Beef Deafening clang

[Cruzel]

One round a level is far too short. This is a pretty sweet spell, maybe  1 turn every 2 levels?

even 2 rounds a level is better. This is way too short >:(

[derfo]

its pretty overpowered already sorry

[core]

Already pretty powerful!

[Johannes]

Why are you asking us to beef a spell like deafening clang and not something like... Flash or Horizikaul's Boom?

I don't think a spell being weak compared to others of the same spell level is really an excuse on its own to beef it up, anyway - whether the claim is valid or not. Why?

Let's consider that the "beefiness" of spells can be quantified in R and that they are distributed about a mean with a Gaussian distribution. This is a fair analogy, as there is a variation in the beefiness of spells at any level, and the beefiness of a spell cannot reasonably assume discrete values. To what do we attribute the standard deviation? We attribute it to the original designers, who are essentially shooting the game balance target wearing blindfolds, but nonetheless attempted to create uniformity in the balance between spells at any particular level (or so we imagine).

Let's attribute the beefiness of all spells at a hypothetical spell level to a vector B in R^m, where m is the number of spells at that level. B_n, by convention, can be the nth member of the vector B. Let "sigma">0 be the standard deviation of beefiness adjustment as a result of any adjustment in spell beefiness.

mean beefiness = mu_initial = sum(i=1 to m, B_i) / m
Now, let B_sm be the smallest value in vector B.
mu_initial - B_sm = t
Where t is the target adjustment in beefiness.
Let := be our notation for assigning a new value to a variable.
B_sm := B_sm + t + err
err ~ N(0, sigma)
P(err > -t) = integral(-t->infty) (1/(sqrt(2pi).sigma)*e^-((x^2)/(2.sigma^2)) dx
Which, believe it or not, resolves to:
P(err > -t) >= 0.5 (the case of equality occurs in the trivial situation where B has one element)
The implication is that there is a >50% chance that the following happens:
mu_final = mu_initial + (t + err)/m
Where
t+err >= 0.
=> mu_final > mu_initial

Consider the recursive case to infinite iterations, and the consequence is clear: beefing relatively weak spells for the purpose of beefing relatively weak spells raises standards and ultimately imbalances the class which receives it in the class' favor.

Better not to go there!

[PanamaLane]

Johannes, half the time you talk my eyes roll back in my head and I awaken in the woods covered in thousand island dressing and with a mysteriously sore ass.

Um, that said, you're completely right. No beef necessary!

[I can has fun?]

If we're talking about beefing up spells, I'd like to see the level cap removed on Daze and Sleep. If you can beat their save, you ought to be able to use the spell.

Sleep's hit die limit should still apply to a coup de grace, but if the the basic effect of the spell were still useful beyond level 5, that would be a wonderful thing.

[ExileStrife]

A level one, medium range, AoE-Huge disabling spell for a class that already gets hold person.  I second that!  =]

[ScottyB]

I am choosing the side opposite of Johannes simply for his use of maths.

[I can has fun?]

A level one, medium range, AoE-Huge disabling spell for a class that already gets hold person.  I second that!  =]

It can be countered with PfA, Clarity, Ghostly Visage, and a quantity of hit dice greater than five. Undead are immune, along with elves, spiders, insects, and about half of the other things you're liable to encounter in the setting. Additionally, under EfU conditions, you're never going to be able to get the DC past 20, which seems to be the standard average DC for saving throws in the setting.

Hell, make it a touch attack for all I care. I just think it's a tragedy that such a cool spell is nerfed into uselessness at higher levels. Even Color Spray does something past level 5.

[dragonfire9000]

You.... made... me... read... math... on... a... [COLOR="Red"]

SATURDAY!!!!

[/B][/I][/U][/COLOR]
The wrath is coming, Johannes.


AND, as for a topic relevant to this post, Deafening Clang is useless. And I mean just about completely. No self-respecting paladin would take that spell unless they had never been a paladin before and didn't know what it was (See my Kelemvorite paladin from old EfU).

Beef plz.

[Caddies]

Paladins are already insanely strong and Deafening Clang is a good spell in certain situations, including most PvP scenarios. I don't think it needs beefing.

As for Sleep, its a L1 spell. I wouldn't fret too much about it being useless past a certain point; there's always higher level spells to take down higher level foes!

[Listen in Silence]

I'm on the Caddies/Johannes side this time. They've already listed the intelligent arguments.

[I can has fun?]

I'm going to shut up about Sleep, I don't want to derail the thread. I said my piece.

[Egon the Monkey]

As an interesting note, Deafening does bugger all to divine casters according to the wiki, but silence does. Fixing that would make Deafening clang more useful without unbalancing it.

@letsplay
Sleep:
"Causes 4 + 1d4 HD of creatures to fall into a comatose slumber, beginning with those with the fewest HD. Creatures with 5 or more HD are unaffected."

With the level cap removed, you'd have a 3/4 chance of forcing a save on a l6 character, a 1/2 chance on a L7 and a 1/4 on a l8. It still would be weak.

[The Crimson Magician]

@sleep, enchanters don't have that great of a spell list to choose from. Only good thing about them is hold person.