.




Should it?

There are lot of Amulet slot items that are more impressive and more useful than a Brooch of Shielding. Even an Amulet of Health +1, although more expensive, protects against about half of the damage of a single Magic Missile spell, but it also does this against a lot of other damage spells and helps against Fort save spells as well. At mid to higher levels, a Brooch of Shielding is a bit of a waste in many circumstances.

The problem with a Brooch of Shielding is that: 1) most characters should not wear or even own one for a variety of reasons, and 2) all the brooch does is stop a few specific magical attacks and change the tactics of the combat. It does not really affect combat that much since it does not protect against most opponents, or even most spells of even arcane casters.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> FWIW (and siding with Mistwell), the groups I've played in (levels 1st thru 23rd) have *never* found Sorcerers to be over-powered.  Sorcerer is a fine class, and for some player-types it's better than others.
> 
> But over-powered?  Not a chance.  Heck, I'd call 'em "weak" and give 'em d6 HD to compensate.
> 
> Now: Magic Missile is a fine spell.  I've seen it used (or used it myself) often enough.  But it's not broken: both its average damage and its damage cap keep that from happening.




Okay, here's a shock, I agree with ya?  Well, kind of.  I think a sorcerer is balanced at 1st and 2nd level and 3rd level.  Even not too bad at 4th -5th level.  My problem with them stems at the higher levels when they can vert spells like no tomorrow.  I won't even mind giving them an extra spell known per level if they were confined to converting spells from within there own level, no dumping a higher level spell for a lower one, that is half of were they are "broken" in my own words.

The other half of the equation is the instant meta-magic feats.  A wizard needs to take PrC classes to get that and only a few times a day.  If there was a limit on that, they would be balanced at higher levels.

But hey, it's America, at least here, so you can disagree with me all ya want


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Thanee is THE ruler of the sorceror.  The undisputed master of that class.  If it can be twinked, fiddled, gamed, or munched into being a powerful class, Thanee can do it.  But you know, I know, and everyone knows that it took Thanee a huge amount of work and experience to get to the point where the sorceror is power in his/her hands.  I think we are talking about your average player, in your average game.  And, like the bard, the sorceror is a fine class that just ins't quite up to the power of the wizard class.  They can be fun, there are times where their strengths outweigh their weaknesses, but on-balance they are not as powerful as the wizard class, and not "broken" in general as far as classes go (which is what I was disputing, the accusation that the class is not just overpowered, but it was literally called Broken in this thread).




It is not about the average player. It is about the strength of the class. A metamagic sorcerer is one of the strongest classes if played correctly at mid to high levels.

Watering that down by saying that average people cannot take advantage of that does not say anything about the strength of the class.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think the sorceror class is broken?  If not, why not speak up and tell that person your opinion on the brokeness of that class.




I've already stated my opinion on this in this thread. They are not broken. But, they are potent if they take good metamagic feats.

The position you took was Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam which are not legal in a debate. Popular opinion, nor designer opinion, has any real bearing on the truth of the potential of the class. Now, if you are only using that to illustrate that they are not broken (and not to illustrate that they are weak), although not valid in a debate, I do not disagree with your statement.

You have listed a series of reasons why Wizards are more powerful. These are strengths of a Wizard. But, many of those strengths are out of combat strengths. Many of them do not help that much when the chips are down. Metamagic sorcerers outshine Wizards in combat because that is where their strength lies.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is not about the average player. It is about the strength of the class. A metamagic sorcerer is one of the strongest classes if played correctly at mid to high levels.
> 
> Watering that down by saying that average people cannot take advantage of that does not say anything about the strength of the class.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have said it better if I said it myself, and I tried     

I think we just disagree on whether or not they are "broken" or "potent"


----------



## harmyn (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's actually split almost 50-50 for offense spells.  And the designers did that intentionally.  You have an bunch of ray spells and energy spells like ray of enfeeblement, exhaustion, frost, scorching ray, enervation, etc., and those are ranged touch attacks.  And then you have the saving throw spells, such as fireball and charm person.  I think you will find it's split fairly well.
> 
> Which is why I've been focusing on the levels where magic missle is powerful, which is 5th to 9th levels.
> 
> ...




I use random roll for the characters in my game. But for purproses of this discussion here I posted up the needed To-Hit rolls for a fighter and Wizard of equal level against randomly chosen monsters of CR's 6-9; beasts they would normally be facing at their given level. The Wizard only had a Dex of 12, very easily achieved on a 25pt buy in - 16 for Int at 10pts, a 14 Con for 6 pts, a Dex of 14 for 4pts, and you can spend the last 5pts to get a 10, 11, and 8. respectable stats for that level of point buy. You will notice that for the most part on ranged touch attacks the Wizard need only rarely needs to roll any higher than the fighter on a d20 roll and I have already included the penalty for shooting into melee into the math. Frequently the wizard needs to roll slightly less than the fighter does, and most of those rolls involved a target number around 9 which will give you typically a 60% success rate.

So your rate of missing is about a third, and that is the same amount the fighter has to deal with. Figure that in with the fact that the fighter gets more attacks but only half the wizard's spell even need a to-hit roll and to me it all works out, especially given that most of those that don't need a to-hit roll can affect several targets at once (fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, color spray, sleep, etc.).

Again, I don't see the to hit roll that daunting, especially as you advance into the mid levels and low teens.

And you are correct, most of my foes don't have brooches of shielding or Shield spells up, unless they know what they are going up against. Know if they know a Sorcerer is coming after them, then to me its a no-brainer to secure the spell or magic item because it does negate one of the sorcerer's more popular attack options.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 9, 2006)

harmyn said:
			
		

> Again, I don't see the to hit roll that daunting, especially as you advance into the mid levels and low teens.



Are you including both cover and melee in your modifiers?  I find to-hit rolls annoying, especially when I miss.

I'm not saying enemies will always have cover and melee modifiers, but they'll frequently be in melee, and I find it advantageous as a wizard to be in an area where me and the enemies have cover from each other.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Should it?
> 
> There are lot of Amulet slot items that are more impressive and more useful than a Brooch of Shielding. Even an Amulet of Health +1, although more expensive, protects against about half of the damage of a single Magic Missile spell, but it also does this against a lot of other damage spells and helps against Fort save spells as well. At mid to higher levels, a Brooch of Shielding is a bit of a waste in many circumstances.
> 
> The problem with a Brooch of Shielding is that: 1) most characters should not wear or even own one for a variety of reasons, and 2) all the brooch does is stop a few specific magical attacks and change the tactics of the combat. It does not really affect combat that much since it does not protect against most opponents, or even most spells of even arcane casters.




Yes, there are better Amulet slot items. None are as cost effective or available (cost vs minimum level needed to make). The brooch is limited in scope, yes, but it's 100% effective at stopping a spell that 99.9% of the arcane casters use. Not to even mention the wands of MM that seem to crop up, meaning the wizard/sorcerer has a fallback attack every round. The Amulet of Health costs more than twice as much (almost three times as much to make), and while more useful, still isn't 100% proof against an extremely common attack. No damage means no concentration check to lose a spell, remember.

At mid- to higher levels, yes, but less than 25% of the population should fall into that category, according to the DMG NPC suggestions (one "highest level" NPC, plus 2 of half his level, plus 2X of 1/2 his level, etc etc). That means that there are a LOT of NPCs that can both afford a brooch and would stand to gain from it (low level guys would be insta-kills vs a mid-high level MM).


----------



## harmyn (Jun 9, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Are you including both cover and melee in your modifiers?  I find to-hit rolls annoying, especially when I miss.
> 
> I'm not saying enemies will always have cover and melee modifiers, but they'll frequently be in melee, and I find it advantageous as a wizard to be in an area where me and the enemies have cover from each other.




I did include the penalty for firing into melee into my calculations. That's why the sample wizard in my example has a To-Hit bonus of +0 at sixth level instead of +4. And I agree they are annoying and risky because you can miss, but you deal more damage.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 9, 2006)

harmyn said:
			
		

> I did include the penalty for firing into melee into my calculations. That's why the sample wizard in my example has a To-Hit bonus of +0 at sixth level instead of +4. And I agree they are annoying and risky because you can miss, but you deal more damage.



Right, but in many circumstances there's more than just the melee penalty.  For example, in a typical encounter where the fighter charges right at the enemy, the mage is going to have both cover and melee penalties applied, for a total of -8 to hit.  (Or -4 to hit from melee, and +4 to the opponent's AC from cover, technically.)

One or the other is enough to give the poor wizard only a 50% hit rate in many fights.  That already puts magic missile at a similar average damage rate to the d6/level spells.  Both combined make magic missile the better damage spell in many fights.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The position you took was Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam which are not legal in a debate. Popular opinion, nor designer opinion, has any real bearing on the truth of the potential of the class. Now, if you are only using that to illustrate that they are not broken (and not to illustrate that they are weak), although not valid in a debate, I do not disagree with your statement.




At the point where you choose to lecture me on what is "legal" in a debate, we have nothing else to discuss.  You've crossed the line.


----------



## brehobit (Jun 9, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> At the point where you choose to lecture me on what is "legal" in a debate, we have nothing else to discuss.  You've crossed the line.




Mistwell,
While I often find KD to be a bit difficult, in this case he is just stating what is legal in a formal debate (5 minutes each, 3 minutes for question etc.)  I don't think his statement is objectionable when considered in that context.

Mark


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Mistwell,
> While I often find KD to be a bit difficult, in this case he is just stating what is legal in a formal debate (5 minutes each, 3 minutes for question etc.)  I don't think his statement is objectionable when considered in that context.
> 
> Mark




Then he is wrong, in addition to being abusive, if that is what he means.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 9, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Okay, I forgot about the crit factor, another strike.  So, warlocks get unlimited blasts topping out at 9d6, no save, its critable and you can add other effects to your blasts through invocation, which correct me if I'm wrong, are also unlimited.
> 
> Hmm, not broken at all.




[semi-rant]

You're kidding, right?  9d6 may sound like alot, but its only an average of 31.5 dmg (if my weak math-fu is correct).  The Warlock has to be 18th lvl to pop off 9d6 EBs, right?

Do you have any concept of the damage potential a BFS (big fricking sword) in the hands of a murderous psychopath (aka, 1/2 Orc Barbarian 18) is capable of?  Seriously, do the math.  

(Just off the top of my head...) BAB 18, Str (before Rage) 24 (+6 Str item, conservative starting Str with all Attribute increases going to Str... for a +7 mod), average Powerattack for 6, +2 Keen Falchion...  = +21 / +16 / + 11 / +6 (2d4+24.....15-20 x2)

Thats what, an average of 27 dmg before bothering to Rage?  With a rather low starting str for a Barbarian.  Oh, and roughly a 25% chance of dishing out double damage for 4d4+48?.... up to 4 times a round?  

Yeeaaah... the Warlock's EB has nothing on that.

[/semi-rant]

Any decent tank will outdamage a Warlock on a consistant basis, from level 1 to level 20+.  Any nuker-mage (be it Wu Jen, Wiz, War Mage, Sorc, etc) will too.

People see "at will" and don't seem to think about how little that really means.  How often is the party facing more than 2-3 combats a day anyways?  Is the fact that the Warlock can fire EB all day really relevant?

What Warlocks do really well is "cool factor".


----------



## harmyn (Jun 9, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Right, but in many circumstances there's more than just the melee penalty.  For example, in a typical encounter where the fighter charges right at the enemy, the mage is going to have both cover and melee penalties applied, for a total of -8 to hit.  (Or -4 to hit from melee, and +4 to the opponent's AC from cover, technically.)
> 
> One or the other is enough to give the poor wizard only a 50% hit rate in many fights.  That already puts magic missile at a similar average damage rate to the d6/level spells.  Both combined make magic missile the better damage spell in many fights.




I myself wouldn't apply an additional -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the opponent. Melee combat is generally very fluid and the initial -4 penalty on shooting into combat represents the "cover" provided by your ally. Otherwise you could take the shot normally but instead have a chance of damaging your ally. This damage to your ally would represent the missile weapon hitting the "cover", in this case your friend's back most likely. 

Think of it like this, your opponent gains a +4 bonus from cover because of your ally's charge into melee. In this hypothetical example we are going to say your desired target has a Touch AC of 12 and you have a Total Ranged Touch Attack Bonus of +4. With your ally's charge your enemy's AC is raised to 16 (12+4). You realize that if you attempt to avoid hitting your ally the target's AC will raise to an effective 20 (16+4) for you once you figure in the penalty for avoiding friendly fire. So you decide that you aren't that fond of the foolish fighter who charges. and forgo the penalty to avoid hitting your friend. The AC is back to 16 and with your Attack of +4 your target number on the d20 is a 12 which gives you a 45% chance of success now. Unfortunately you only rolled a 10 meaning that you hit Touch Armor Class 14. This places the attack squarely on the cover provided by your ally. BUT you cannot hit your ally because you missed the attack while shooting into melee. So from this, I deduce that the -4 penalty into melee is the cover bonus your friend provides by your desire to not hurt him. 

