Sorcerer spell grades in normal mode (all)

Remove all ads!

Since you are familiar with common rhetorical methods, you are no doubt also familiar with the following: Ignoring one or more arguments that have not be rendered void by another point in the same counter-argument. There are several examples of this in your latest post, but this is the fundamental problem, and the only one with which we need to be concerned: The model you chose to analyze, and the model I originally proposed, for the comparison of two probabilities of success is too inaccurate in light of JT's post.

The probability of success of any given attempt to debuff using two casts of a spell is P(k)=1-p(k, j)*p(k, l), where p is the probability of failure of the spell, k is the index of the spell to be used, and j and l refer to the casters. The probability of success of the first attempt to debuff using M+spell is Q(1)=1-p(1)+0.1. For any subsequent castings within its duration of effectiveness or a different buff, using one cast, is Q(k)=1-p(k)+0.1 for k > 1. For any subsequent castings within its duration of effectiveness or a different buff, using two casts, is R(k)=1-(p(k, j)+0.1)*(p(k, l)+0.1) for k > 1. The total probability of successes are P=prod(k=1 to N)P(k), Q=prod(k=1 to N)P(k), and R=prod(k=1 to N)R(k) with R(1)=Q(1). So far we have considered the N=1 case, and I congratulate you on your initially successful attempt to hide the results you got in the general case by constructing a special case where the odds might be more in favour to you and giving this case more attention, but as the general case has already been observed before your latest reply, it behooves you not to ignore it.

[ January 28, 2007, 23:59: Message edited by: Mokona=Modoki ]

 

Would be nice if you'd be more specific instead of talking about "several examples" without naming them so I could understand what you are talking about.
AFAIK the goal of a discussion isn't making all opposite arguments void one after another, usually this isn't possible.

I answered to your post directed at me which was only about the k=1 case and not to JT's. I didn't construct this special case, you brought it up.
And it's still good to know that casting debuffs for just one spell really isn't worth it.


But since you want me to answer to JT's k=n argument, I'll do it for you (and for everyone who's interested).

It's easy to calculate that for a victim's RRS of 11 (just average, half save, half fail) you'll need to cast 15 fireballs in a row after a Malison in order to get the same damage as if you cast fireball directly in the first round instead of malison.
If the RRS is different, you'll still need between 10 and unlimited fireballs to make malison worth it.
So debuffing for "save or half damage" spells is a waste of time.


Now lets take a look at "save or die" spells like "hold person". Let's imagine that "malison" hits an unlimited number of persons and look how many "hold person" spells you need in order to make the malison worthwhile.
Lets assume the average RRS of 11 again, malison increases the chance from 0.5 to 0.6
without malison: 0.5+0.5+0.5+...
with malison: 0+0.6+0.6+...
you reach 3 after 6 spells, so casting malison + 5 hold person yields the same result (3 held) as 6 hold person. Still not worth it.
If the RRS is 9 you need 5 spells (2 held), if 13 you need 7.
If the RRS is 5 you need 3 spells (0.6 held) to get even success.
With lower RRS M is evened out faster, but if you have to cast 6 spells in a row to affect only one enemy (like with malison and RRS3) you'd better use more effective tactics.

So there is no reason to use malison with "save or die" spells targeted at one person.
The treatment of spells like fireball against monsters with evasion works exactly the same and yields the same result.

There's only one kind of spells remaining for which malison might be useful, mass "save or die" spells like "Symbol of Hopelessness" or "chaos".

Lets assume the average RRS 11 again. Normally the save chance is 0.5, with malison 0.4.
Chance that a monster is unaffected after k spells:
Without malison: 0.5-0.25-0.125-0.0625-0.03125-...
With malison: 1.0- 0.4- 0.16- 0.064- 0.0256-...
So in the average case you need 5 spells in a row to make malison worth it, but the enemy ranks are usually weakened enough after the first 1-2 spells.
Like before the time when malison evens out decreases with lower RRS and increases with higher RRS, if RRS is 5, malison is evened out after 3 rounds (0.49 vs 0.512), still too long.

