See the post immediately below:
Red, Kilgore:
Let me address the maths.
--If we, instead, use only (4x Intelligence), then an 18 yields:
18-
---
1: 72%
2: 36%
3: 24%
4: 18%
5: 14%
6: 12%
7: 10%
8: 09%
9: 08%
Is that more in line with what you two are thinking?
Feels a lot better to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that there are some DMs that will freak out at the notion of a 1st level magic-user potentially casting several Sleep spells instead of just one.
This gives lower level m-us a boost, gives them a chance to roll to succeed (ie, keep the spell) without (I think) overpowering higher level casters.
Red,
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming back to this.
I wonder if 2.5, or 3x would be too little a multiplier, or do you feel that the 4x is a good value to use?
That does seem to make a bit more sense. The idea of multiple sleeps IS a bit off-putting, but then I have never believed that sleep should be a first-level spell anyway.
ReplyDeleteI would wonder if the 2.5x or 3x multiplier was better, but as you know from my constant harping on Bat that I'm one to always be on guard against M-U power creep. :)
That said, I think this idea, whatever the final numbers end up being, makes low-level M-Us much more PLAYABLE, something I've never really found them to be.
Thanks for following up. I'll have to think on this.
Kilgore,
ReplyDeleteAt 2.5x:
18-
---
1: 45%
2: 22
3: 15
4: 11
5: 09
6: 07
7: 06
8: 05
9: 05