And given the examples I provided the poor wizard at levels 6-9 had typically had a range of 40% to 60% to hit the enemy. The fighter typically had a 35%-55% chance. This is considered a normal and reasonable attack for the fighter, but not the wizard? I have to disagree with you.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 9, 2006)

harmyn said:
			
		

> I myself wouldn't apply an additional -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the opponent. Melee combat is generally very fluid and the initial -4 penalty on shooting into combat represents the "cover" provided by your ally. Otherwise you could take the shot normally but instead have a chance of damaging your ally. This damage to your ally would represent the missile weapon hitting the "cover", in this case your friend's back most likely.
> 
> Think of it like this, your opponent gains a +4 bonus from cover because of your ally's charge into melee. In this hypothetical example we are going to say your desired target has a Touch AC of 12 and you have a Total Ranged Touch Attack Bonus of +4. With your ally's charge your enemy's AC is raised to 16 (12+4). You realize that if you attempt to avoid hitting your ally the target's AC will raise to an effective 20 (16+4) for you once you figure in the penalty for avoiding friendly fire. So you decide that you aren't that fond of the foolish fighter who charges. and forgo the penalty to avoid hitting your friend. The AC is back to 16 and with your Attack of +4 your target number on the d20 is a 12 which gives you a 45% chance of success now. Unfortunately you only rolled a 10 meaning that you hit Touch Armor Class 14. This places the attack squarely on the cover provided by your ally. BUT you cannot hit your ally because you missed the attack while shooting into melee. So from this, I deduce that the -4 penalty into melee is the cover bonus your friend provides by your desire to not hurt him.
> 
> And given the examples I provided the poor wizard at levels 6-9 had typically had a range of 40% to 60% to hit the enemy. The fighter typically had a 35%-55% chance. This is considered a normal and reasonable attack for the fighter, but not the wizard? I have to disagree with you.



I do a lot of my playing these days in fairly "rules-strict" groups, where both the penalties apply.  Plus, if we're going to have a common ground here, I think we should go by the RAW.

I don't think a 35%-55% chance to hit is unreasonable for a wizard, but I think that given the option, many wizards will take the 100% chance of doing around 50% of the damage of the other spell.

I'm not saying that I think magic missile is completely, or even generally superior to other damage spells.  Many (maybe 1/3-1/2) fights will give the wizard a clear shot at enemies, and there the ranged touch spells shine.  Or you can take precise shot, like many spellcasters do, which makes it much more likely that spells like the orbs will outdamage magic missile.  Also, of course many of the other d6/level damage spells are area effects, like fireball, and are better than magic missile for that reason.

I'm just saying that in my experience, magic missile is as good as, or better than my other damage spells in somehting like 1/4 to 1/3 of the fights I'm in.  That seems a little powerful for a first level spell.  Does the iconic value of magic missile make it worth the boost?  IMHO, sure.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 10, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Then he is wrong, in addition to being abusive, if that is what he means.




I meant that people who use certain types of non-factual persuasive to the masses arguments bring nothing to the table.

Facts matter. How many people or whether the designers have a given opinion means virtually nothing other than as a footnote.

Your last two posts here are Ad Hominem. If you cannot convince by popular opinion, you attack the poster: calling somebody a name, or putting a label on them.

That too is not legal in a debate, nor actually allowed here on the boards.

But, it is interesting how many people don't use facts to back up their claims, instead they use rhetoric and then get "offended" when somebody calls them on it. You put some facts about Wizards into your Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam post, in order to make it look legitimate. This is called Fallacy of Composition where some true facts are inserted to make the non-supportable claims appear true.

I actually agree with you that Sorcerers are not broken. I do, however, think they are not weak and one of the most potent core classes at mid to high level, considerably stronger than Wizards. This is an opinion. I do not claim it as fact. I just personally know it to be true for well played characters.


----------



## harmyn (Jun 10, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I do a lot of my playing these days in fairly "rules-strict" groups, where both the penalties apply.  Plus, if we're going to have a common ground here, I think we should go by the RAW.




I have just researched the rule we are disputing, but I have issues with the way the rule is currently writtten and have to say I disagree with it. I have written in for a clarification of what is stated in the text and errata and asked for an explanation for the modifiers are what they are claiming they should be.

So while I have enjoyed debating you on this and find it both refreshing and civil, because of a conflict in how the rules regarding this should be viewed, we will have  a difficult time finding common ground because of the -4 discrepancy in the attack. Although from the standpoint of a flying warlock cover is of only limited issue.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 10, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> At the point where you choose to lecture me on what is "legal" in a debate, we have nothing else to discuss.  You've crossed the line.



Seriously, you are taking this whole thing way to seriously.  Please melow out.

Most of us are just trying to have a civil debate, but you are out for blood.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Then he is wrong, in addition to being abusive, if that is what he means.



Rreally now, chill out before your blood pressure sky rockets.

Why are you so certain that everyone but you is wrong?



			
				Drowbane said:
			
		

> [semi-rant]
> 
> You're kidding, right?  9d6 may sound like alot, but its only an average of 31.5 dmg (if my weak math-fu is correct).  The Warlock has to be 18th lvl to pop off 9d6 EBs, right?
> 
> ...



It is not the blast by itself, it is the invocations that you add to the blast, like for example, the Vitriolic Blast Invocation.  Now you 9d6 blast ignores spell resistance and deals acid damage and 2d6 acid damage on the following rounds.  It does this for 1 round for every 5 levels you are.  

So what you might think, hmm, well let's see, 
round one
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
total so far, 18d6 acid damage (which is the next best thing to force by the way)

round 2
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage (why woudn't you take quicken spell like ability twice)
4d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 40d6 so far

round 3
Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage
Tenacious Plague (summons magic pierce insects)
8d6 follow up acid from last round for up to 57d6 so far

Now, of course a single disintergrate could possible do up to 40d6, but you have to hit and if they make their saving throw they take a lot less damage.

Plus, while a wizard or a sorcerer might be able to do more damage in the short term, a warlock could do this all day and not even think twice about it.  Even just the Vitriolic Blast would quickly outshine other spell caster cause you have no limit.

I don't care who you are, you should always a limit on your power.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I meant that people who use certain types of non-factual persuasive to the masses arguments bring nothing to the table.
> 
> Facts matter. How many people or whether the designers have a given opinion means virtually nothing other than as a footnote.
> 
> ...



Forget it, he is a lost cause.

Too bad really, it sucks when you can't talk about issues.

Anyway, I think sorcerers are very potent and agree that they are better in most situations than a wizard.  

I disagree that they are not broken however, and that is just my opinion.  I think there are enough powerful spells at mid to high levels that just break a sorcerer.  With the addition of the Meta-magic master from PHBII I think that they are even more broken, if not so before.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 10, 2006)

Quick question, Rocco:  Have you played a Warlock?  Have you seen any in play?



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> It is not the blast by itself, it is the invocations that you add to the blast, like for example, the Vitriolic Blast Invocation.  Now you 9d6 blast ignores spell resistance and deals acid damage and 2d6 acid damage on the following rounds.  It does this for 1 round for every 5 levels you are.
> 
> So what you might think, hmm, well let's see,
> round one
> ...




A few issues: Warlocks can't use Meta-spell-like-ability feats at will.  "Quickened Vitriolic Blast 9d6 acid damage (why woudn't you take quicken spell like ability twice)"  Can you take Quicken Eldritch Blast more than once?  Don't forget Empower and Maximize while you're at it.  Also, how is it that in rnd 3 the Warlock is doing a V-EB and a Swarm? 

Anyways, all good points. 

I'll go ya one further by mentioning that the same Warlock could also have Flight and Greater Invis up while doing all these whacky Invocation laden EBs.  

This doesn't change the fact that most "D&D Days" last 2-3 Encounters... thus putting the Warlock firmly back in the realm of "huh, cool concept character.

To reiterate, the only thing the Warlock truely has going for it (that another class can't do better) is Stamina... and when was the last time you saw an (Cleric, Druid, Sorc, or Wizard) of such high levels run out of spellcasting options?  Especially Sorcs... (Edit: I just noticed that you also think Sorcs are borken too.)


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

Looks like it's time for me to make a new character, Domain Wizard (Evocation) (UA Wizard variant) with levels of Force Mage (Dragon mag PrC)...  Arcane Thesis: Magic Missile.  Bunch of metamagic feats...  Mmmm, mmmm, good.


----------



## Votan (Jun 10, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Quick question, Rocco:  Have you played a Warlock?  Have you seen any in play?




I have sene a warlock in play.  I *loathe* the class as being overpowered.  I have frequently watched the warlock dominate the game to the deteriment of other players.  I will admit that the conditions under which I played were not typical.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 10, 2006)

Re Warlocks - I did a breakdown for a friend who likewise seemed to think they were too powerful.


See attachment


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Re Warlocks - I did a breakdown for a friend who likewise seemed to think they were too powerful.
> 
> 
> See attachment




In all the games I've played in (mind you, I play with the same core group of players, just multiple different campaigns), the Warlocks are very powerful.  We often play games where you have several encounters in a day, so when the Wizard is out of spells and hiding behind a tree hoping to not get noticed, the Warlock is flying around invisibly, blasting enemies all day long, and dimension dooring out of trouble.  I like the Warlock because I like classes that always have SOMETHING to do during combat, and classes that have no resource reserve they have to keep an eye on (other than HP of course).

Edit: Just say your attachment, and needed to make a comment on this little tidbit you have in there:



> He also gains some special abilities as he goes up levels – but can still only do 1 thing a round since they all are standard actions to use and can not be quickened since they are spell-like abilities.




This is incorrect.  He can take the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat and quicken a specific invocation 3/day.  There are also other meta-spell-like ability feats he can take to, like Maximize SLA (Eldritch Blast?).  ALSO...  He can take and apply Sudden Metamagic feats to his invocations as well (though Sudden Quicken does have too many prereqs, some he either (a) doesn't qualify for or (b) will be of no use to him).

Also want to note the Warlock can pick up the Extra Invocation feat which also adds to his repitoire of things he can do.

My Warlock had the following build (which we stopped playing before I could get the entire build together).  I forget all the names of the Invocations, so I am gonna name what they basically did...

See the Unseen
Devil's Sight
Darkness (we played 3.0 darkness since 3.5 darkness makes no sense)

Invis (swap this out for something later once I got the Greater Invis version)
Flight
DimensionDoor

Chilling Tentacles
Chain Eldritch Blast
Repelling Blast

Feats were: PBS, Precise Shot, Maximize SLA, Sudden Still (so in the event I was grappled, I could Sudden Still Dimension Door to safety), Quicken SLA.

There were more, but these were the core abilities I was going for.  Pretty much a battlefield controller.  Chilling Touch to keep opponents grappled, Chained Repelling Eldritch Blast to push multiple opponents away from me and the party.  Flight, Invis, Dimension Door to stay out of harms way.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 10, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> In all the games I've played in (mind you, I play with the same core group of players, just multiple different campaigns), the Warlocks are very powerful.  We often play games where you have several encounters in a day, so when the Wizard is out of spells and hiding behind a tree hoping to not get noticed, the Warlock is flying around invisibly, blasting enemies all day long, and dimension dooring out of trouble.  I like the Warlock because I like classes that always have SOMETHING to do during combat, and classes that have no resource reserve they have to keep an eye on (other than HP of course).




So you would make a better comparison of warlock to fighter to see how balanced they are correct?

I mean neither has an expended resource problem and both can always do something in combat.

Do the two of those stack well against each other? If so then the class is indeed balanced.

An important thing to remember is that a warlock never benefits from a high BAB in regards to gaining more than 1 attack a round. He needs feats (of which he has no bonus feats to choose from so they must come from level based ones) in order to gain any such benefit.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 10, 2006)

Someone had mentioned the fact that a player in one of their games routinely chose to forgo 4th level spells in favor of memorizing magic missiles instead.

I'm not certain this is a good basis for stating that MM is too powerful but rather a data point in the on-going discussion of how few good 4th level spells there are. IIRC this has been a fairly frequent topic for discussion with almost all having the opinion that 4th level spells are just not up to par (either in power or in usefulness) as are the spels of other levels.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> So you would make a better comparison of warlock to fighter to see how balanced they are correct?
> 
> I mean neither has an expended resource problem and both can always do something in combat.
> 
> ...




Not sure.  The Fighter does have a reserve sort of...  His weapon can be disarmed or sundered.  So eventually he can run out of weapons.  The Warlock still has his Eldritch Blast, and AFAIK, this can't be sundered or disarmed.  The Warlock only has to make touch attacks (even just 1/round, unless Quicken SLA).  The Warlock never has to worry about being disarmed or sundered.  The Warlock can stay out of harms way (unless we are now comparing a Fighter/Archer, in which case the Fighter DOES have a reserve...  arrows), and has useful invo's that help him with this (Flight, Invis, Dimension Door).  He has a minor ability to heal himself, a Fighter doesn't.  The main weakness of a Warlock AFAICS is getting grappled.  He can't cast his Invo's, which is why I feel Sudden Still (Dimension Door) is almost a necessity.  Otherwise, somehow pump up Escape Artist or have to rely on friends to help him out.  Of course, if a fighter is grappled he is in the same boat, but since he can fight (duh), he will have an easier time getting out of the grapple by himself.

Edit: So I guess I would compare them more to a Monk in this regards, since monk's don't have any type of reserve either (except HPs as well).  They CAN use weapons, but they don't need to.  And their unarmed strikes can't be sundered or disarmed either.  They too have the ability to heal themselves.  They have same BAB and HP...


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> An important thing to remember is that a warlock never benefits from a high BAB in regards to gaining more than 1 attack a round. He needs feats (of which he has no bonus feats to choose from so they must come from level based ones) in order to gain any such benefit.




Right, which pretty much makes Quicken SLA a must have feat if you hope to do more than 1 thing per round.  I think the earliest you can get this feat was level 6, so it's not too far off.  Same as when a Fighter gets his 2nd attack due to his BAB.


----------



## Votan (Jun 10, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Someone had mentioned the fact that a player in one of their games routinely chose to forgo 4th level spells in favor of memorizing magic missiles instead.
> 
> I'm not certain this is a good basis for stating that MM is too powerful but rather a data point in the on-going discussion of how few good 4th level spells there are. IIRC this has been a fairly frequent topic for discussion with almost all having the opinion that 4th level spells are just not up to par (either in power or in usefulness) as are the spels of other levels.




I find 4th level spells to be the ones that I eagerly seek out as the key to my arcane builds.    

