D&D speed downgrade

[Qawsedf234]

So Elminster, Drizzt and Mordenkaine are labled as MHS+, but there's an extremly large issue with that. Their speed comes from this Apocalypse from the Sky calc, but there's no reason they should scale to it. It's impossible for them or anyone to actually avoid the attack once its triggered unlike other spells such as fireball, lightning bolt, or Melf's minute meteors. So they and others are scaled to an attack that's unavoidable once triggered.


Their speed should be lowered to either "At least supersonic+ (above people who can avoid Mel's Minute Meteors )" or "At least hypersonic+ (Above people who can avoid Call Lightning )" if the second calc is accepted

 

[Xulrev]

I have a huge issue with the Melf's Minute Meteors calc:

The calculation presumes that the meteors are actually HITTING the adventurers trying to dodge the damae; Melf's Minute Meteors offers no attack roll throw or ranged touch attack at all and therefore is specifically unable to be a targetted attack per game mechanics.

Simply put, the Melf calc is mistaken in its approach to the spell's mechanics, and the calc would have to be reworked for dodging the resultant explosion of the meteors, since you are not capable of hurling the meteors at a targettable foe. This would mean only the hypersonic calc is acceptable, with that only applying to the highest tiers and most everyone else being some vague form of Superhuman since they can luck out and have twitch reactions that let them 'dodge' small explosions on occasion.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Xulrev

Dodging a bow at close range is Subsonic regardless. As for Melf's Minute Meteors, yes, you are dodging the meteor itself. Or at least, that's how I interpret it- the explosion is the other half of the damage. You roll away from the meteor but are caught by the explosion. If that's not suitable, that's fine, I suppose, that was simply my interpretation.

But yeah. Subsonic movement speed is justifiable because even base form adventurers can dodge bows at close range. I calc'd it at one point, if need be I can dig that up, too.

All this aside, a calc group member looked at the premise for Melf's Minute and it was accepted. So Supersonic+ is a thing that is accepted by this site. If you'd like to refute it, feel free, but I am of the understanding that you are mistaken. Perhaps a suitable alternative would be "At least Subsonic, likely/possibly/etc Supersonic+"?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Let's assume the adventurer instead dodges the explosion. According to this, the speed of a pretty standard explosive is 8050 m/s. This is actually a lot higher than our last assumptions, IIRC, but eh, letsago. We'll change no other numbers, as this was the only thing brought into question.

High-End: 0.61 m x 8050 m/s / 1.52 m = 3230.59 m/s, Mach 9.42, or on the upper bounds of Hypersonic

Low-End: 0.61 m x 8050 m/s / 36.58 m = 134.24 m/s, Subsonic

Like I said, I find the original calculation to be much more likely, but hey, if you'd like to assume they're dodging the explosion. Here yah go.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Just to lowball, we could go with the slowest detonation velocity here, at 4000 m/s (since this is a solid explosive rather than a gaseous one).

High-End: Mach 4.68, Supersonic+

Low-End: 66.70 m/s, Subsonic

If we do rework the calc (I'm not opposed, just trying to help out), then the high-end here should be used since it uses the lowest known speed of a solid explosive (which is what the meteor itself is).

Supersonic+ should remain based on these facts. I can repost it as a blog for cataloguing purposes if it helps.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Or, we could do one last quick speed calc for it. According to the wikipedia page, velocity increases with density of the object (typically). As a meteor it should have at least a density of 3 g/cm^3, which, on this, has a low-ball speed of 4250 m/s. So the speeds are gonna be a little higher.

High-End: Mach 4.97, Supersonic+ (just barely outside of Hypersonic, feelsbadman.exe)

Low-End: 70.87 m/s, Subsonic

 

[Xulrev]

I have no issue with the calc's results as-given, I'm not insinuating you did math wrong here just to be clear. It's just that the spell makes it perfectly clear you are not attacking anyone with the meteors. Compar Minute Meteors to Meteor Swarm ; Meteor Swarm you must make an attack roll to hit someone with them. Minute Meteors, you do not, and only explosion damage is given. No bludgeoning damage whatsoever because there was never an impact to begin with, if you catch my drift.

Per the rules of D&D, Melf's Minute Meteors is not being used to assault anyone. I am not taking issue with the site's rules or any calc group members or any of that, to be explicitly clear; I am taking issue with the spell being presented wrongly and the calc's premises therefore being flawed as a result. The mechanics are succinct on this I do believe.

I have no issue with your other calcs on this matter however, Bambu, I just want to make sure we are calc'ing things appropriately, so I do apologize if any of this or my earlier comment came across as hostile. I just enjoy being as accurate as possible! And I support the explosion-dodging calcs, although I think lowballing might be best in this circumstance for lower level adventurers, with higher level ones obviously surpassing the high-end calc arbitrarily (probably around level 12 or so I should imagine).

Does that seem agreeable to you as well?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Perfectly so. I didn't take offense, I'm just trying to help out make Dungeons and Dragons a viable verse here rather than something that, say, floats around with Unknown ratins forever (with Beholder being 9-B for being comparable to level one adventurers oof).