I don't know if you ever get into a situation where you have to fight a horde of enemies with exact RRS of 3-4, it would be quite a coincidence and you don't even know when it happens. And like with the "save or die" spells targeted at one monster, you'd better think about more efficient tactics.

For me the conclusion is: Malison is crap !

I wouldn't even have a wizard memorize it, let alone a sorc or bard pick it.


Back to your post M=M:
Since no one creates a formula without intending to use it, you'll surely tell us about the results you obtained for the general case.
Keep in mind that Q(k)=1-p(k)+0.1 yields a probability bigger than 1 for p(k) smaller than 0.1, the formula works only for p(k) in [0.15;0.95].

[ January 29, 2007, 01:02: Message edited by: kmonster ]

 

While your fireball count is true, the conclusion does not follow. This is mainly due to the incorrect model for counting damage saved. The damage dealt is N*D1 for no Malison and (N-1)*D2 for with Malison, where D1 and D2 are expected per person damage per N. However, N is not the number of castings of a spell. It's the number of full area activations. While it takes 15 Fireballs for Malison's bonus damage to overtake the additional casting's damage, it will only take 8 Firestorms, ~5 Call Lightning/Static Charges, and only 2 Fiery Clouds.

This calculation is incorrect. The total success is not the sum of the successes for each individual cast. For any given target, the probability of success is s=1-f, where f is the chance of failure.
Without Malison: s=1-f^n
With Malison: s=1-f^(n-1)
The calculation for success rate for a single target is precisely the same as that of a mass spell.

This is untrue. For the range where Malison chances the required roll by 2, the number of casts for Malison to become advantageous is inversely proportional to |11-d|, where d is the required roll on a d20, limited to 2-18. Consider the following example:

Let DC-SB=2. Then the enemy requires rolls of 3 to 20 on a d20 in order to save. Let us examine the chance of success against this person.
Without Malison: 0.1, 0.19
With Malison: 0, 0.2
In two casts, Malison is already at an advantage, as discussed during the N=1 case.

It's not particularly difficult to figure out what N needs to be in order for Malison to become advantageous. The following ordered doubles are the values of (DC-SB, minimal N)
(1, 2), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 3), (5, 3), (6, 4), (7, 4), (8, 4), (9, 5), (10, 5), (11, 5), (12, 5), (13, 5), (14, 4), (15, 4), (16, 4), (17, 4), (18, 3), (19, 5)

I brought up both the N=1 case and the general case. Since you persist in ignoring it, even after the second reply, I will calculate the probabilities explicitly.

Without Malison: P=(1-0.5^2)^N
With Malison: R=(1-0.4)*(1-0.4^2)^(N-1)
First, we note that for N > 1, there exists k such that k > 1, and for k > 1, P(k) is always less than or equal to R(k) regardless of the value of p(k, j) in [0, 1]. They are equal only in the case where the enemy always requires a 20 or 1 to save or fail, respectively. The difference in the R(k) and P(k) increases as roughly an Nth power function of DC-SB. For k=1, the case has already been examined and is in favor of R(1) for very low values. If we assume p(k, j)=0.5 for all (k, j), then casting without Malison has an advantage for N=1, 2, tied at N=3, and loses for N > 3. It's rather easy to find examples of N > 3: Simply find a group of enemies and cast Charm Person/Chromatic Orb/Dominate Person on N of them.

[ January 29, 2007, 10:31: Message edited by: Mokona=Modoki ]

 

Interesting thread!

I think lvl 2 Blindness spell is very useful against mages, they have bad fortitude saves, and once they fail they are as good as dead, they can not see anything and they do not cast anything=ripe for picking by your ranged attackers! I was able to beat Improved Xuki from Tal Rasha's Tactics4IWD2 mod by the help of this tiny spell, otherwise she could easily destroy my feeble, lvl 3-4 party.

It even freezes the archers and other ranged nuisances completely in their tracks! They can not shoot at you if they can't see you!

And do you know the duration? A solid 8 hours which is, like permanent! (either the enemies or you will be dead within that 8 hours anyway!)