*Important Level 4 PHB Arcane Spells*

Polymorph [so many options]
Dimension Door [key mobility spell]
Evard's Black Tentacles [best battlefield control spell I know of]
Greater Invisibility [cast while staying invisible]
Enervation [very good spell for weakening foes]

*Worth Considering Level 4 PHB Arcane Spells*

Phantasmal killer [lowest level save or die spell]
Ice Storm [reliable damage]
Stoneskin [expensive component, nice effect]

*Important Level 4 Spell Compendium Arcane Spells*

Orb of Force
Orb of Sound
Orb of Fire (daze is nice)
Assay Spell Resistence
Voice of the Dragon
Force Missles (is this not better than Magic Missle???)

I could go on but this is a nice level; even if it doesn't shone in direct attack spells it has a lot of extremely useful arcane spells.  I find filling out level 3 spells easier than level 4!


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 10, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Not sure.  The Fighter does have a reserve sort of...  His weapon can be disarmed or sundered.  So eventually he can run out of weapons.  The Warlock still has his Eldritch Blast, and AFAIK, this can't be sundered or disarmed.  The Warlock only has to make touch attacks (even just 1/round, unless Quicken SLA).  The Warlock never has to worry about being disarmed or sundered.  The Warlock can stay out of harms way (unless we are now comparing a Fighter/Archer, in which case the Fighter DOES have a reserve...  arrows), and has useful invo's that help him with this (Flight, Invis, Dimension Door).  He has a minor ability to heal himself, a Fighter doesn't.  The main weakness of a Warlock AFAICS is getting grappled.  He can't cast his Invo's, which is why I feel Sudden Still (Dimension Door) is almost a necessity.  Otherwise, somehow pump up Escape Artist or have to rely on friends to help him out.  Of course, if a fighter is grappled he is in the same boat, but since he can fight (duh), he will have an easier time getting out of the grapple by himself.
> 
> Edit: So I guess I would compare them more to a Monk in this regards, since monk's don't have any type of reserve either (except HPs as well).  They CAN use weapons, but they don't need to.  And their unarmed strikes can't be sundered or disarmed either.  They too have the ability to heal themselves.  They have same BAB and HP...




Warlocks also suffer the effects of AMF (and similar effects) since they are using spell-like abilities - which will pretty much totally negate them. (insert evil DM laughter  )


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 10, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Quick question, Rocco:  Have you played a Warlock?  Have you seen any in play?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your not taking quicken eldritch blast, you are taking quick spell-like ability, which applies to ALL of you spell-like abilities one, if you take it twice, it applies twice, to all of them, of which, invocations and EB are both spell-like abilities.  So for one feat, you are basically getting sudden meta-magic twice.

Anyway, no, I admit I haven't played a Warlock, but I don't have to play every class to make comments on them, and niether do you.

IMO, any class that can use an ability unlimited nubmer of times a day is just wrong.  Any class that can use that same ability unlimited times a day while appling effects directly to the ability, making it more powerful, even worse.

I haven't mad a warlock to try and break it, but with the unlimited ability of the invocations and the EB and 1,000s of feats to choose from, I'm sure if I put in five man hours I could find a way to break it.  I'm sure others already have.

Anyway, at fist glance, I think a sorcerer is worse, but that is just me and the fact that I have played and broken a sorcerer and I haven't tried a warlock.


----------



## Vanye (Jun 10, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Your not taking quicken eldritch blast, you are taking quick spell-like ability, which applies to ALL of you spell-like abilities one, if you take it twice, it applies twice, to all of them, of which, invocations and EB are both spell-like abilities.  So for one feat, you are basically getting sudden meta-magic twice.




No, it doesn't.

From the SRD
QUICKEN SPELL-LIKE ABILITY  [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Spell-like ability at caster level 10th or higher.
Benefit:* Choose one of the creature’s spell-like abilities*, subject to the restrictions described below. The creature can use that ability as a quickened spell-like ability three times per day (or less, if the ability is normally usable only once or twice per day).

As you see from the bolded text above, this feat specifically requires you to apply this to a specific SLA.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Your not taking quicken eldritch blast, you are taking quick spell-like ability, which applies to ALL of you spell-like abilities one, if you take it twice, it applies twice, to all of them, of which, invocations and EB are both spell-like abilities.  So for one feat, you are basically getting sudden meta-magic twice.




Me thinks you are looking at an out-dated version of the feat...


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Warlocks also suffer the effects of AMF (and similar effects) since they are using spell-like abilities - which will pretty much totally negate them. (insert evil DM laughter  )




Well this is certainly true.  But since AMF is centered on the caster, the Warlock can just keep their distance or run away until and come back later.  Assuming they know it is up...  Of course this will also hurt a Fighter's magic weapons too, though he'll at least still be able to swing multiple times.

So what point are we proving here?  That each class has it's advantages and disadvantages?


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 10, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Looks like it's time for me to make a new character, Domain Wizard (Evocation) (UA Wizard variant) with levels of Force Mage (Dragon mag PrC)...  Arcane Thesis: Magic Missile.  Bunch of metamagic feats...  Mmmm, mmmm, good.




If I may, consider a Wu Jen / Force Missile Mage with a dip into (if you feel you can afford to loose one more caster level) of Argent Savant.

With Wu Jen, pick up Spell Secrets: Still-spell MM, Silent MM.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> If I may, consider a Wu Jen / Force Missile Mage with a dip into (if you feel you can afford to loose one more caster level) of Argent Savant.
> 
> With Wu Jen, pick up Spell Secrets: Still-spell MM, Silent MM.




I don't know, the ability to cast MM at +1 caster level (from being a Domain Wizard) is very very tempting.  Wouldn't that come out to 8 magic missiles?  Normal max of 5, +1 from Domain Wizard, +2 from Force Mage.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 10, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Your not taking quicken eldritch blast, you are taking quick spell-like ability, which applies to ALL of you spell-like abilities one, if you take it twice, it applies twice, to all of them, of which, invocations and EB are both spell-like abilities.  So for one feat, you are basically getting sudden meta-magic twice.
> 
> Anyway, no, I admit I haven't played a Warlock, but I don't have to play every class to make comments on them, and niether do you.
> 
> ...




As others have said, Meta-spell-like Feats (at least in 3.5) require you to choose one of your SLAs... 

I invite you to the Dark Side, convince a DM to let ya try a Warlock, you might enjoy it.   Any class can be broken if you go out of your way to break it (well most classes), that doesn't mean the class itself is broken (that make any sense?).


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 10, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I don't know, the ability to cast MM at +1 caster level (from being a Domain Wizard) is very very tempting.  Wouldn't that come out to 8 magic missiles?  Normal max of 5, +1 from Domain Wizard, +2 from Force Mage.




I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the Domain Wizard's +1 CL lets you break the 5 (7, sir, 7) Missile limit.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 10, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the Domain Wizard's +1 CL lets you break the 5 (7, sir, 7) Missile limit.




Ahhh, you are right.  It does allow them to gain the additional missile 1 level earlier than normal, but doesn't allow them to exceed the normal limit on the amount of missiles...


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 11, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Ahhh, you are right.  It does allow them to gain the additional missile 1 level earlier than normal, but doesn't allow them to exceed the normal limit on the amount of missiles...




So, yeah... check out the Wu Jen.  I haven't actually done the build yet, but I think it could be spiffy.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Okay seriously, I know they are written somewhere, but I can't find information on descriptors.  I wanted to re-read the descriptors for Force and the only place I could find it was in Dragon Magazine #323.

Where are the different energy descriptors listed please?

I know what they are, but I remember reading a more detailed description somewhere else.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Vanye said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't.
> 
> From the SRD
> QUICKEN SPELL-LIKE ABILITY  [GENERAL]
> ...



Well, then you got me on that, I was using information from The Book of Vile Darkness, which is how I stated it.

Your version is actually better, you get more uses out of it for your EB in this sitiation.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> As others have said, Meta-spell-like Feats (at least in 3.5) require you to choose one of your SLAs...
> 
> I invite you to the Dark Side, convince a DM to let ya try a Warlock, you might enjoy it.   Any class can be broken if you go out of your way to break it (well most classes), that doesn't mean the class itself is broken (that make any sense?).



LMAO, yes, it makes sense    

I actually do have a DM right now who is starting a new campaign, but I am going to an Artificer cause I haven't played one of those yet.  Actually a Aritifcer//Wizard cause it is a gestalt campaign.

At first glance the Warlock looks boring to me cause you basically just blast stuff with the ocasional invocation or added effect to your EB and I don't like hack and slash classes like that.

If you like tham and think they are not as strong as I think they are, that's fine, and I have to conceed to your knowledge cause I haven't played one


----------



## Staffan (Jun 11, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Okay seriously, I know they are written somewhere, but I can't find information on descriptors.  I wanted to re-read the descriptors for Force and the only place I could find it was in Dragon Magazine #323.
> 
> Where are the different energy descriptors listed please?
> 
> I know what they are, but I remember reading a more detailed description somewhere else.



The SRD has a list of descriptors (not just energy) where it's talking about how spells are described. It says:
_The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water._
It then goes on to say that most of these descriptors don't have any effect by themselves, they're just a convenient way of tagging stuff for how it interacts with other stuff.

The rule about Force affecting incorporeal creatures is in the rules about the incorporeal subtype. It is also in the glossary: _*force damage:* A special type of damage dealt by force effects, such as a magic missile spell. A force effect can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality._

I don't think most descriptors are in the glossary, though.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> So, yeah... check out the Wu Jen.  I haven't actually done the build yet, but I think it could be spiffy.



Okay, if you really really want to break magic missile, here is what you do:
5 Wizard (evocker domain wizard) with spontanious Domain casting if you can talk a DM into it
5 War Mage (the Prc class from Age of Mortals, not the whimpy one from CA) basically gives you +3 per die roll of damage
5 Force mage (to gain two more missiles)
1 Argent Savant (another +1 to die damage)

Now you have 7 missiles for 7d4+7+28

However, note, this is not an example of the spell being broken, it is an example of the choice of feats and classes that break the spell.

Dump the last 6 classes and your now doing 10d6+30 on a fire ball, 4d6+12 on  scourcing ray or, if 20th level with 5 levels of war mage and they fail there saving throw 40d6+120.

The spells isn't broken, it is the way you use it and the classes and feats you use it with.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> The SRD has a list of descriptors (not just energy) where it's talking about how spells are described. It says:
> _The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water._
> It then goes on to say that most of these descriptors don't have any effect by themselves, they're just a convenient way of tagging stuff for how it interacts with other stuff.
> 
> ...



I found those in the book, but there was a list that stated the desciptors and what they did, even though the book says the descriptors don't have any effect by themselves.  Example, the force effect ignore hardness, so does acid if I recall correctly.

I just can't recall where I saw that.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 11, 2006)

No such list that I can recall. You might be thinking about the rules for breaking stuff:


> Energy Attacks: Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> No such list that I can recall. You might be thinking about the rules for breaking stuff:



Hmm, maybe that is where I got it from.  What book and page was that on?

And where does it say that force effects ignore DR and hardness, other than dragon magazine #323


----------



## Staffan (Jun 11, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Hmm, maybe that is where I got it from.  What book and page was that on?



I got it from the SRD, and I'm too lazy to get my PHB to check. It should be in the "various stuff" chapter though, the one with encumbrance, illumination, and stuff like that.



> And where does it say that force effects ignore DR and hardness, other than dragon magazine #323



It doesn't. Especially not hardness. There may be specific spells that say it ignores hardness (like all the psionic energy powers say that the sonic variant ignores hardness, which is not true for sonics in general), but there's no general force anti-hardness rule I know of.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 11, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Hmm, maybe that is where I got it from.  What book and page was that on?




3.5 PHB, pg.165.



> And where does it say that force effects ignore DR and hardness, other than dragon magazine #323




They don't ignore hardness. That was clarified in the FAQ recently too, IIRC. And spell effects of any kind generally ignore DR anyway.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 11, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> They don't ignore hardness. That was clarified in the FAQ recently too, IIRC. And spell effects of any kind generally ignore DR anyway.





Correct, from the SRD on DR



> DAMAGE REDUCTION
> Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
> 
> The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction is the amount of hit points the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment. If a dash follows the slash then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
> ...


----------



## Question (Jun 12, 2006)

Force missle mage fails for not providing full spellcasting progression though. 

A wizard would need to be level 14 to fire 7 missles, doing 7d4+7 damage. There are more efficient ways to do damage by that point......


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 12, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> 3.5 PHB, pg.165.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't ignore hardness. That was clarified in the FAQ recently too, IIRC. And spell effects of any kind generally ignore DR anyway.



Hmm, Dragon Magazine has a list of things for the force descriptor but I just found the part in the FAQ, so I guess that is the one to use.

Now, half of the MM debate is put to rest, cause part of the deal was that they thought all damage applied to an object, disregarding harness.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 13, 2006)

But a force missle mage (dragon mag)/argent hand (Complete Arcane)/force weaver (path of magic) would get 7 X 1d4+6 with his magic missile for a minimum of 49 and a max of 70 without a feat.  Now maximize and empower that bad boy and you do 105 points of damage with a lil' ole magic missile.  And it bypasses shield.  That totally rocks!  Of course, you're like 23rd level, but whatev.


----------



## Question (Jun 13, 2006)

Age of mortals? Whats that?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 14, 2006)

Canaan said:
			
		

> But a force missle mage (dragon mag)/argent hand (Complete Arcane)/force weaver (path of magic) would get 7 X 1d4+6 with his magic missile for a minimum of 49 and a max of 70 without a feat.  Now maximize and empower that bad boy and you do 105 points of damage with a lil' ole magic missile.  And it bypasses shield.  That totally rocks!  Of course, you're like 23rd level, but whatev.



Force Weaver, where is that from?  There are way too many books out there    



			
				Question said:
			
		

> Age of mortals? Whats that?



