DD and high lv play? [Archive] - Wizards Community

DD and high lv play? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
journeyman777
02-22-07, 05:53 PM Maybe somebody can make sense of this for me.

When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster?

Where's the break point here? Casters have save-or-be-screwed effects at pretty much every level, non-casters deal damage basically the same way at every lv, and enemy saves, HD, and AC all theoretically scale fairly evenly in relation to PC capabilities. Am I overlooking something that suddenly makes non-magical damage dealing so effective at that magical DD is no longer needed or is there something else at work here?
swallowyersoul
02-22-07, 06:26 PM once you get the point where it's a mission kill effect, it's often better math to go for those rather than direct damage spells.

i disagree that direct damage is 'useless', but let's run the math just to be clear.

saves usually break down to about a 75% save rate for the good save and a 50% save rate for the bad save if you're in a level-appropriate encounter against one bad guy. SR is built on beating SR about half the time.

so you're in a fight against a baddie. you can choose to go for direct damage, or for a save-or-die effect. you'll beat SR half the time. they'll fail the save half of those times. on average, you'll cast four spells before finishing the enemy.

often, what with the damage caps, it will take more than 4 cones of cold to knock out one level-appropriate enemy. so the math favores save-or-die.

unless you're fighting hordes, in which case you want area effect.
journeyman777
02-22-07, 06:51 PM But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single target, whereas there is very little that others can do to assist a save-or-die against that same target. Either I end up making their efforts irrelevant or they make mine irrelevant. Against groups, DD seems even better since save-or-die AoEs are very high lv (thus representing a greater investment with less minimum return).

Your reply is appreciated. I'm admittedly a bit biased against save-or-suffer effects (I've played with a number of people who never seem to roll below 10 when it matters and can practically roll 20 on command). That and my own poor luck makes me favor tactics with a good minimum effectiveness. I haven't played high levels often enough to really compare them in actual play experience, so I welcome outside veiwpoints.
Seeker95
02-22-07, 08:08 PM But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single targetThe most important part of this assessment is "single target". Add multiple targets, and the save-or-die outweighs damage-dealing for the caster. However, if the caster can cause damage to the multiple targets, then it swings back to a style and preference call.
Manic Man
02-22-07, 10:42 PM When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster?

A few things.
Melee classes don't have save or die effects barring magical items, so they are stuck with damage

Melee classes have many many ways to multiply damage, non gish casters don't.

Save or dies only need to bypass 2 things SR and the saving throw. Melees need to bypass AC, DR, hp.
fatal error
02-22-07, 11:05 PM I think it can very easily vary by circumstance. The nice thing about damage is it always synergizes with other party members' efforts. So, in a way, if you're up against a single enemy, damage could be better, because the fighter, errrr wild shaped druid, and rogue are dealing damage as well, and since it is one big baddie he might be more likely to make his save.

Against a lot of little ones, of course AoE damage is best. It is the small group of mid-challenge bad guys that I think Save-or-Dies are best for. If you're up against 3 enemies, you can Save-or-Die two while the melee tank and DPS, the Druid and Rogue, work on the other enemy.

Fact is, 1d6 damage a level just doesn't keep pace with constitution score increases. Well, it doesn't even keep pace with the 1d8+Con of a low level enemy, but especially at high levels the gap just gets larger and larger as HD and Con increases, while your 1d6/level is still 1d6/level. Save-or-Dies always keep pace with level, unless they have an HD cap.
swallowyersoul
02-23-07, 01:58 AM But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single target, whereas there is very little that others can do to assist a save-or-die against that same target. Either I end up making their efforts irrelevant or they make mine irrelevant.

you're touching on one of many reasons a lot of folks have problems with save-or-sink spells and abilities. i often find them frustrating myself. i suspect there will be a pretty serious examination of them once 4.0 gets moving.
johnkretzer
02-23-07, 12:40 PM Maybe somebody can make sense of this for me.

When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster?

Where's the break point here? Casters have save-or-be-screwed effects at pretty much every level, non-casters deal damage basically the same way at every lv, and enemy saves, HD, and AC all theoretically scale fairly evenly in relation to PC capabilities. Am I overlooking something that suddenly makes non-magical damage dealing so effective at that magical DD is no longer needed or is there something else at work here?