Therefore, I am not saying it is a grade A spell, but most certainly not a F. It is far far more useful than other F-lvl 2 spells. A real life saver even, at least for me!

So, can you imagine what havoc can you cause with PW:Blind instead? I did not try it much, though, I like other lvl 8 spells (such as the dreaded Horrid Wilting) better!

 

Nice thread...now I'm hoping someone makes up a divine version for Clerics AND Druids soon...

 

Back before the patch, Doom and E did not offer saving throws at all, so you could all cast Malison, Recitation, E and Doom, giving a huge -8 penalty to all saving throws! Then throw away any save-or-die spell and they are toasted, easily!

But now both Doom and E offers a saving throw which makes them useless...if the enemy gets a saving throw to avoid his saving throws being lowered, well, I fail to see the logic.

Just have a back up mage cast Malison, let your cleric finish a Recitation and/or Prayer, then let loose a WoB or Mass Dominate and pray for some luck so that most enemies will fail their saving throws...That's ofcourse in HoF mode.

 

@Mokona=Modoki

1) The conclusion does follow with a little thinking. Even for the spells which do damage over time. The reason for malison being useless with fireballs is mainly that the victims are dead before malison is evened out and this also applies to spells which do damage over several rounds.

2)My calculation is correct.
I examined how many casting of hold person after a malison it takes to get the same average number of victims held as if you cast hold person in the first round.
This makes far more sense than your approach. In my comparison the caster moves on to the next victim when one is held, your formula works for the case that the caster keeps on casting at already held victims.
Casting mass effect spells like SoH requires a different approach since you also cast spells at already disabled enemies.
PS: Using the same variable (f) for two obviously different values is bad style.


3) Oops, my bad. Thank you for correcting me. I didn't examine the high RRS thoroughly. To complete your list I have to add that malison never becomes advantadgeous if DC-SB has a different value (lower than 1 or higher than 19).
(18,3) really seems to favor casting malison, but if 97,75 percent (that's usually all) of the enemies are affected after 2 spells no one would cast the 3rd spell. With high RRS the desired effect (more than 90 percent of the enemies disabled) is reached and casting stopped before malison is evened out.
So this change still doesn't make malison worth casting. The final conclusion about malison being crap remains.


About your calculation:

After finding out what the probabilities P und R you compared are representing I had to laugh. Good gag !
I assume you don't know yourself what exactly P and R mean (it has advantadges to make clear and proper definitions of the symbols you are using instead of just throwing variables around ) , so it's a nice riddle for you to find out the exact definitions and meanings of the P and R (and N) you were using. Post the solution when you found it.
If you don't understand your formula yourself you may ask me.
One hint: The comparison isn't a good way of examining the usefulness of malison, especially R is ridiculously unrealistic.

 

1. Not at all. It takes 2 casts of Fiery Cloud for Malison to become advantageous. Nor do the affected enemies have to be the same, since Malison has a much bigger AoE than Fiery Cloud. The most extreme example of this type of stacking is Shroud of Flames, although this spell also behaves differently since it's reflex negates, not reflex half.

2. Let the spell be from the following (by no means a complete list): Chromatic Orb, Command, Charm Person, Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, Blindness, Finger of Death, Disintegrate.

4. I have explicitly stated the conditions that R and P represent well before using the equations, in a previous post no less. They are quoted here for your convenience:

I have also used these equations and brought up examples of spells wherein N > 3 is a realistic figure. The equations, explanations, and examples are all already on the table and requires nothing more until further discussed.

 

1) "Fiery cloud" and "shroud of flame" aren't cast at all in most normal games, so I didn't give them a special treatment.
With only two castings of Fiery Cloud it takes 9 rounds to even out the use of malison (15x dealing damage), it's very unlikely that enemies remain standing in the cloud and survive that long. So even if you like this spell it doesn't make malison worth taking.

4) Not a real definition. Too many things aren't cleary defined and left for guessing.
You call P and and R when they depend on N "The total probabilities of successes" - what does this mean ?
At least one success ? All spells successful ? Most of the the spells suceessful ? The sum of the success probabilities up to N ?
No, you calculated something even weirder !
Now the question is: What were you calculating ? What kind of behaviour of how many casters were you simulating ?