A source book for Dragonlance campaign setting


----------



## helium3 (Jun 14, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The way I knew Magic Missle was overpowered was when our party sorceror, for the first ten levels, used it almost every single combat, usually multiple times.
> 
> In fact she used it so often that she found the need to calculate how many times she could use it, assuming she was converting higher level spell slots into magic missles.
> 
> She ROUTINELY used 4th level spell slots to cast magic missle.




In my group, your player would've withered under the onslaught of verbal abuse that would have been blasted in her direction. She used up 4th level slots to cast magic missle? That's absurd. Didn't the other players start complaining that she wasn't pulling her own weight?


----------



## Sithobi1 (Jun 14, 2006)

Seriously, EBT. How does Magic Missile stand up to that?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 14, 2006)

I am finding the argument that the MM is overpowered to be very weak.  Would simply removing it from the game make the game more interesting for most players?  I have my doubts.

The Sorceror class depends on lower level spells that are reasonable to sub into higher level slots through a wide range of play levels.  The MM is the arcane equivalent of Cure Light Wounds.  I personally think the Orb spells are every bit as powerful as MM, if not more so, but there does not exist a reasonable functional replacement for MM in core.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 14, 2006)

helium3 said:
			
		

> In my group, your player would've withered under the onslaught of verbal abuse that would have been blasted in her direction. She used up 4th level slots to cast magic missle? That's absurd. Didn't the other players start complaining that she wasn't pulling her own weight?




Wow.  Then I wouldn't get along with your group.  In our group, D&D isn't a competative sport.  We don't verbally abuse players who do not play their characters the way we would have played them.  As long as we are all having fun, then everyone is "pulling their own weight".

As for the absurdity of using a 4th level spell slot to cast a magic missle, I don't think it is absurd.  Given this particular character's focus on utility-type spells rather than purely offensive spells, it can be a fine choice.  Particularly in situtations where precision is required due to cover and combat conditions, and not blasting anyone else in the party is also required.

If someone could point me to the 4th level damage-dealing spell that always hits no matter what (other than full cover or things like that of course), and doesn't ever hit other PCs at the same time, and doesn't have any saving throw, then please do so.  I'll suggest she pick up that spell at a later opportunity.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 14, 2006)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Force Weaver, where is that from?  There are way too many books out there




Force Weaver is from the book entitled Path of Magic.  I think its a Legends and Lairs book.  Not sure.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 14, 2006)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> Seriously, EBT. How does Magic Missile stand up to that?




EBT covers a 20-ft.-radius spread, and hits everyone in that area.  Surely it's come up in your games, many times, when you cannot use an area attack spell without harming your own party members.

Magic Missle does the following things:

Hits only the targets you want it to hit, and not your allies;
Always hits (except for the cases like total cover);
Does force damage so it effects even incorporeal targets;
Has no saving throw;
Increases both the number of targets and the damage dealt as your caster level increases, up to 9th level;
Is a first level spell.

Spells that require an attack roll, or a saving throw, or an area instead of precise target(s), just don't hold up in certain relatively common circumstances when compared to what magic missle can do.

It doesn't break the game obviously, but that doesn't mean that magic missle isn't overpowered.  The biggest problem with overpowered things is that they make for more boring games.  Overpowered options become almost mandatory options, and therefore get used instead of more interesting options more of the time.  And while it may be difficult to detect that the level of "boringness" is higher than it should be in your game, it does have an impact.

You can see a bit of this even in this thread.  When people say that Magic Missle is the arcane equivelent of Cure Light Wounds for a cleric, that's really saying that Magic Missle is required for the arcane caster.  Despite the fact that the theme of the Cleric is intentionally oriented on curing people, and a class ability is to convert spells into cure spells, and many feats and prestige classes and domains and dieties are oriented around cure spells.

Magic Missle is not supposed to be a major theme of all arcane casters.  It's not supposed to be the arcane equivelent of cure light wounds for a cleric.  But the fact that some people think it IS the same thing just goes to show how overpowered it is, that people just assume every arcane caster selects that spell and casts it often.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 15, 2006)

Seriously, there are so many different counters for MM, it's not even funny.

I can think of at least four right off the bat, only one of which stops all spells from 3rd level and below.

Yeah, it's good for scrubs at higher levels, but many BBEGs will have the means to prevent being damaged by MM.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 15, 2006)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Seriously, there are so many different counters for MM, it's not even funny.
> 
> I can think of at least four right off the bat, only one of which stops all spells from 3rd level and below.
> 
> Yeah, it's good for scrubs at higher levels, but many BBEGs will have the means to prevent being damaged by MM.




The odds you will have the counter cast or on you at the time you are hit by the magic missle are very low.  Shield has a small duration, spell-blockers have a short duration, the magic item that stops them is sub-optimal for that item slot, etc..  The odds are GREATLY in your favor that at least your first stream of magic missles will not be stopped by anything other than SR.

Plus all the other nifty applications of magic missle, like popping mirror images and other illusions, firing in from the outside of an arrow slit at distance, etc..


----------



## 3d6 (Jun 15, 2006)

You can't fire _magic missiles_ through all arrow slits. You need at least a 1 square foot hole to shoot a spell through. If the arrow slit is, for example, 3 feet high and 3 inches across, that wouldn't allow a spell through (except for _fireball_). I'm also not sure how _magic missile_ is helpful against _mirror image_. You can't target the images, as _magic missile_ must target a creature. A spell that fails to function because of invalid targeting surely isn't a "successful attack".


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 15, 2006)

The Sorceror has a limited number of spells.  For playability sake the Sorceror must be able to cherry-pick highly reliable above average power spells, and ram them down the enemy's throat over and over again.

To suggest that MM is overpowered is tantamount to declaring the Sorceror class overpowered, at least for the lower levels.  While that may be true in some campaigns, it is laughable as a generalization.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 15, 2006)

These are cases I think DM rulings and general logic play a hand, not slavish devotion to the rules as written.  Does an insubstantial missle of force take up more space than an arrow?
Was _Mirror Image_ intended to be an anit _Magic Missle_ spell?    Logically one could argue _Magic Missle_ is the anti _Mirror Image _spell, since if you cant target the Images, you would naturally target the real person.

Since the point of _Mirror Image _is to siphon away attacks, I would let someone cast _Magic Missle _at a false _Mirror Image_, makes more sense to me.

_Magic Missle _is probably more like a second level spell.  I certainly think it is a better attack spell than Melfs at higher level.
_Magic Missle _becomes a ranged _Coup de Grace_ at higher levels, especially when you add in Metamagic Feats like _Heighten_, _Quicken_, and _Empowered_.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 15, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Logically one could argue _Magic Missle_ is the anti _Mirror Image _spell, since if you cant target the Images, you would naturally target the real person.




Let's say you're a 1st level wizard.  You know that over there, there are three statues of a goblin assassin, and one goblin assassin disguised as a statue of a goblin assassin.

You can't just cast Magic Missile "to hit the real goblin assassin".  You have to choose a target.  If it's a creature, a missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target.  If it's not a creature: "If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted."

Now let's say you're a 3rd level wizard in the same situation.  You have two options - direct both missiles at one target, or direct one missile at each of two targets.

If you direct both missiles at one target, and it happens to be the real goblin assassin, 
two missiles of magical energy dart forth from your fingertip and strikes their target.  If it's a statue, "If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted."

So what if you split the missiles?  Let's say you choose one statue, and the real goblin assassin.  Strictly, you're casting the spell in conditions If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform - one of the targets you chose is not 'one or more creature'.  As written, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.

As a DM, I'd rule instead that one missile darts forth and strikes the real goblin, while the other missile fails and is wasted, but I acknowledge that I'm deviating from the strict wording of the "Spell Failure" section.

Now let's replace the statues with mirror image figments.

-Hyp.


----------



## Grog (Jun 16, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> EBT covers a 20-ft.-radius spread, and hits everyone in that area.  Surely it's come up in your games, many times, when you cannot use an area attack spell without harming your own party members.
> 
> Magic Missle does the following things:
> 
> ...




Nor does Magic Missile hold up in common circumstances when compared to what other spells can do. Particularly 4th level spells.

Can Magic Missile cause your opponents to fight each other?

Can Magic Missile give the party fighter +4/+6 to Strength, a +5 natural armor bonus, 10 foot natural reach, and possibly even a Dex bonus as well?

Can Magic Missile grapple multiple foes at once and crush them to death?

Can Magic Missile take a meele-oriented enemy completely out of the fight with a Reflex save (which meele-oriented combatants are usually pretty bad at)?

Can Magic Missile give someone up to four negative levels, resulting in penalties to just about every die roll, and spellcasters losing access to their highest levels of spells?

Can Magic Missile give someone 10 points of DR that is probably unbeatable in most cases at 8th level?

If the sorceress in your group is routinely using 4th level slots to cast Magic Missile, she either has a suboptimal selection of combat spells or simply doesn't know what she's doing.

And one other thing, Magic Missile's damage AND number of targets don't increase with level, the damage OR the number of targets increases. Big difference.


----------



## Warmage-in-Onley (Jun 16, 2006)

3d6 said:
			
		

> You can't fire _magic missiles_ through all arrow slits. You need at least a 1 square foot hole to shoot a spell through. If the arrow slit is, for example, 3 feet high and 3 inches across, that wouldn't allow a spell through (except for _fireball_). I'm also not sure how _magic missile_ is helpful against _mirror image_. You can't target the images, as _magic missile_ must target a creature. A spell that fails to function because of invalid targeting surely isn't a "successful attack".




Except, see page 51 of the FAQ: "You aim your spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures."  The images ARE legitimate targets for spells that require a creature(s) for a target(s).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 16, 2006)

Warmage-in-Onley said:
			
		

> Except, see page 51 of the FAQ: "You aim your spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures."  The images ARE legitimate targets for spells that require a creature(s) for a target(s).




But where did they get that from?  It's not supported by anything in the text.  According to the rules, a creature requires a Wisdom and a Charisma score.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But where did they get that from?  It's not supported by anything in the text.  According to the rules, a creature requires a Wisdom and a Charisma score.
> 
> -Hyp.



 You heartless bastard. Is that all a creature is to you, a Wisdom and Charisma score? What about their ability to feel? To love? To tell right from wrong? To experience the beauty of a summer's day? To wonder at the grandeur of creation?

I am not a number! I am a FREE MAN!


----------



## satori01 (Jun 16, 2006)

Hyp, you post supports my general contention that sometimes the DM has to make judgement calls.   The heyday of Illusion magic was 1e where it was assumed it worked.  3.5 makes the Illusion school untenable in many cases.  I would conjecture the design intent behind "not being able to target object and constructs" was really to say the spell does not work on objects, which is what they should have said instead of "not being able to target".

I would say the point of Illusion spells are to fool people.  The point of Magic Missle is not to ferret out Illusions.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 16, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> The point of Magic Missle is not to ferret out Illusions.




[Devil's Advocate]
Why can't the point of Magic Missle be to ferret out Illusions?
[/Devil's Advocate]


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But where did they get that from?  It's not supported by anything in the text.  According to the rules, a creature requires a Wisdom and a Charisma score.
> 
> -Hyp.





Probably from the spell description itself.



> Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
> 
> *Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets.* Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
> 
> ...





Which seems to imply that anything that can target the caster of the images can also target the images.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 16, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Which seems to imply that anything that can target the caster of the images can also target the images.




I don't agree at all.  Someone attempting to cast a spell at you must _select_ from indistinguishable targets.  Once they've selected, then you randomly roll to see if they selected a creature or a figment.

If it's not a creature, a spell that can only target a creature cannot conform to the conditions, and fails.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 17, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Nor does Magic Missile hold up in common circumstances when compared to what other spells can do. Particularly 4th level spells.
> 
> Can Magic Missile cause your opponents to fight each other?




Saving throw.



> Can Magic Missile give the party fighter +4/+6 to Strength, a +5 natural armor bonus, 10 foot natural reach, and possibly even a Dex bonus as well?




Not talking about non-direct-offense spells.  Indeed, you have space to take those non-attack spells BECAUSE of how effective magic missle is.



> Can Magic Missile grapple multiple foes at once and crush them to death?




Covers a wider range than just the target thus jeopardizing your allies, and also the "grapple to death" is hotly contested I believe.  Let's not go there in this thread.



> Can Magic Missile take a meele-oriented enemy completely out of the fight with a Reflex save (which meele-oriented combatants are usually pretty bad at)?




Saving throw.



> Can Magic Missile give someone up to four negative levels, resulting in penalties to just about every die roll, and spellcasters losing access to their highest levels of spells?




Ranged attack roll.



> Can Magic Missile give someone 10 points of DR that is probably unbeatable in most cases at 8th level?




Again, not an attack spell.



> If the sorceress in your group is routinely using 4th level slots to cast Magic Missile, she either has a suboptimal selection of combat spells or simply doesn't know what she's doing.




She isn't built for dealing direct damage with a wide variety of spells (not all sorcerors are).  Thus, those times when she DOES have to deal direct damage, and it's a situation where it's hard to make a ranged touch attack or an ally would be hit by an area spell, she casts magic missle.  I'm not sure why that is so unheard of.  What spell would you cast if you thought you would miss due to your target having cover, and they were next to one or more of your allies, and you figure the target has good saves anyway?

Often, the use of the 4th level slot for MM comes in those kinds of situations, usually near the end of the day where there isn't a strong need for those spell slots anyway.



> And one other thing, Magic Missile's damage AND number of targets don't increase with level, the damage OR the number of targets increases. Big difference.




Level 1 I can target one create with 1d4+1 damage.  Level 7 I can target two creatures for 2d4+2 damage each.  You can increase the number of targets and the damage done as your levels increase.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2006)

Y'know...this always pops up every so often.

I don't particularly care if MM is overpowered.

I don't use it for PCs myself because its bland.  (In fact, the only time I've ever used it is for foes my players must face.)