You hit the head on the nail why people consider casters to be superior to non-casters. Because they consider direct damage so meanless at higher levels that what a fighter or a rogue can do is just lame. But to compare a fighter to a fighter they only have damage. It is also a very limited way to look at the game.
Ezell Pike
02-23-07, 01:58 PM Another thing to consider is that save or die spells are used by players far more often than DM's. The game designers have become enamored with player survival and thusly nerfed poison among other things.
Chaos Theory
02-23-07, 02:16 PM Save or die effects are great. Till you meet a golem.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
journeyman777 02-22-07, 05:53 PM	Maybe somebody can make sense of this for me. When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster? Where's the break point here? Casters have save-or-be-screwed effects at pretty much every level, non-casters deal damage basically the same way at every lv, and enemy saves, HD, and AC all theoretically scale fairly evenly in relation to PC capabilities. Am I overlooking something that suddenly makes non-magical damage dealing so effective at that magical DD is no longer needed or is there something else at work here?
swallowyersoul 02-22-07, 06:26 PM	once you get the point where it's a mission kill effect, it's often better math to go for those rather than direct damage spells. i disagree that direct damage is 'useless', but let's run the math just to be clear. saves usually break down to about a 75% save rate for the good save and a 50% save rate for the bad save if you're in a level-appropriate encounter against one bad guy. SR is built on beating SR about half the time. so you're in a fight against a baddie. you can choose to go for direct damage, or for a save-or-die effect. you'll beat SR half the time. they'll fail the save half of those times. on average, you'll cast four spells before finishing the enemy. often, what with the damage caps, it will take more than 4 cones of cold to knock out one level-appropriate enemy. so the math favores save-or-die. unless you're fighting hordes, in which case you want area effect.
journeyman777 02-22-07, 06:51 PM	But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single target, whereas there is very little that others can do to assist a save-or-die against that same target. Either I end up making their efforts irrelevant or they make mine irrelevant. Against groups, DD seems even better since save-or-die AoEs are very high lv (thus representing a greater investment with less minimum return). Your reply is appreciated. I'm admittedly a bit biased against save-or-suffer effects (I've played with a number of people who never seem to roll below 10 when it matters and can practically roll 20 on command). That and my own poor luck makes me favor tactics with a good minimum effectiveness. I haven't played high levels often enough to really compare them in actual play experience, so I welcome outside veiwpoints.
Seeker95 02-22-07, 08:08 PM	But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single targetThe most important part of this assessment is "single target". Add multiple targets, and the save-or-die outweighs damage-dealing for the caster. However, if the caster can cause damage to the multiple targets, then it swings back to a style and preference call.
Manic Man 02-22-07, 10:42 PM	When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster? A few things. Melee classes don't have save or die effects barring magical items, so they are stuck with damage Melee classes have many many ways to multiply damage, non gish casters don't. Save or dies only need to bypass 2 things SR and the saving throw. Melees need to bypass AC, DR, hp.
fatal error 02-22-07, 11:05 PM	I think it can very easily vary by circumstance. The nice thing about damage is it always synergizes with other party members' efforts. So, in a way, if you're up against a single enemy, damage could be better, because the fighter, errrr wild shaped druid, and rogue are dealing damage as well, and since it is one big baddie he might be more likely to make his save. Against a lot of little ones, of course AoE damage is best. It is the small group of mid-challenge bad guys that I think Save-or-Dies are best for. If you're up against 3 enemies, you can Save-or-Die two while the melee tank and DPS, the Druid and Rogue, work on the other enemy. Fact is, 1d6 damage a level just doesn't keep pace with constitution score increases. Well, it doesn't even keep pace with the 1d8+Con of a low level enemy, but especially at high levels the gap just gets larger and larger as HD and Con increases, while your 1d6/level is still 1d6/level. Save-or-Dies always keep pace with level, unless they have an HD cap.
swallowyersoul 02-23-07, 01:58 AM	But the party tank and rogue can assist with damage dealing to reduce both the time and spell slots required against a single target, whereas there is very little that others can do to assist a save-or-die against that same target. Either I end up making their efforts irrelevant or they make mine irrelevant. you're touching on one of many reasons a lot of folks have problems with save-or-sink spells and abilities. i often find them frustrating myself. i suspect there will be a pretty serious examination of them once 4.0 gets moving.
johnkretzer 02-23-07, 12:40 PM	Maybe somebody can make sense of this for me. When hanging out on the magic/psionic boards I repeatedly see the claim that direct damage is useless beyond lv 10 or so. When hanging out on the classes board, I always see non-caster builds compared based on damage output. So if damage output is still relavent for a lv 20 melee build, why is it considered so useless to a lv 20 caster? Where's the break point here? Casters have save-or-be-screwed effects at pretty much every level, non-casters deal damage basically the same way at every lv, and enemy saves, HD, and AC all theoretically scale fairly evenly in relation to PC capabilities. Am I overlooking something that suddenly makes non-magical damage dealing so effective at that magical DD is no longer needed or is there something else at work here? You hit the head on the nail why people consider casters to be superior to non-casters. Because they consider direct damage so meanless at higher levels that what a fighter or a rogue can do is just lame. But to compare a fighter to a fighter they only have damage. It is also a very limited way to look at the game.
Ezell Pike 02-23-07, 01:58 PM	Another thing to consider is that save or die spells are used by players far more often than DM's. The game designers have become enamored with player survival and thusly nerfed poison among other things.
Chaos Theory 02-23-07, 02:16 PM	Save or die effects are great. Till you meet a golem.