And what does this N mean ? Where is it defined ?
Usually I would assume it's the total number of spells cast, or maybe the spells cast after malison, but it's something different.
If N>3 in your calculation you have to cast at least 8 spells for example.

And your example of a case where N>3 is a realistic figure. What did you mean with "cast Charm Person/Chromatic Orb/Dominate Person on N of them ?" All three spells at each monster ? One spell per monster ? Your calculation suggests even something different.

 

I cannot imagine grading Symbol of Hopelessness as only "B". It's one of the great spells in the game. I suppose that the only reason for not making it an A is that clerics can also cast it.

That said, in ambush situations, I love to have my cleric cast Holy Word to almost instantly stun the baddies for a short time, while I have my sorc cast a SoH to get them stunned for a longer time.

 

As Mokona=Modoki loves his "complex" equations so much, perhaps Mokona=Modoki could explain this equation to wormholes I found:

ds² = -e^(2ф(r))c²dt² + dr²/(1-b(r)/r) + r²(dθ² + sin²θdф²)

Erm, the Guardian?

Please tell me "efficient" tactics against guardian, considering melee fighters need an AB of more than 46 just to hit the dragon, without depending on criticals - or the fact that it's saving throws in normal mode are 20, 20, 15, e.g.
Level 14 Sorcerer with CHA of 28 (max possible with best Eagle's Splendor roll), GSF: Transmutation casting Disintegrate:
Caster DC = 10 (base) +9 (CHA) +5 (GSF) +6 (spell level) = 30
Chance of success = 45% (Guardian's D20 roll = 10-20 = 11/20)
Wouldn't you like to increase the chances of a spell successfully working by casting a spell like Malison beforehand?

(P.S - if all the other mathematical geniuses actually wrote their calculations out like this, instead of using indiscriminate letters of the alphabet, then perhaps more people may actually understand those calculations! At least they would have a clue as to how useful the Malison spell is in the hands of their own casters!
Perhaps, if you used the "school" method in maths, i.e. a line by line calculation of problem to solution, instead of giving the "general" solution straight away, then this silly rant would not have happened.)

(rant over )

Other than the Guardian, kmonster, I do agree with your conclusions about casting Malison at a single target.

 

That is just a metric (looks somewhat like the Kruskal-Szekeres metric). It's not exactly an equation for a wormhole, just a metric. You can find more about metrics in wikipedia or something.

I agree that some here aren't too good at presenting their calculations in an "easy too understand" way! Stop presenting them or do it better. It's quite obvious that Malison isn't a great spell in every situation but can be useful under the right circumstances!

@JT
Change the grade of SoH to A!!! It's too good to be a B-grade spell!!!!

 

@Da Rock
My party defeated the Guardian on the first attempt although I didn't buff up them properly since the Yuan-ti temple was so easy.
So I never needed to elaborate tactics.
My party just did enough damage to defeat him.

A level 14 sorc with 28 cha gets at least 6 level 6 spells per day, with your numbers (ignoring SR which you'll obviously lower before casting) the chance that the guardian survives 6 disintegrate in a row is 0.55^6, that's 0.027680, so you have a 97,2 percent chance to succeed even without malison.
So you don't need it. Better save a stoneskin for the battle afterwards.

I personally don't like this style. A battle isn't epic if you just have to cast disintegrate and *poof*.

Casting a "save or die" spell with the intention of reloading and retrying if the enemy makes his save also feels too cheesy for me.

The guardian is hitable quite well. A hasted level 11 fighter with a greatsword, improved critical, Tymora's Melody, luck spell can exspect to get 1 critical per round average.
In a prior post you wrote that the guardian has AC 46, impressing, but you can buff up your warrior as well.

14 BAB from 14 levels
+9 AB from 28 str (a half-orc with chanpion's strength can reach up to 31)
+1 AB Emotion: Hope
+6 AB for recitation, chant, prayer, aid, bless
+4 for +4 weapon
+1 weapon focus
+1 level 1 bard song

That's already enough for +36/+36/+31/+26 hasted although I'm quite sure that I missed some buffs.
With +36 you hit more than half the time.