Oh, and for the record, I've been in the "MM targets (and potentially dispels) illusions as if they were real" since 1978.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 17, 2006)

I think the OP's point that his Sorc friend routinely uses 4th level spell slots for magic missile says more about her spell selection than the power of the spell, which is not at all a criticism, given that Mistwell has described her as a 'utility' mage (or words to that effect). In that case a MM is a perfectly valid way to spend a 4th level slot if its benefit to the party is greater than any of the 4th level utility spells she has in her repertoire.

BUT, I've seen the general argument for _magic missile_ played out in my very own group, and I can tell you that a Sorc who chooses Weapon Focus (Ray) and only has to make a ranged touch attack to land multiple _scorching ray_'s will dump MM just as fast as you like. That a spell grants a saving throw or requires an attack roll is a poor justification for abandoning it - most Sorcs will already have gone out of their way to mitigate those factors.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 17, 2006)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> BUT, I've seen the general argument for _magic missile_ played out in my very own group, and I can tell you that a Sorc who chooses Weapon Focus (Ray) and only has to make a ranged touch attack to land multiple _scorching ray_'s will dump MM just as fast as you like. That a spell grants a saving throw or requires an attack roll is a poor justification for abandoning it - most Sorcs will already have gone out of their way to mitigate those factors.



Sure, but in more games, the PCs with better DCs or touch attack rolls have sacrificed in some way that the Magic Missiler didn't have to.  Both by using feats or by putting more points in a casting stat, or in dex.  The magic missiler is free to sink points into con, or use his feats or spell slots on stuff like item creation that might have greater value to the party that a pure blasting sorc.  All while mosly keeping up in the damage department.


----------



## Grog (Jun 17, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not talking about non-direct-offense spells.  Indeed, you have space to take those non-attack spells BECAUSE of how effective magic missle is.




What does it matter whether it's a "direct" offense spell or not? The fact is that Polymorph is a very effective combat spell (vastly more so than Magic Missile), and it has plenty of non-combat uses too.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Covers a wider range than just the target thus jeopardizing your allies,




Only if the caster is a moron and catches their allies in the area of effect. Even if an opponent is standing right next to an ally, it's still possible to target the spell so the opponent is within the area of effect and the ally isn't.

And, I love the way you dismiss most of the other spells just by saying "saving throw." Look at the saving throw bonuses most CR 8 monsters have and compare them to the DC 19 or so that an 8th level caster is going to be tossing. Most of those monsters are going to be failing their saving throws at least two-thirds of the time, possibly more, assuming the caster targets their weak save. It's much more effective to cast a Confusion spell on a group of four meele brutes and confuse three of them than it is to do 18 points of damage or so to one of them.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> She isn't built for dealing direct damage with a wide variety of spells (not all sorcerors are).




Direct damage is far from the only thing a sorceror can do. In many cases, they have much better options open to them.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Thus, those times when she DOES have to deal direct damage, and it's a situation where it's hard to make a ranged touch attack or an ally would be hit by an area spell, she casts magic missle.  I'm not sure why that is so unheard of.  What spell would you cast if you thought you would miss due to your target having cover, and they were next to one or more of your allies, and you figure the target has good saves anyway?




And how often are all three of those things true? And besides, "good saves" aren't nearly as common as you seem to think they are, someone next to an ally can still be targeted with an area spell without hitting the ally, and cover can often be gotten around or or a spell (not just Magic Missile) can be used where it's not an issue.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Level 1 I can target one create with 1d4+1 damage.  Level 7 I can target two creatures for 2d4+2 damage each.  You can increase the number of targets and the damage done as your levels increase.




By a miniscule amount.

At level 7 I can target eight creatures with a fireball for 7d6 damage each. How does that compare?


----------



## Grog (Jun 17, 2006)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> I think the OP's point that his Sorc friend routinely uses 4th level spell slots for magic missile says more about her spell selection than the power of the spell, which is not at all a criticism, given that Mistwell has described her as a 'utility' mage (or words to that effect). In that case a MM is a perfectly valid way to spend a 4th level slot if its benefit to the party is greater than any of the 4th level utility spells she has in her repertoire.




I agree.

But that's not evidence that Magic Missile is overpowered, it's just evidence that this sorceror doesn't have a good selection of combat spells. (And note, "combat spells" and "damage spells" are NOT necessarily the same thing).



			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> Sure, but in more games, the PCs with better DCs or touch attack rolls have sacrificed in some way that the Magic Missiler didn't have to. Both by using feats or by putting more points in a casting stat, or in dex. The magic missiler is free to sink points into con, or use his feats or spell slots on stuff like item creation that might have greater value to the party that a pure blasting sorc. All while mosly keeping up in the damage department.




Say my party has two 10th level Wizards and we're facing three Hill Giants (EL 10).

Wizard #1 casts Magic Missile and hits one of them for 18 damage. Total damage dealt: 18.

Wizard #2 casts Fireball and hits two of them for 35 damage and one for 17 damage (saved). Total damage dealt: 87.

How is the magic missiler "mostly keeping up" in damage?


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 17, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Say my party has two 10th level Wizards and we're facing three Hill Giants (EL 10).
> 
> Wizard #1 casts Magic Missile and hits one of them for 18 damage. Total damage dealt: 18.
> 
> ...



Well because he can also have fireball.  Still, there's plenty of situations where magic missile's fine, or even the best choice.  Let's say that one Giant Grapples the greataxe-wielding barbarian, and the other two surround him.  Or that instead of Hill Giants, they're Barded Devils, or Wraiths, or monks.

Area effects are a vital part of a mage's repertoire, and can't exactly be replaced.  Really, the thing we're comparing Magic Missile against is other single target spells.  The argument that says that Magic Missile is overpowered relies on the fact that for a mage with no special feats or anything, Magic Missile can keep up with the damage of basically all the other single-target attack spells, up to and including disentegrate, rendering them redundant.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 17, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Area effects are a vital part of a mage's repertoire, and can't exactly be replaced.  Really, the thing we're comparing Magic Missile against is other single target spells.  The argument that says that Magic Missile is overpowered relies on the fact that for a mage with no special feats or anything, Magic Missile can keep up with the damage of basically all the other single-target attack spells, up to and including disentegrate, rendering them redundant.




But it can't.  Not even close when we look at averages.  The only edge MM has is reliability, the average damage is just not impressive without piling on lots of feats.

If you are always tossing that Scorching Ray into melee and you have to suck up that -4 to hit mod, your average damage is going to substantially higher.

Even a Fire Giant is going to fail its Fort save ~1/3 of the time vs. Disintegrate.  You are going to get an average in the ballpark of ~10d6 damage or better against a very suboptimal target.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 17, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> But it can't.  Not even close when we look at averages.  The only edge MM has is reliability, the average damage is just not impressive without piling on lots of feats.
> 
> If you are always tossing that Scorching Ray into melee and you have to suck up that -4 to hit mod, your average damage is going to substantially higher.
> 
> Even a Fire Giant is going to fail its Fort save ~1/3 of the time vs. Disintegrate.  You are going to get an average in the ballpark of ~10d6 damage or better against a very suboptimal target.



Okay, okay, maybe I was overstating my point a little.

To restate it, less emphatically: the reliability of magic missile makes it so that almost every other damage spell is only situationally better than magic missile.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 17, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> And how often are all three of those things true? And besides, "good saves" aren't nearly as common as you seem to think they are, someone next to an ally can still be targeted with an area spell without hitting the ally, and cover can often be gotten around or or a spell (not just Magic Missile) can be used where it's not an issue.
> By a miniscule amount.  At level 7 I can target eight creatures with a fireball for 7d6 damage each. How does that compare?




It's a very common situation that an NPC is fighting a PC in melee combat in a hallway.

I'm not sure how you adjudicate area spells.  But in our game, there is no way to cast an area spell in a 5-10" wide hallway and miss the ally that is next to the NPC.  Your fireball will fry the ally.  Your Black Tenticles will grapple the ally.  You cannot target INSIDE wall, only with line of sight, and therefore very often an area spell will hit your ally.

Which brings it down to touch attack spells.  Which are harder to hit when the NPC is in melee combat with a PC as well.

In those situations, a magic missle can be appropriate, even if all you have left is 4th level spell slots, particularly given that a sorceror built for more utility-based and travel spells isn't going to often have the spell choices open to have a lot of other options at certain levels.

Why do you think that almost all other direct-damage spells have either a saving throw or a ranged attack roll?  Given the game designers of 3.0 said they also wanted to change magic missle to be higher damage but with a ranged attack roll, but playtesters shot it down merely because magic missle was "iconic", don't you think it's at least possible magic missle occupies a unique position in D&D that just might be a bit overpowered because of that uniquness?


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 17, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's a very common situation that an NPC is fighting a PC in melee combat in a hallway.
> 
> I'm not sure how you adjudicate area spells.  But in our game, there is no way to cast an area spell in a 5-10" wide hallway and miss the ally that is next to the NPC.  Your fireball will fry the ally.  Your Black Tenticles will grapple the ally.  You cannot target INSIDE wall, only with line of sight, and therefore very often an area spell will hit your ally.
> 
> Which brings it down to touch attack spells.  Which are harder to hit when the NPC is in melee combat with a PC as well.




Well, unless the party is fighting near the end of the corridor, they only have to be 25' away from where the fireball detonates to not be hit by it...  So, actually, it's pretty easy to cast in a hallway and not get party members, unless the party doesn't work together well.


----------



## terrainmonkey (Jun 17, 2006)

why are you folks still arguing about this. magic missile is not overpowered at all. why anyone would say this about a 1st level spell is just, ... i'm sorry, Wrong!. NO. 25 points of damage. that's it. oh sure, there's a few feats, classes, etc. that give you more, but what, anouther couple of dice damage? maximized? what are we talking, 15 more points? really, DMs, come on. if you are making things so easy on your players such as having monsters with less than 40 hit points, you are not making enough of a challenge. folks at 9th level should be hitting things with no less than 60 hp, and that's minions. the BBEG is probaly sitting on somewhere in the neighborhood of 150+. and you are worried about Magic missile? get over it. move on to something else that is a better use of your discussion time. please. all you guys complaining about MM being too powerful for a 1st level spell need to go back to DM school and figure out better spells to get your players to use. magic missile stops being a good spell after 5th level. i have never had a mage use MM after this because the damage output is so minimal that it doesn't make sense at all to use it. in fact, i can count on 1 hand how many times a wizard in my party used magic missile in the last 5 years of DMing. it's a perfect 1st level spell. and it never gets out of hand.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 18, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Okay, okay, maybe I was overstating my point a little.
> 
> To restate it, less emphatically: the reliability of magic missile makes it so that almost every other damage spell is only situationally better than magic missile.




I would still disagree emphatically even with this.  Magic Missile is the situational spell -- IME 90% of the time it is that thing uninspired arcane spellcasters do when they cannot figure our how to make good use of an AoE spell in the situtation at hand.  (That is not meant as an insult.  Sometimes the spellcaster is saving their spell for a higher value target.  It happens.)

MM makes a fine Plan H.  But that does not make the more powerful spells A, B, C, D, E, F, and G all "situtational".


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 18, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would still disagree emphatically even with this.  Magic Missile is the situational spell -- IME 90% of the time it is that thing uninspired arcane spellcasters do when they cannot figure our how to make good use of an AoE spell in the situtation at hand.  (That is not meant as an insult.  Sometimes the spellcaster is saving their spell for a higher value target.  It happens.)
> 
> MM makes a fine Plan H.  But that does not make the more powerful spells A, B, C, D, E, F, and G all "situtational".



Magic Missile's reliable, and it does the equivalent of 1d6/2 levels in damage.  As mentioned, that means than whenever your fireball only hits one target, and that target saves, then you might as well be casting magic missile.  Whenever you have to roll an 11 or higher to hit with your orb spell, you might as well be casting magic missile.  Even with disintegrate, any time they make the saving throw, you're doing magic missile style damage.

Any of the other spells needs an optimal situation, specific to the spell, in order to outdamage magic missile.  For a wizard, it's a risk taking those other spells.  For a sorcerer, it's a different kind of risk.  Magic missile is not normally a risk.

If you're going to load your caster up with a damage spell for every occasion, you may as well play a warmage.  They're better at it.  If you want to play a less damage-oriented caster, but you still need a spell that will reliably do damage in almost all situations, that spell is magic missle.  And it's first level.  Hey, what a bargain.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 18, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> [Devil's Advocate]
> Why can't the point of Magic Missle be to ferret out Illusions?
> [/Devil's Advocate]




Because, with a spell as storied as Magic Missle, the spell has always been a means of dealing realiable damage.  The interperatation that the spell can ferret out illusions is an inadvertent side effect from the wording of the spell in 3.0/3.5.  Now I am all for inadvertent side effects, 
It always makes D&D fun, but I think Hyp's interperatation is way to literal minded.

Magic Missle does not damage inanimte objects, thus no MM being used to sunder weapons, break down doors, or cut ropes.  Under targeting it says : creatures.  
I do not think Magic Missle works as an instant ID system.  Someone using Magic Missle to target an Illusion of an Orc or say an Orc under the effects of a Seeming spell has no knowledge that he is targeting an illusion.  The DC to make a disbelief save should occur after Magic Missle is cast,  rather than Magic Missle thru a Friend/Foe/ or Illusion targeting system blow the nature of the Illusion out of the water.

Again, one of my personal axes to grind is feeling that Illusion magic should work.  Will save to disbelieve is already a steep hurdle to climb, w/o making more magic spells autoreveal illusion magic, especially since given MM 30 year history, it never previously was able to do it.

I would call Hyp's interpertation a bug not a feature of the spell.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 19, 2006)

Been a while since I was here...

Is MM too powerful?  The answer is yes.  The proof is that it is still used by 10th and 15th level casters while other first level spells are not.  IMHO QED. 

