|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 4:36PM
#1
|
|
|
A friend of mine (also a DM of the playtest) mentioned adding the controlling trait modifier to spell damage. Naturally, I suggested he was mistaken -- that spells contained all of their damage information within their text. He pointed out page 12 in the How to Play information under Damage Rolls:
Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it
deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and so forth can grant a bonus to your damage. Well, I can see he has a case as the rules are written, even though it does seem to contradict the text under the various trait listings where St and Dex are called out for adding to Weapon damage rolls, but Int, Wis and Cha are not. Is there a ruling on this that I've just missed? Slagathore
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 5:17PM
#2
|
|
|
The text you quoted is from the first playtest packet--unfortunately, when they changed the spells, they neglected to edit that text to reflect the changes.
So, technically, by strict wording? Yes, you add your Intelligence. In reality? It is extremely, painfully obvious that you are not supposed to add your stat to spell damage, now that they have built in static modifiers.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 9:52PM
#3
|
|
|
Storyteller, that was an excellent response! Nicely worded. I find myself in complete agreement with your sentiments. I do look forward to their reworking the spells again. Trait bonuses instead of static bonuses and progressive spell effects (additional magic missiles and extra d6 on fireballs with level progression) are much needed. Not to mention a bit of realignment to match the power curve.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:48PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I think that in cases where you would add an INT modifier, thr spell description would specifically say so .
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 9:23AM
#5
|
|
|
Aehrion68, I have been reading it that way myself, but the nature of rules sets (which thestoryteller rightly points out haven't really been updated to match the spell update) would mean that the general rule applied unless specifically overridden by a specific rule (such is the case that although weapons report a specific amount of damage, the rule to add your ST or Dex overrides it).
I think this is a case where we must use good judgment and rule as you have, Aehrion68.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 06, 2012 - 6:36PM
#6
|
|
|
We had the same questions and ended up trying a test session each way. To be honest, it didn't seem like adding the extra damage for spellcasters was that bad (at least at low levels). It definately had an impact and average encounters were quicker with less grinding.
When we replayed the same encounters without the extra damage, the outcome was more or less the same, encounters just took a bit longer to finish. The easy ones were still easy, the hard ones were still hard, but it didn't feel unbalanced. The most notable difference other than shortened combats was which at wills were used more often (at will spells vs at will melee attacks).
The test party consisted of a Guardian Cleric and Bladesinger Fighter with Ray of Frost and Shocking Grasp, both first level, so there was lots of at will spells being tossed around. We did 5 counters built for a two man part with encounters increasing from easy to hard.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 06, 2012 - 7:02PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
I'd rather not have mages add their Int to the damage. The static is fine. I don't really want every stat linked to combat.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 06, 2012 - 11:11PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2008
|
I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication. I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 3:55PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignifcant.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 8:10PM
#10
|
|
|
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignifcant.
But the differences between 1d6+3 and 1d6+7, 1d4+1 and 1d4+5, and even 4d4 and 4d4+4 are much more significant.
In the case of Magic Missile, for example, it nearly triples the damage. That's a big deal.
|
|
|