 

Anyone have more comments on spells other than malison? How about the 5th-9th level spells? Please?

Anyway I changed my mind about Malison. This wasn't because of any particular post, but because I did the math and found that it isn't worthwhile, at least not for damage spells.

Let f be one-half the average base damage of a fireball.
Let p be the probability a particular monster fails its save. Furthermore, assume p is between .05 and .85, so we can ignore the "1 always fails and 20 always saves" issue.

Fireball = F = f + pf = (1 + p)f
Malison & Fireball = M&F = f + (p + .1)f = (1.1 + p)f
Extra damage due to Malison, per Fireball = M = M&F - F = .1f

Suppose we have identical twin sorcs A and B. A will cast Malison on a monster, then x fireballs. B will simply cast x+1 fireballs, on an identical monster. How much does x need to be for A and B to do the same damage?

A = x(1.1 + p)f
B = (x+1)(1 + p)f
A=B
x(1.1 + p)f = (x+1)(1 + p)f
1.1x + px = x + 1 + px + p
.1x = 1 + p
x = 10 + 10p
So x must be at least 10.5 and could be as much as 18.5, again depending on p. When x is less than that amount, sorc B wins.

Similar calculations apply for any area-effect, save-for-half-damage spell; Malison plus ten Horrid Wiltings is going to be inferior to eleven Horrid Wiltings. Of course, a 4th level slot is not worth as much as an 8th level slot....

Let's compare Malison (used with Fireballs) to Ice Storm, also a 4th level spell. Ice Storm does 5d6 damage, no save (ignore possible cold resistances), average 17.5. With a 10d6 Fireball, f = 10d6 / 2, average also 17.5. M = .1*f, so our Malison will have to boost 10 Fireballs before it has equalled Ice Storm.

 

JT, I think that the problem is that we've got some people in a peeing match over the relative value Malison, rather trying to discuss arcane spells.

How about starting a new thread about cleric spells so that we can move away from this unfortunate semi-OT squabble?

 

My comments about the level 7-9 spells:

My favourite level 7 spell is "finger of death". You just cast it at an enemy mage and he's history, can also be used to take out enemy archers before they spend their magical ammunition.
Therefore I rate this spell as A.

"Delayed blast fireball" doesn't look that appealing to me. I see no use for it in the heat of battle. Because of the long casting time of 7 enemies will leave the target area and play melee with your party before the spell is cast unless you use some poor decoys. It's also dangerous for your own party.
The usability as traps sounds useful but also dangerous.
I rate this spell only B.

"Seven Eyes" adds the ability to survive at least one attack unharmed and can be used to prebuff before battle. So it's surely better than F. Probably D.

I never tried Mordenkainen's sword. It must be better than its description if you rate it as A. Do you get more than 1 attack/round with it ?


Level 8 spells:

You get those spells so late that you hardly have time to use them.

Power Word: Blind seems to be by far the most useful one, Monsters with less than 20 HD (are there any monsters with 20 HD or more except the guardian or the twins ?) are blinded for minutes without a save. Since blinded enemies don't do anything but attacking someone in melee range you could just retreat and shoot them from afar without danger.


Level 9 spells don't really matter. Your sorc won't be able to cast them during the game unless your sorc is more than 1 level higher than your average party level.
Don't underestimate Executioner's Eyes, it can be cast before combat and works against any enemy. Surely the best level 9 spell against the twins.

 

Kmonster, I've never really given PW: Blind much of a look when I've played. In upper level spells, I tend to look for spells that either are mass nuking, summon a great ally, or completely disable/stun the enemy (i.e. Symbol of Hopelessness).

I'm not sure that I'd want to use PW:B against a bunch of tanks, but I can think of some battles where it would be a very potent weapon, like the battle in the Fields of Slaughter against Saablic Tan, his fellow mages, and his little army of tanks. I can see that blinding Tan and his mage allies could be quite a potent tactic. Will-based spells are tougher to inflict upon Tan and his mages, but PW:B should get the job done, at least long enough to maybe get in a freebie attack or 3 on them.