Look there are a few other points brought out in the thread that I will address below but, imho, the constructive replies in this thread are comparing MM, a first level spell with fireball, a third level spell, and the give and take on the topic is that situationally one of them might be superior.  The fact that that arguement can (and has) been made indicates that MM has some real mojo going for it that other spells do not.

Now back to something else that came up in the thread, sorcerers.  I love the class.  I do not think it is too powerful or too weak.  Were I to design the class I would have dome it slightly differently.  But there seems to be a fair bit of criticism about a) an 8th level sorcerer using MM in fourth level slots, and b) the ability for sorcerers in general to use spells in higher slots.  I would (like to try) to address both of those points in one general response.

When a sorcerer gets spells of a higher level they only get to know one spell of that level.  Character level 8 is a really good example (but by no means the only one), they know a single fourth level spell, but they can cast three fourth level spells per day.  The net result is that situation is ripe for lower level spells to be cast in those slots.  Metamagic comes to mind.  Also, if the other characters are the meatshields, I could see a sorcerer not taking many damaging spells.  In 25 point buy maybe all the fighter types just would have awful saves against area effect spells like fireball.  Maybe the fourth level spell was improved invisibility and the sorcerer in question uses empowered silent magic missiles to damage opponents without being detected.  Maybe... I could easily think of 20 more possibilites without resorting to assming that the player must be an idiot for using MM in fourth level.

Nobody asked (please correct me if I am wrong) the following question(s):  Why does the 8th level sorcerer use MM in fourth level slots often enough for you to remember and comment.  Please provide detail, is yours a campaign with lots of wraiths, a lack of other damaging spells (and why), a desire to not use that fireball spells, etc.?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 19, 2006)

apsuman said:
			
		

> Been a while since I was here...
> 
> Is MM too powerful?  The answer is yes.  The proof is that it is still used by 10th and 15th level casters while other first level spells are not.  IMHO QED.




At 10th level I'm still using mage armor as a wizard. Ray of enfeeblement is a wonderful spell. Shield is nice too, especially now that my duration is decent. Enlarge person is a great fighter buff.

There are plenty of 1st level spells I still use at 10th level, doesn't mean they're necessarily broken.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 19, 2006)

apsuman said:
			
		

> Is MM too powerful?  The answer is yes.  The proof is that it is still used by 10th and 15th level casters while other first level spells are not.  IMHO QED.




Then Protection from Evil is too powerful as well.  I cast more of those than MMs.  At those levels Dominate Person and Magic Jar is a big risk, so tossing them down on my friends when I have spare action makes sense a lot of the time.

Grease is too powerful also.


----------



## Votan (Jun 19, 2006)

apsuman said:
			
		

> Been a while since I was here...
> 
> Is MM too powerful?  The answer is yes.  The proof is that it is still used by 10th and 15th level casters while other first level spells are not.  IMHO QED.




I will add to the growinbg list of potnetially useful 1st level spells that a 10th level caster will cast: Cure Light Wounds.      Desperately need to nerf that spell, clerics seem to cast it way too often!  

As for arcane spells, I still see Feather Fall, Identify and True Strike in use (in addition to Protection from Evil, Grease, Color Spray, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person and Tenser's Floating disk).  I don't see Shield being used but, looking at it, there is really no good reason why not.  

I think we'd need a new design if 1st level spells were useless by 10th level as it would be worth it to create a system where we did not have to keep track of them in this case.


----------



## Grog (Jun 19, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's a very common situation that an NPC is fighting a PC in melee combat in a hallway.
> 
> I'm not sure how you adjudicate area spells.  But in our game, there is no way to cast an area spell in a 5-10" wide hallway and miss the ally that is next to the NPC.




I adjudicate area spells by the RAW. And by the RAW, unless you are very close to a corner, it is completely possible to cast an area spell in a 5-10' wide hallway and hit an enemy 5' away from an ally. It's fine if you play under different rules, but if you do, it's going to greatly diminish the effectiveness of area spells in certain situations. And that will probably make Magic Missile seem better by comparassion.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why do you think that almost all other direct-damage spells have either a saving throw or a ranged attack roll?




Because they're more powerful than Magic Missile. In many cases, vastly so.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Given the game designers of 3.0 said they also wanted to change magic missle to be higher damage but with a ranged attack roll, but playtesters shot it down merely because magic missle was "iconic", don't you think it's at least possible magic missle occupies a unique position in D&D that just might be a bit overpowered because of that uniquness?




Unique, yes. Overpowered, no.

There is almost always something much more effective a 9th+ level Wizard/Sorceror can do with an action in combat besides 18 points of damage to one enemy. Unless said Wizard/Sorceror is totally gimped with respect to their selection of combat-useful spells.


----------



## Mort (Jun 19, 2006)

apsuman said:
			
		

> Been a while since I was here...
> 
> Is MM too powerful?  The answer is yes.  The proof is that it is still used by 10th and 15th level casters while other first level spells are not.  IMHO QED.




Several people have responded to this, but as I happen to be plaing a fighter/mage (ft1/wizard5/phantom knight2 specifically) I can attest that this is simply not true. I use shield in almost every encounter, ray of enfeeblement almost as often, protection from evil more and more (will save is not my strongsuit and it helps on many of those). I find myself often not even having room for magic missle anymore.

There are other situations where other 1st level spells outshine magic missle:

When using empower spell - ray of enfeeblement is terrifying and can reduce a fighter (or giant or even on a good roll a dragon) to tears, an empowered magic missle is merely slightly more annoying and really not even worth a 3rd level slot.

When channelling a spell (duskblade or spellsword) - shocking grasp is nasty - low level so the duskblade can channel it early and goes to 5d6 so at higher levels it can do some serious damage (because it can crit and most fighter mages are critting on at least a 17-20 with their weapon by higher levels - meaning a good chance at 10d6, not bad for a first level spell).


----------



## apsuman (Jun 20, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> There are other situations where other 1st level spells outshine magic missle:
> 
> When using empower spell - ray of enfeeblement is terrifying and can reduce a fighter (or giant or even on a good roll a dragon) to tears, an empowered magic missle is merely slightly more annoying and really not even worth a 3rd level slot.




I agree with everything you said.

And before I go any further let me (kind of) start over here...

Is magic missile too powerful?   Yes.
Is that bad?  No.

I think if you were to poll everyone on this issue you would find that the number of people that think MM is just fine plus the number of people that think it is overpowered for it's level but are just fine with it that way would really far outnumber the people that think it is overpowered and a problem.

You are correct that there are lots of instances where other first level spells are better than MM at all different kinds of levels of play.  For example, if you were 18th level caster and casted a Heighted (to ninth level) charm person on the barbarian of the same level you have a real good chance of it working.

I think others have mentioned the "extra oomph" that MM has but I don't think anyone has put it this way: Magic Missile is a utility spell.   It is a (perhaps the only) utility damage spell.  I am typing this quickly and working from memory, but I can not think of another damage casing spell that guarantees a hit to the enemy you want (even in melee) without a save, and without resistance (yeah, I know SR and the shield spell).  Chain Lightning comes close, I think, obviously it will strike more opponents but there is that save for half thing again.  So Chain Lightning will do caster level * d6 damage, save for half, at level 12, that would be 12d6, average 42, save for 21 to the first target.  MM would only do 5d4+5, average 17.5.  Really I would expect a spell five levels higher to do more than 3.5 points of damage (before anyone gets riled up, all I am saying is that I would really be mad if I were the Chain Lightning caster and the first guy saved for 21 points and I knew I had 17.5 in my pocket I could have thrown at him instead for the cost of a first level spell).  And, just for reference sake, a maximized empowered magic missile (level six) would do 25 + one half of 5d4+5 (average 8.75) for 33.75, guranteed.

In any adventure day where there are adversaries, MM is potentially useful.  Charm person is not, shocking grasp is not, Burning hands is not, Alarm is not, Fly is not, etc.  Magic Missile might not be the best choice, but it so so often such a good second choice that it would be foolish not recognize that.


g!


----------



## Staffan (Jun 20, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> I adjudicate area spells by the RAW. And by the RAW, unless you are very close to a corner, it is completely possible to cast an area spell in a 5-10' wide hallway and hit an enemy 5' away from an ally.



Goddamit, I need to start reading more carefully. I read this, and then started up Powerpoint to make a diagram to demonstrate that you were wrong. Then I hit reply, and noted that you said "it *is* completely possible"...

Oh well, here's the diagram anyway.






Tokens courtesy of Counter Collection Digital, from Fiery Dragon Productions.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 20, 2006)

terrainmonkey said:
			
		

> why are you folks still arguing about this. magic missile is not overpowered at all. why anyone would say this about a 1st level spell is just, ... i'm sorry, Wrong!. NO. 25 points of damage. that's it. oh sure, there's a few feats, classes, etc. that give you more, but what, anouther couple of dice damage? maximized? what are we talking, 15 more points? really, DMs, come on. if you are making things so easy on your players such as having monsters with less than 40 hit points, you are not making enough of a challenge. folks at 9th level should be hitting things with no less than 60 hp, and that's minions. the BBEG is probaly sitting on somewhere in the neighborhood of 150+. and you are worried about Magic missile? get over it. move on to something else that is a better use of your discussion time. please. all you guys complaining about MM being too powerful for a 1st level spell need to go back to DM school and figure out better spells to get your players to use. magic missile stops being a good spell after 5th level. i have never had a mage use MM after this because the damage output is so minimal that it doesn't make sense at all to use it. in fact, i can count on 1 hand how many times a wizard in my party used magic missile in the last 5 years of DMing. it's a perfect 1st level spell. and it never gets out of hand.




I think if you are comparing 9th level spells to first level spells to make the point that the 1st level spell is not overpowered relative to the 9th level spell, then you have missed the point.

Relative to the other lower level spells, magic missle is overpowered.  Relative to other lower level spells, a spell that auto-hits for damage with no save and no attack roll is overpowered.

And if you think Magic Missle stops being a good spell after 5th level (which is, by the way, usually when people say it STARTS being a good spell, given it's damage and quantity of targets you can hit with it increases with levels up to 9th level) then perhaps you can tell me what other spell a 9th level caster can cast with a first level spell slot that will be useable in as many situations as magic missle.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 20, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> I adjudicate area spells by the RAW. And by the RAW, unless you are very close to a corner, it is completely possible to cast an area spell in a 5-10' wide hallway and hit an enemy 5' away from an ally. It's fine if you play under different rules, but if you do, it's going to greatly diminish the effectiveness of area spells in certain situations. And that will probably make Magic Missile seem better by comparassion.




If two combatants are in the middle of a hallway (as in one PC has chased an NPC down a hallway leaving the rest of the party in the room relatively close behind), then I disagree.  If you cast the spell down the hall earlier than the combatants, then it's the PC you hit and not the NPC.  If you cast the spell past the combatants, your vision is blocked and you cannot target with a fireball (for example) without a chance of hitting your ally or the opponant directly and triggering the fireball to hit both.  And that is by the RAW.  It's a fairly common situation.  There are even several feats a spellcaster can take to help with this problem (or, of course, you could house rule it to make it easier to cast area spells, in which case Magic Missle will seem a lot less powerful).



> Unique, yes. Overpowered, no.




When the uniqueness of the spell makes it not more situational, but more universally useful, then yes unique is also overpowered.



> There is almost always something much more effective a 9th+ level Wizard/Sorceror can do with an action in combat besides 18 points of damage to one enemy. Unless said Wizard/Sorceror is totally gimped with respect to their selection of combat-useful spells.




A 9th level sorceror (and it is specifically sorceror's we have been talking about as the example, not wizards) doesn't have a whole lot of spells known.  Unless they want to forego things like improved invisibility, fly, dimension door, and similar highly useful non-attack spells, then they often have only 3-4 offensive spells at that level, some of which are multi-use non-damage dealing spells like glitterdust and web and grease.  So it may well be perfectly reasonable that a sorceror has at 9th level the options of magic missle and fireball as their direct damage dealing spells.  As explained, the spread of fireball hitting your allies, and it's saving throw, and it's energy type (and immunity or resistance to it, or evasion), make it sub-optimal in some situations.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 20, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Goddamit, I need to start reading more carefully. I read this, and then started up Powerpoint to make a diagram to demonstrate that you were wrong. Then I hit reply, and noted that you said "it *is* completely possible"...
> 
> Oh well, here's the diagram anyway.
> 
> ...




Thank you for the diagram.  You have your caster casting a fireball THROUGH and past two combatants blocking the corridor, which definitely triggers the rules for accidentally hitting one of them and triggering it right on top of them "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."  See also the cover rules, I believe.  

In fact, I think you couldn't actually hit that origin point given the positions of the characters.  You will smack right into the NPC with the fireball bead, triggering the fireball in the face of the NPC, the ally, and backwashing over the caster also.  You need direct line of sight to the target point.

You've turned fireball into both a saving throw energy-based spell (with relatively common immunities and resistances) AND a ranged touch attack spell with significant risk of blowing up your ally, and yourself.  Perfect example of a situation where magic missle might well be the MUCH better option.

I suspect a lot of people are just ignoring issues of cover and line of sight and hitting allies or NPCs, and allowing players to cast spells anywhere within line of effect.  Such a houserule would in fact make magic missle a lot less attractive (and many area spells a lot more powerful, with several feats to deal with these situations now virtually useless).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 20, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Thank you for the diagram.  You have your caster casting a fireball THROUGH and past two combatants blocking the corridor, which definitely triggers the rules for accidentally hitting one of them and triggering it right on top of them "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."  See also the cover rules, I believe.
> 
> In fact, I think you couldn't actually hit that origin point given the positions of the characters.  You will smack right into the NPC with the fireball bead, triggering the fireball in the face of the NPC, the ally, and backwashing over the caster also.  You need direct line of sight to the target point.




I don't agree.  You don't need line of sight - you need line of _effect_, which means there must be at least a one-square-foot gap in the squares the spell passes through.  There's a lot more than one square foot of space in a square occupied by a creature.