Anyways, which of the explosive reduxes would you prefer? Personally, I prefer the 4000 m/s, and the high-end would be used purely because the high-end assumes one dodges it at close range, which is already possible.

As for your proposal for levels. I am in disagreement here- anything over 5th level should scale to Supersonic+, as the spell is initially cast at difficulty level 3 (first attainable at level 5). The low-ball was from a distance, but the spell has an equally high chance to be dodged at close range or high range.

In my own opinion, here is the speed of the verse:

Low tiers scale to close-range arrow doding, at Subsonic.

Mid tiers (the ones we're talking about) scale to explosion dodging, at Supersonic+. Anything over CR 5 creature wise would also logically scale, as they can battle adventurers of this level and provide decent challenge.

High tiers are iffy, but if we can agree whether or not lightning attacks we've mentioned are legitimate (I've got no strong opinion either way), they'd scale to the Hypersonic calc done earlier.

 

[Xulrev]

I'm fine with the proposed standards as you put them, honestly!

 

[Zeromaru_X]

I'm with Mr. Bambu in this, as well.

We should have to determine characters in the epic tier, tho (at least, as that tier was determined in older editions, such as 3.x or 4e, were characters were beyond superhuman levels)

 

[Qawsedf234]

The way we currently do it seems to be scaling to CR and the minimum level a Wizard needs to be in order to cast a spell.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

CR is literally a way of being comparable to a group of people of that level, so it should be used. And yes, the minimum level a wizard can cast a spell at would mean any character of that level would be comparable to the wizard in strength.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the TLDR conclusions here?

 

[Zeromaru_X]

And yes, the minimum level a wizard can cast a spell at would mean any character of that level would be comparable to the wizard in strength.

Don't want to be that guy, but in D&D this is not true, as D&D has the problem that casters ALWAYS are more powerful and more useful than non-casters. This is always an issue of balance and stuff.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Define more powerful. Because in a one on one engagement I'm pretty sure a brute force character can heavily damage or kill a caster of equal level. Now a 15th level wizard/cleric is more useful than a 15th level fighter/barbarian, but I don't think they can easily win a encounter without an advantage of some sort.

 

[Zeromaru_X]

Define more powerful. Because in a one on one engagement I'm pretty sure a brute force character can heavily damage or kill a caster of equal level.

A caster can destroy an edifice using magic. A non-caster cannot, not even with weapons. A caster can destroy entire armies with a snap, a non-caster could do the same with luck and after hours. And a non-caster cannot disintegrate waving a finger, or kill with just a word (power word: death).

So, yeah, there is a big difference, and not just mechanically. Lorewise, for instance, Albanon (protagonist of the Abyssal Plague novels set in Nentir Vale) can kill a lot of demons attacking Fallcrest in one of the books with just one spell. While Shara (fighter) or Roghar (paladin) had problems and had to kill one at the time. By the time they killed three demons, Albanon had decimated an army.

I can get you the source if needed.

In an one-on-one confrontantion... I dunno. I mean, even Elminster had problems facing a caster one-on-one in the novels. A wizard can kill a fighter with a fireball, and has more chances to survive with spells that increase stats. A fighter needs special equipment for that.

 

[Qawsedf234]

> I can get you the source if needed.

Nah I know that Wizards have far better AoE options and are generally stronger than the run of the mill melee warrior

> A wizard can kill a fighter with a fireball

At that high of a level? Maybe I'm just not well versed in the novels then.

> A fighter needs special equipment for that.

In general most fighters are going to pack magical equipment past a certain point. If only because a decent swath of monsters are immune or resistant to non-magic stuff

 

[Zeromaru_X]

At that high of a level? Maybe I'm just not well versed in the novels then.

Well, in the novels magic is more logical than in-game. If you're burned, you will not walk away as if nothing happened because "didn't lower my HP to zero".

In general most fighters are going to pack magical equipment past a certain point.

But this is a crucial point, because at base level, there is a whole difference. I know here we will be using highly optimized characters for vs., but that also mean highly optimized casters, with metamagic feats and what have you.

This is a problem in charOP forums in fact. Casters will always be superior to non-casters, specially at higher levels.

 

[Qawsedf234]

> This is a problem in charOP forums in fact. Casters will always be superior to non-casters, specially at higher levels.

Yeah, just how the game dynamic works.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Fighters will lose against casters of equal optimization, say, about 80-90% of the time. That said, a Fighter would be comparable in VS Battles terms if only because they are considered a match to the same group of enemies. Same goes for classes like thieves, bards, barbarians, monks, and so on.

In fact, we should really just convert the Wizard into a composite Adventurer page, since the classes can A. take on multiple classes and B. are really just an insert for the player themselves. At least, that would mean the least pages and the most complete profile.

 

[Antvasima]

I haven't had the time to read the entire thread, but think that the first post seems to make sense.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It generally does, yes, make sense. The calcs just need looked at (there are 3 speed calcs for the verse, currently).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

mid-end was accepted for base characters, making them Subsonic. High-end was accepted for explosions means Supersonic+ for them. Lightning has not been accepted or declined yet.

Praise the TataHakai~

Still waiting for the High 7-C calc to be looked at one last time, since I've now added the statement that CAPE was my method.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.