 

You may be right, but:
b(r) = spatial shape of the wormhole
ф(r) = gravitational redshift

kmonster - you are totally right about the "cheese" tactic against the Guardian. I was simply showing an example of where Malison could potentially be useful against a single enemy. It is not as though I now use this tactic (I used to).
(P.S. I did a test eons ago - the Guardian suvived 10 Disintegrate scrolls (from a level 30 wizard)! So my conclusion was that casting attack spells from scrolls is nowhere near as good as learning them first!)

Well said! This overdiscussed issue should be in a thread of it's own!

Level 7:
Prismatic Spray - C: It has the potential to be a fantastic spell, because it affects ALL saving throws (for different effects). I just don't use it often enough. People who have used it more often can give a more accurate grade.

Finger of Death - A (as kmonster said)

Mordenkainen's sword - kmonster, it adds caster level +4 to AB (up to +34) - it is another "cheese" tactic for the Guardian! But it is so much more useful than that. If in the hands of a caster with no big damaging spells (remaining), it is an A+ - otherwise you probably wouldn't use it (F).

Level 8:
Great Shout - D: the area of effect is small, but as Bards get this at 6th level instead of 8th (as well as too many summoning spells) it can be useful.

Power Word: Blind - B: no DEX bonus to AC on top of a -2 penalty and miss 50% of the time without the Blind Fight feat - all without a save? Bards should rate this A, because they don't get Symbol spells.

Symbol of Fear - C: Like SOH, it requires a Will save - a reasonable backup if you don't have Power Word: Blind

If you have 6 party members, that may be the case, but I never play with more than 4 - and usually manage to get 9th level spells.

9th level:
Aegis - F (wizard), C (sorcerer): The grades vary because, for example, a 20th level sorcerer will have 3 spells to pick from. If we assume Wail of the Banshee and Mass Dominate (predictably) as the 1st two, what is the 3rd? I'd rather give Gate to my clerics (and ignore Summon Monster IX), so I normally end up with either this or Executioner's Eyes. The number of effects this spell has is quite staggering - the effects last as long as Executioner's Eyes, so cannot be considered FAR worse.
If you cast Mordenkainen's Sword, then some enemies have an "annoying" tendency to come towards you after you hit them. Aegis provides a nice protection with MS.
As a Watcher of Helm domain spell, this is an A+.

Meteor Swarm - B: I only mention this as it could be chosen as a "3rd sorcerer spell" (see Aegis, above) - but I don't really like this spell.

 

Nice maths for Malison's effect.. but "needlessly complicated".

Let's start with some assumptions and facts, both in order to understand what's

going on and to avoid all too many "what if"-iterations.

Assumptions:
1) There's at least one pure or almost pure cleric in party. Main benefit:

Recitation for debuffing, Symbol of Hopelessness for direct offensive action. In

case of a Dreadmaster of Bane, spell DC for SoH is well beyond what any arcane

caster can hope to achieve due to the excessively high Wisdom scores available to

them.

2) There's at least TWO arcane casters, and at least one of them has good INT/CHA.

Main benefit: At least some ammunition for offensive action once all the "must

have" buffs have been accounted for. Besides, a party with just one arcane caster

isn't most likely all that concerned with optimal spellcasting prowess.

3) Some conscious effort is made to make enemies gather up into one place, either

by using a high-AC tank or a summon pulling them together or utilizing a killing

zone to trap them. Main benefit: Makes most of the AoE effects large enough to

affect all enemies at once. In case of an ambush, Invisibility Sphere or similar

combined with a summon will do the trick. (Note that invisibility breaks upon

STARTING a spell - invisibility that lands after the character has already begun

casting will complete without breaking invisibility. Or if you really hate using

this exploit, start casting the mass invisibility so that it'll complete just as

you're done with the other spells.)

4) We're not interested in 'what gets the job done' as that can be pretty damn

anything. The game has been soloed and played through with just about any

imaginable character combination, so it's not really relevant to the discussion at

hand if you managed to do it "with x, y and z only". That still doesn't mean you

couldn't have done *better* with some other combo.