If we were to use 3E terminology, an arrow slit provides 9/10 cover; a creature only provides half cover.  Aiming a spell past a creature is not a "narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit".  It's mostly empty space.

The situation shown is not one that would cause any difficulty for a fireball placement.

-Hyp.


----------



## SgtHulka (Jun 20, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And if you think Magic Missle stops being a good spell after 5th level (which is, by the way, usually when people say it STARTS being a good spell, given it's damage and quantity of targets you can hit with it increases with levels up to 9th level) then perhaps you can tell me what other spell a 9th level caster can cast with a first level spell slot that will be useable in as many situations as magic missle.




Enlarge Person-Always helpful on the BDF
Mage Armor-Armor the BDF so when you Polymorph him he's at +4 AC
Shield-But only if you're dumb enough not to wear a brooch of shielding
True Strike-turn all your higher level spells into magic missile auto-hits
Shocking Grasp-5d6 still does more average damage than 5d4+5 and it effects all the enemies that are smart enough to wear brooches of shielding
Burning Hands-Use it against swarms when you want to save your fireball
Grease-save your buddies from all those improved grab monsters or provide sneak attack for your rogue
Ray of Enfeeblement-Lower damage, lower to hit, lower grapple, easier to trip. What's not to like?


----------



## WarlockLord (Jun 21, 2006)

My spellcasters usually put their highest stat in casting ability, and second highest in dex.  This makes any other damaging spell decent, and it's not like everything has touch AC 100 or the saves of a monk.  I can usually find a way to place an area spell so that it doesn't hit an enemy.  Also, I have never known the damage carried by a MM to turn the tide of battle.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jun 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The situation shown is not one that would cause any difficulty for a fireball placement.



Agreed.  And note that most area effect spells aren't subject to _fireball_'s special targeting rules, anyway.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 21, 2006)

SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Shocking Grasp-5d6 still does more average damage than 5d4+5...




You'll find the average damage for both is 17.5.



> Shield-But only if you're dumb enough not to wear a brooch of shielding




"One amulet, _brooch_, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab around the neck..."

It takes up the amulet slot.  My divine casters want a Periapt of Wisdom there, and most of my other characters want an Amulet of Natural Armor or Amulet of Health...

-Hyp.


----------



## dagger (Jun 21, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Goddamit, I need to start reading more carefully. I read this, and then started up Powerpoint to make a diagram to demonstrate that you were wrong. Then I hit reply, and noted that you said "it *is* completely possible"...
> 
> Oh well, here's the diagram anyway.
> 
> ...




My wizard would just delay and let the fighter take a 5' step.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jun 21, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And if you think Magic Missle stops being a good spell after 5th level (which is, by the way, usually when people say it STARTS being a good spell, given it's damage and quantity of targets you can hit with it increases with levels up to 9th level) then perhaps you can tell me what other spell a 9th level caster can cast with a first level spell slot that will be useable in as many situations as magic missle.




_Magic missile_ is only good in one single situation...  When you want to do damage to your target.  Every other spell is good in at least that many situations.  As for other first level spells that are useful in more situations than that...  The _protection from x_ spells are good for both protecting you from damage and for protecting you from effects.  _Grease_ is good for both general battlefield control and for protecting yourself (or others) from grappling critters.  _Summon monster I_ is useful for dealing damage to your target, for protecting you from damage, or for any number of things that you might want to do with a celestial monkey or fiendish raven for nine rounds.  The bonus about being ninth level, though, is that you don't have to rely on first level spells.  You can deal damage with all sorts of spells, but as you progress in levels, dealing direct damage becomes less and less optimal a choice for characters that can cast _magic missile_.

Later
silver


----------



## apsuman (Jun 21, 2006)

SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Enlarge Person-Always helpful on the BDF



Unless he is down, or swarmed by many opponents (large creatures occupy more squares allowing more opponents to simutaneously engage).  Forget about casting it in cramped quarters, like narrow dungeon hallways.  Oh, and there is that whole 1 round casting time also, maybe you would like to move in that round instead.



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Mage Armor-Armor the BDF so when you Polymorph him he's at +4 AC



  I know I am woefully out of date on the current Polymorph, but what happens to the amultet/bracers/cloak/whatever that grants him a bonus to AC and will not stack with Mage Armor (because that was the spell used to enchant the item)?



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Shield-But only if you're dumb enough not to wear a brooch of shielding



  Or you are wearing some other type of brooch/scarab/amulet.



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> True Strike-turn all your higher level spells into magic missile auto-hits



True, but at the cost of another spell.  True Strike + Polar Ray cast by a 16th level caster would deal 16d6 for an average of 56.  By comparison, Two castings of magic missile would only do an average of 35.  Two maximized magic missile spells (that would be two fourth level spell slots) would do 50 points of damage.  Glad to see that being able to cast 8th level spells and use true strike would give you on average 6 more points of damage, than an 8th level sorcerer.



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Shocking Grasp-5d6 still does more average damage than 5d4+5 and it effects all the enemies that are smart enough to wear brooches of shielding



 Wrong: it deals exactly the same average damage.  Requires a to hit, and that you be really close to the guy you want to shock.  For a straight caster being close is often not the desire location.  Hey, I know, lets cast true strike first, let him take a swing at us, then we get to Shocking Grasp him.



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Burning Hands-Use it against swarms when you want to save your fireball



 Useless against fire resistant creatures, if you wouldn't fireball them you wouldn't Burning Hands them either.  Also, there is that whole save for half thing.  A save on a first level spell.  So, that average damage would be 12.5, but only 6 if you save.



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Grease-save your buddies from all those improved grab monsters or provide sneak attack for your rogue



 Except for flying baddies.  Oh, and that whole save against a first level spell thing again like burning hands. 



			
				SgtHulka said:
			
		

> Ray of Enfeeblement-Lower damage, lower to hit, lower grapple, easier to trip. What's not to like?



  It's great.  It requires a to hit.  Hey, why not use true strike first ?  How about against other casters?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 21, 2006)

apsuman said:
			
		

> I know I am woefully out of date on the current Polymorph, but what happens to the amultet/bracers/cloak/whatever that grants him a bonus to AC and will not stack with Mage Armor (because that was the spell used to enchant the item)?




Generally, a fighter will wear armour, rather than using Bracers of Armor.  When he is polymorphed, he'll lose access to his armour unless he stays essentially the same size category (usually Medium) and shape (generally bipedal).  Most of the favoured Polymorph melee forms tend to be Large, so he'll lose his armour, and he's not wearing Bracers of Armor anyway.  The Mage Armor will be useful in this case.

Note that is not the fact that Mage Armor is used to create an item, but the fact that both the spell and the item provide an Armor Bonus, that will lead to non-stacking.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't agree.  You don't need line of sight - you need line of _effect_, which means there must be at least a one-square-foot gap in the squares the spell passes through.  There's a lot more than one square foot of space in a square occupied by a creature.
> 
> If we were to use 3E terminology, an arrow slit provides 9/10 cover; a creature only provides half cover.  Aiming a spell past a creature is not a "narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit".  It's mostly empty space.
> 
> ...




It's line of sight, since you are shooting an actual object (a bead) to the location.  It is NOT just line of effect.

In this case, there is no question the target you are aiming for has cover (draw the line, and you will see it pretty clearly).  It's not total cover, but it IS cover, and you have a chance of hitting that cover if you actually want that particular spot to be the spot where you measure the burst from.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 21, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's line of sight, since you are shooting an actual object (a bead) to the location.  It is NOT just line of effect.
> 
> In this case, there is no question the target you are aiming for has cover (draw the line, and you will see it pretty clearly).  It's not total cover, but it IS cover, and you have a chance of hitting that cover if you actually want that particular spot to be the spot where you measure the burst from.




_You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely._

Passing a Medium creature in a 5 foot square isn't a narrow passage such as an arrow slit.  I point my finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst - I don't need to be able to see that spot, I just need to determine the distance and height.

Since it's not being sent through a narrow passage, no ranged touch attack is necessary.

-Hyp.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 21, 2006)

I'll just let Hyp speak for me in this thread. Getting past two guys standing next to one another is far easier than shooting through an arrow slit.

And even if you did require an attack roll... it would be against AC 9 or so (base 10, -5 for immobile object = Dex 0, +4 for cover). Shouldn't be problematic in the least.


----------



## Votan (Jun 21, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I'll just let Hyp speak for me in this thread. Getting past two guys standing next to one another is far easier than shooting through an arrow slit.
> 
> And even if you did require an attack roll... it would be against AC 9 or so (base 10, -5 for immobile object = Dex 0, +4 for cover). Shouldn't be problematic in the least.




I will not only agree but add the comment that if Mistwell is requiring these sorts of rolls for fireball than his view on the relative strength of magic missle makes perfect sense.  There are two ways to see something as strong -- to see it as strong in and of itself or to make the comparators weak (by making it hard to use).  

But, as far as I cna assess by RAW analogies, this should be pretty automatic as arrow slit implies 9/10 cover and the person in the corridor is soft cover.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 21, 2006)

You are also forgetting that 99% of the time the Wizard can just aim 6"-12" over the heads of all combatants, and she would get the desired AoE with no attack roll required even under the most restrictive possible sane interpretation of the RAW.


----------



## IanB (Jun 21, 2006)

I agree with Hypersmurf here - there's no basis for simple cover from a creature to invoke the fireball targeting rules.


----------



## Grog (Jun 21, 2006)

IanB said:
			
		

> I agree with Hypersmurf here - there's no basis for simple cover from a creature to invoke the fireball targeting rules.




Yes. And, as Vegepygmy noted, most area spells (Glitterdust, for example) don't have the fireball targeting rules anyway.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely._
> 
> Passing a Medium creature in a 5 foot square isn't a narrow passage such as an arrow slit.  I point my finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst - I don't need to be able to see that spot, I just need to determine the distance and height.
> 
> ...




Is it your opinion that the bead travels in in a zig-zagging, curving, automatic path to it's destination (like Magic Missle) as long as it doesn't pass through specifically an arrow-slit sized path?

From my reading, it's a staight line.  The arrow-slit is just one example and not an exhaustive list of what is meant by "impacting on a material body".  You draw a straight line from any part of your square to the destination point, and if there is a material body in that path then there is a chance you will impact that material body.  People move.  Whatever gap you were aiming for might in fact be covered with a person by the time your bead gets there.  Just like people provide cover for regular ranged attacks, they do the same for shooting a magic bead at a point in space.  I do not think this is a house rule.  I think the RAW states that you have a chance of hitting a creature that is between you and the point you are aiming at, and provides for a ranged touch attack to hit a target that has something interferring with your ability to hit your target.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 21, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I'll just let Hyp speak for me in this thread. Getting past two guys standing next to one another is far easier than shooting through an arrow slit.
> 
> And even if you did require an attack roll... it would be against AC 9 or so (base 10, -5 for immobile object = Dex 0, +4 for cover). Shouldn't be problematic in the least.




How is getting BETWEEN two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 21, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Yes. And, as Vegepygmy noted, most area spells (Glitterdust, for example) don't have the fireball targeting rules anyway.




We are comparing apples to apples.

As I noted, as far as core rules, fireball IS the comparable spell for the spell slots we are talking about.  Glitterdust isn't a direct damage spell, and that's the topic under discussion - direct damage spells.

There are lots of utility spells we could be discussing, like web and grease and glitterdust and invisibility and silent image, etc.. But for the realm of direct damage spells, you have ranged attacks (scorching ray), saving-throw bursts (fireball), and no-attack no-save no-burst (magic missle).  Magic missle is the only direct damage spell that requires no attack roll, no saving throw, and no risk of hitting your ally.  That is what makes it so universally useful.  And given it is a first level spell, it's overpowered.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How is getting BETWEEN two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving?




Well, if we again look at the 3E rules (which took a slightly less arbitrary approach to cover and arrow slits, when the fireball text was originally written), let's try shooting an arrow at a target on the other side of two actively moving, fighting people, and then at one on the other side of a fixed arrow slit that is not moving.

Bonus to target's AC in case 1: +4.
Bonus to target's AC in case 2: +10.

It looks like, when the text about fitting the fireball through an arrow slit was originally written, it was certainly considered to be easier to get between two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving.



> Is it your opinion that the bead travels in in a zig-zagging, curving, automatic path to it's destination (like Magic Missle) as long as it doesn't pass through specifically an arrow-slit sized path?




If that's what it needs to do, sure.  

By 'specifically', I'd read instead 'or equivalent', but I don't consider half cover to be equivalently narrow to 9/10 cover.

Let's say I can see a person on the other side of a glass door.  I can't cast Charm Person on him - I don't have line of effect.

Now let's say there's a 1' square cat door in the bottom corner of the door.  Drawing a straight line from me to the person still goes through the glass.  But the one foot hole in the door means that the glass doesn't block line of effect - even though it's down in the corner.

Now, instead of Charm Person, I want to cast a Fireball to burst over the person's head.  The spell has line of effect, but the bead has to pass through a narrow passage - the cat door - to get there.  If I can make a ranged touch attack on the cat door, I can pass the bead through the gap - but I don't see anything prohibiting the curved path, down from my finger, through the cat door, then up above the person's head, as long as I make that touch attack roll successfully.  I've got line of effect to the place I want the spell to originate, and I hit the gap with my RTA.

Now let's swap the glass door for two guys fighting each other.  There's now so much empty space between me and the point of origin that no RTA is necessary - I'm no longer passing the bead through a narrow passage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Abraxas (Jun 22, 2006)

Just an aside regarding the cover issues



> From my reading, it's a staight line. The arrow-slit is just one example and not an exhaustive list of what is meant by "impacting on a material body".



 The arrow slit does, however, give a reference to the amount of cover needed before an attack roll is required. It originated in 3.0 where an arrow slit was linked directly to a given amount of cover (nine-tenths). If an attack roll was needed for any amount of cover why wouldn't they have just said whenever the target point has cover with respect to you an attack roll is required?



> You draw a straight line from any part of your square to the destination point, and if there is a material body in that path then there is a chance you will impact that material body. People move. Whatever gap you were aiming for might in fact be covered with a person by the time your bead gets there. Just like people provide cover for regular ranged attacks, they do the same for shooting a magic bead at a point in space.



There is a difference though - no other spell (and no other ranged attack) hits the cover if your attack roll misses. Hitting cover, in general, was a 3.0 mechanic and is now an optional mechanic in 3.5 (DMG pg24).



> I do not think this is a house rule. I think the RAW states that you have a chance of hitting a creature that is between you and the point you are aiming at, and provides for a ranged touch attack to hit a target that has something interferring with your ability to hit your target.



I believe it is an optional rule extrapolated from nine-tenths cover to any degree of cover.  By the way, do you also allow the character creating cover to be missed (and the original target to still be hit) if the flubbed attack roll to place the spell would normally miss him due to his dodge bonus to AC? If not I believe your application of the variant rule is extremely harsh. YMMV


----------



## Grog (Jun 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> We are comparing apples to apples.
> 
> As I noted, as far as core rules, fireball IS the comparable spell for the spell slots we are talking about.  Glitterdust isn't a direct damage spell, and that's the topic under discussion - direct damage spells.




No, the topic under discussion is combat spells. As I've said on multiple occasions in this thread, there are many things a Wizard/Sorceror can do to assist in combat besides casting direct damage spells. And in many cases, those other things are going to be vastly more useful than doing a small amount (which is what Magic Missile does) of direct damage to a single enemy.

Perhaps your continuing focus on direct damage is part of the problem?


----------



## WarlockLord (Jun 22, 2006)

Has anone here ever lost a PC to a magic missile?  And I don't mean a PC that's badly wounded, I mean: Has a magic missile ever wrecked your whole day?  Ray of enfeeblement can.  Fireball can. I have never, ever, seen a PC go down because of magic missile.  Even a mage can take a hit from that.  If one of my PC's get's hit, they'd take it , laugh, and respond with lethal force.


----------



## Abraxas (Jun 22, 2006)

Not a PC, but a cohort - a rogue/shadowdancers shadow companion was taken out by magic missiles - twice - he never had the character call for one again cause they were too weak.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, if we again look at the 3E rules (which took a slightly less arbitrary approach to cover and arrow slits, when the fireball text was originally written), let's try shooting an arrow at a target on the other side of two actively moving, fighting people, and then at one on the other side of a fixed arrow slit that is not moving.
> 
> Bonus to target's AC in case 1: +4.
> Bonus to target's AC in case 2: +10.
> ...




My understanding is that the +4 adjustment is the adjustment to AC for hitting one of the people fighting in that melee, not hitting a target well behind them and whose view they are blocking.



> If that's what it needs to do, sure.
> 
> By 'specifically', I'd read instead 'or equivalent', but I don't consider half cover to be equivalently narrow to 9/10 cover.
> 
> ...




I just don't see any evidence in the spell description itself that indicates it's a bead that curves and weaves around objects that are greater in size than an arrow slit.  I think you have taken the single example the offerred and draw greater conclusions from it than intended.  The spell says if it impacts on a material body, it detonates.  You use the normal rules for seeing if a ranged object impacts on a material body accidentally.  Unless the spell description says you don't have to use those rules because it magically weaves around non-small barriers, we are stuck with the normal rules.  And the normal rules say that cover, even people in the way, can be struck with ranged moving objects.

And I think that is a big reason why some people think magic missle is not overpowered - because they have inadvertedly houseruled fireball to magically weave around barriers and strike tagets in ways that let them more easily strike NPCs while leaving PCs unscathed.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 22, 2006)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Just an aside regarding the cover issues
> 
> The arrow slit does, however, give a reference to the amount of cover needed before an attack roll is required. It originated in 3.0 where an arrow slit was linked directly to a given amount of cover (nine-tenths). If an attack roll was needed for any amount of cover why wouldn't they have just said whenever the target point has cover with respect to you an attack roll is required?




Given we are talking about a 3.5 rule that just calls it cover, I am not sure that it isn't the other way around.  Why WOULD they have specified anything with cover when they used an example that is just cover?



> There is a difference though - no other spell (and no other ranged attack) hits the cover if your attack roll misses. Hitting cover, in general, was a 3.0 mechanic and is now an optional mechanic in 3.5 (DMG pg24).




I'm confused as to where you are coming from.  First you use 3.0 to justify your interpretation of 9/10ths cover, and then disclaim 3.0 when it comes to hitting cover.  Is it a 3.0 spell, in which case you can always hit cover, or is it a 3.5 spell, in which case the example is merely cover and not a specific kind of 9/10ths cover?



> I believe it is an optional rule extrapolated from nine-tenths cover to any degree of cover.  By the way, do you also allow the character creating cover to be missed (and the original target to still be hit) if the flubbed attack roll to place the spell would normally miss him due to his dodge bonus to AC? If not I believe your application of the variant rule is extremely harsh. YMMV




I am not applying a variant rule.  Its IN the spell text that you can hit cover with it.  It would be a houserule to claim that you can never accidentally hit cover with a fireball.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 22, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> No, the topic under discussion is combat spells. As I've said on multiple occasions in this thread, there are many things a Wizard/Sorceror can do to assist in combat besides casting direct damage spells. And in many cases, those other things are going to be vastly more useful than doing a small amount (which is what Magic Missile does) of direct damage to a single enemy.
> 
> Perhaps your continuing focus on direct damage is part of the problem?




Not really.  Everyone else seems to be on the topic of direct damage spells. We all agree that there are other options for spells.  In fact, I mentioned (and then re-mentioned, and then re-re-mentioned) that one reason why a sorceror would choose to use a magic missle in a higher level spot is because those other non-direct-damage spells are easier to chose because you already have such a universally appealing and powerful direct-damage spell at your disposal that you don't need to burn another spells-known slot on a direct-damage spell and can use that spells-known slot on something else (like the spells you mentioned).

It's not an issue of whether a sorceror can choose other spells.  It's a question of whether relative to other spells in it's same category (which is direct damage) magic missle is overpowered.  Just like, if discussing whether mage armor is overpowered, we would compare it to other AC boosting spells (or miss chance spells like Blur).  And when discussing whether or not Entangle is overpowered, we would compare it to other battlefield control spells (like web and grease and Black Tentacles).


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 22, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Has anone here ever lost a PC to a magic missile?  And I don't mean a PC that's badly wounded, I mean: Has a magic missile ever wrecked your whole day?  Ray of enfeeblement can.  Fireball can. I have never, ever, seen a PC go down because of magic missile.  Even a mage can take a hit from that.  If one of my PC's get's hit, they'd take it , laugh, and respond with lethal force.




Yes, definitely, multiple times.  It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion.  Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle.  A single casting from a 9th level caster does on average about 18 points damage, which is more than half of an average wizard's hit points of an equivelent level.  Two castings will take him down entirely, and that is without any metamagic.  The magic missle firing, flying, improved invisible sorceror or wizard can be a real hassle to a mid-level party (and much worse if there is more than one of them).


----------



## Victim (Jun 22, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Has anone here ever lost a PC to a magic missile?  And I don't mean a PC that's badly wounded, I mean: Has a magic missile ever wrecked your whole day?  Ray of enfeeblement can.  Fireball can. I have never, ever, seen a PC go down because of magic missile.  Even a mage can take a hit from that.  If one of my PC's get's hit, they'd take it , laugh, and respond with lethal force.




We've lost people to Magic Missile in highly assymetric battles.  When our high level PCs attacked an evil cult, the leaders used the weaker people to soften us up.  A bunch of like 5th level wizards or so all launched a coordinated volley on one character at a time.  After the first round, they lost too many guys for critical levels of firepower, but a cohort bought it.

Generally, Enervation has been the nasty "spam" spell in our games though.  Most of the players in our group prefer using sorcerers to wizards, including the main DM, so running out isn't as big a deal.

Also, we usually use higher point buy totals, so most wizards usually make a significant investment in Con to counter their lower HD.  And maybe our group just likes Con anyway.  I don't think 18 damage is half the 7th wizard's HP in my game.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the +4 adjustment is the adjustment to AC for hitting one of the people fighting in that melee, not hitting a target well behind them and whose view they are blocking.




No, there's a +4 AC for soft cover if the line from your square to your target passes through a square occupied by a creature.  It's entirely separate to the penalty for making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee.



> The spell says if it impacts on a material body, it detonates.




That's right.



> You use the normal rules for seeing if a ranged object impacts on a material body accidentally.  Unless the spell description says you don't have to use those rules because it magically weaves around non-small barriers, we are stuck with the normal rules.  And the normal rules say that cover, even people in the way, can be struck with ranged moving objects.




The normal rules (in 3E) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it might strike the cover.  The normal rules (in 3.5) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it misses - there is no chance of it striking the cover.  The rules for fireball state that if you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, and attack roll to hit the opening is required, and if this misses, the obstacle is struck.  If you aren't attempting to send the bead through a narrow passage, no attack roll is called for by the spell text, nor by the rules for area spells.

Note that you don't make an attack roll to strike your target square, modified by cover from the obstacle; you make an attack roll to strike the opening.

If we were using the standard 3E "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" rule (a variant rule in 3.5), we would make an attack roll against the AC of the target grid intersection, modified by the cover bonus of the wall-with-arrow-slit (+10).  If we struck that AC, we would hit our target grid intersection.  If we missed by 10 or less, we would strike the wall.  If we missed by more than 10, we would miss completely.

But instead, we make an attack roll against the AC of the arrowslit - 10, -5 for Dex of 0, plus size modifier.  The AC of our target is irrelevant, as is any Cover bonus (since the wall provides no cover to the arrowslit).

It's a completely different mechanic to striking cover, and it applies when sending the bead through a narrow opening.

-Hyp.


----------



## Abraxas (Jun 22, 2006)

> Given we are talking about a 3.5 rule that just calls it cover, I am not sure that it isn't the other way around. Why WOULD they have specified anything with cover when they used an example that is just cover?



Because If it was any amount of cover, and not just what used to be 9/10 cover, why not just say cover? The reference appears, to me at least, to just be a cut and paste job with no consideration of new cover rules.



> I'm confused as to where you are coming from. First you use 3.0 to justify your interpretation of 9/10ths cover, and then disclaim 3.0 when it comes to hitting cover. Is it a 3.0 spell, in which case you can always hit cover, or is it a 3.5 spell, in which case the example is merely cover and not a specific kind of 9/10ths cover?



I was just attempting to illustrate that the 3.5 text of the spell appears to use 3.0 rules - in 3.0 if the attack roll misses you could hit cover, in 3.5 if the attack roll misses you don't strike cover (unless you use the variant rule in the DMG).



> I am not applying a variant rule. Its IN the spell text that you can hit cover with it. It would be a houserule to claim that you can never accidentally hit cover with a fireball.



I understand it is in the spell description - I am not saying you can never hit cover. However, I believe your interpretation is akin to the variant hitting cover rule in the DMG.
I believe there is a difference between targeting a narrow opening (the arrow slit example in the spell description) and targeting the space around an ally who provides cover to the point you want the fireball to burst from. I think the difference is so great that no attack roll should be required to target the space surrounding an interposing ally because that space isn't a narrow passage.

I am curious, What AC do you give the area surrounding your interposing ally?


----------



## WarlockLord (Jun 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes, definitely, multiple times.  It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion.  Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle.  A single casting from a 9th level caster does on average about 18 points damage, which is more than half of an average wizard's hit points of an equivelent level.  Two castings will take him down entirely, and that is without any metamagic.  The magic missle firing, flying, improved invisible sorceror or wizard can be a real hassle to a mid-level party (and much worse if there is more than one of them).




If your spellcasters are in such a perilous position from one MM, why don't they just slap shield on themselves?  In one of my adventures, a PC drow wizard held off a volley of MM's with one shield spell (3 wizards with all MM's prepared). And the MMing flying invisible guy would probably be better off with fireball.  Not everyone has evasion and good reflex saves.  The universe isn't monks, wraiths, and so forth.  

As for that sorceror who used 4th level slots on MMs, well, she reminds me of my old drow shadowcaster.  I've discussed him on other threads.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion.




Except if you've got the Shield spell. Or a Brooch of Shielding. Or full concealment. Or Spell Resistance.  Or Invisibility (or even better, Improved Invisibility). Or a Minor Globe of Invulnerablility.  Or... Well, I think you get the point.

It doesn't *always* hit.  It's stopped by a simple 1st level spell and many other ways.

It's *nowhere* as powerful as it's made out to be.

Is it a good spell? No doubt.  Is it the 'end all be all' spell as so many claim? Hardly.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle.




I'm still baffled as to why none of these spellcasters had Shield.. either as a personal spell, scroll, or wand.  Honestly, if the PC spellcasters were falling to MM, it seems they deserved it.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jun 25, 2006)

This is an odd thread. It would have to be an incredibly powerful 1st level spell to be noticebly better than most higher-level spells. A spell doesn't have to be 3.0 haste to be overpowered.

  For MM to be technically overpowered, it only needs to be notably better than other 1st level combat spells. Compared to other 1st level damage spells, I don't think there is any comparison, even with most of them being upgraded in 3.5. But how good is too good? Is Magic Missle good enough to be a 2nd level spell? If it is, should it be changed, or should the sacred cow be left alone?

  Or you could compare it to fireball for some reason. Ah well.


----------



## Warmage-in-Onley (Jun 25, 2006)

Shield is not a great defense against 1 20th level wizard.  Shield is a great defense against 20 1st level wizards.  Remember, the defense of the Arcane College will rely heavily on prepping MM!


----------