Facts:
1) During Normal mode, Malison and other debuffs are mostly just a waste of time.

None of the monsters I've met are standing after a double shot of fireball and/or a

quick skirmish with buffed-up melee and ranged fire. Besides, Greater Spell Focus

with decent INT/WIS/CHA is more than enough to ensure that spells do their trick a

vast majority of the time. Anything beyond that is just pure overkill. Yes, this

also means that Malison is pretty much 'D' or even 'F' spell during normal mode.

2) HOF monsters get a huge flat bonus to their saving throws and yet another bonus

to Reflex and Fortitude saves due to their increase in physical stats. This favors

spells with Will saving throws, as reported by so many guides, other players and my

personal experience.

It's not usually feasible (nor needed) to know enemy's exact chance to save against

a spell, all we really need to know if it's "save on all but a natural 1 roll",

"save only on a natural 20 roll" or "something in between". First case means that

it's quite futile to try any save-or-else spells no matter what you do (just

hack'n'slash it), while second is the case when all that matters is the listed

damage/effect of spells without consideration for saving throws.

During my various runs through HOF mode, a vast majority of listed save bonuses

(from scrolling combat text information) are in the 20's. Low 20's or even high

teens in Targos, high 20's up to low 30's later on. Natural deviations, such as

Trolls and Barbarians sporting noticeably higher Fortitude saves and Rogue/Monk

types showing up with high Reflex saves are a given fact, nothing new here. Don't

blame me if your Wail shows poor results against a Troll entourage or your

Fireballs just get evaded at the Monastery, that's your own fault of not paying

attention. Will saves are generally at least 5 points lower. (Just turn on the

scrolling text, cast a spell and note the save bonus if you're into specifics.)

Since spell DC is 10 + spell lvl + ability bonus + other misc bonuses, having save

bonuses in the 20's pretty much negates the first three terms, give or take a few.

That leaves 'other misc' category as the only thing lifting chances of spells

getting through. Greater Spell Focus, spell's innate modifiers - and debuffs. It's

pretty common occurence to have about half of the enemies survive a double Wail of

the Banshee - i.e ~30% chance to die per cast per enemy - if none of the debuffs

are used. I got similar results in Horde fortress, Ice Temple, River Caves and Cold

Marsh, naturally declining towards tougher enemies. Seems pretty OK since my both

Sorcs had maxed CHA and GSF:Necromancy at the time. I wasn't really impressed, to

be honest - simple Skulltraps, DBFBs and Meteor Showers did the job faster just

because they still do half damage on a successfull save.

Then I added debuffs into my cast sequence.

Guess what? I started to wipe whole screens clean with a double Wail, with only

some lucky stragglers remaining. I still relish the memory of gathering ALL the

barbarian spawns from the Stone Puzzle at Cold Marsh, debuffing them, casting a

double Wail - BAM! - just two of them remaining!! Fatality rate rised from ~30% to

~60% per cast and enemy, nearly 90% with just two castings.

The final revelation came when i realized I wasn't really wasting time casting the

debuffs either! In almost all cases the combat starts at sight range, so starting

the Wail immediately would just waste half of it since all the enemies haven't made

it to range yet. Tagging the advancing horde with Prayer, Recitation, Malison and

finally Emotionespair gave them just about enough time to pile up on my forward

tank.

BOTTOM LINE: Malison and its cousins are absolutely vital if you're to use all-or-nothing spells in HOF mode with any frequency. However, just one of them isn't usually much, you're well advised to go the whole nine yards and use all of 'em, they complement each other very nicely.

 

I personally like most of the Summon Monster spells. But that said, you have to be careful with the upper level ones because in "inside" areas the upper level SM spells may summon a really large monster that will not be able to pass thru a doorway and you'll end up really wasting the summons on only one room. I've had this happen in HOF where I used SM9 and got a frost giant inside the Ice Temple. The frost giant was very useful in the battle for which he was summoned, but he was stuck in the room where he was summoned for the remainder of the spell duration.

The size of large summons can be useful at times, but there are simply other times when that same size is a negative.