What would a 3rd level DCC look like in 3e?

[smathis]

What level is a 3rd level DCC Wizard?

TLDR; Edition
I spent some time comparing mshensley's 3rd level Wizard to whatever I could figure would be comparable in 3e. Results were a little all over the place, which I kind of expected. But the conclusion I came to was that the 3rd level DCC Wizard isn't that far off from the regular 3e Wizard with the sole exception of spellcasting ability. Which is a big sole exception to have.

####

Now for the rest of the story...

I'll give what I got down below but here's what I found.

While having significant boom on the high end, the lower ranges of DCC spells are very, very weak. Some of the rankings of the spell (such as the lowest rung Magic Missile as a 0-level spell) were generous. 3e spells are significantly more powerful.

This is mitigated somewhat by all spells being "Quickened" in DCC.

I still think the spells are a bit weak sauce. At least the one's I'm reading. I think there will be a lot of untapped potential in the high thirties and 40s on those charts -- which read well but will be unattainable to the typical DCC spellcaster who isn't willing to be eaten by a frog demon god to cast a 34 on his Scorching Ray.

I'd rather have more POWERFUL spells and only get to cast one a turn. I mean, I look at the list of 3e edition spells and I'm draining 1d6 strength and my 2nd level Scorching Ray does 4d6 damage. DCC's Scorching Ray doesn't come close. I haven't played the game yet, though, so please take that with a grain of salt.

The DCC Wizard had more Hit Points (presumably due to zero level?) but otherwise the stats were all comparable. I would think in a real Version Bake-Off the 3e Wizard's stats would be better (due to different means of chargen) but I went with the same ability scores across both, just to get an idea of how they equated.

I ignored that the DCC Wizard can wear armor and fight with a sword. I understand that gives him an advantage but I didn't feel it was significant with the D&D3e Wizard getting feats. I feel the 3e Wizard would, and could, catch up comparably to the DCC Wizard in terms of Melee. I did, however, roll up the Quicken Spell Metamagic Feat into the level analysis for the DCC Wizard's casting.

Not including Patron Bond and Invoke Patron, which are sort of like Class Features IIRC, the 3rd level DCC Wizard knows 6 spells. If I count 0-level spells for the 3e Wizard, he's on par with the DCC Wizard. But I think that's cheating. If I count 0-level spells as "half a spell", then the 3rd level DCC Wizard is closer to a 4th level 3e Wizard in spells known. If I don't count 0-level at all, the DCC Wizard bumps up to a 5th level 3e Wizard in spellbookery.

The big reveal is in actual casting. This one was hard because the 3rd level DCC Wizard varies pretty wildly and, really, the different effects he generates are almost like different spells in 3e terms. So I took the DCC Wizard on an average day (rolling all 11s until he could no longer roll 12 or above) and on a good day (rolling all 15s until he could no longer roll 12 or above. I felt it would be disingenuous to consider a "bad" day as that would skew results downward, just like considering the DCC Wizard rolled nothing but 20s would skew results upward. It's a small sample but I had to benchmark somewhere.

The first thing that was apparent was how tricky it was to eyeball the results. Ultimately, I felt the best way to go to compare mojo-to-mojo was to add up spell levels cast in the same fashion as some house rules… where every second level spell counts as 2, every first counts as 1, every zero as 0.5 and every 4th as a 4, etc. To get a total of "spell points" as kind of a measure of power.

The DCC Wizard on an average day is still better than a 3e Wizard. He clocked in at 9.5, while the typical 3rd level 3e Wizard clocks in at 6. Interestingly, the numbers shift significantly downward if we take away the ability for a DCC Wizard to cast twice per round. Removing the Auto-Quicken from DCC Wizards puts them at 5.5.

So, by default, a DCC Wizard on an average day can shoot off as much firepower as a 4th level 3e Wizard.

On a good day, the DCC Wizard fares considerably better. It's a little disconcerting, actually. On a good day, the DCC Wizard fires off 24 "spell points" worth of mojo. That's four times better than the 3e Wizard and equivalent to, roughly, a 7th level caster in 3e. Interestingly, again, the DCC's Wizard gets away with only 15 points of mojo without the Rapid Fire Option. But that's still more than double his 3e doppleganger.

It's a gut call but I think the 3rd level DCC Wizard is on par with a 5th or 6th level 3e Wizard in terms of general firepower. The disparity, I think, is that the 3rd level DCC Wizard is very much a 3rd level Wizard in almost every other way. Maybe even a little less so.

I'd really like to play the game before I come to any final conclusions. But I think only allowing a DCC Wizard to cast one SUCCESSFUL spell per turn would mitigate this. A lot of their firepower comes from being able to cast TWO spells per turn.

This also complicates things like interrupting spells and such.

Tacitly, I'd recommend upping the oomph of the spells. Putting them on par with their 3e counterparts. Maybe even better. For example, Scorching Ray does 1d8 points of damage on a successful cast in DCC. It does 4d6 in 3e. That's a huge disparity there. On a successful casting, I'd at least like Scorching Ray to do 2d6 damage. I'm not sure why that was nerfed so significantly.

Right now, there's a lot of excitement about the charts but I don't think people are considering that results of 32+ are out of reach of 5th level characters. Roll a 20 add a +8 because you're level 5 have a 16 INT (it's your birthday!) and it's your first spell of the day and you still have to take 4 points of spellburn to reach that upward limit.

I think that would get frustrating if the game is stopping at 5th level.

What I came away with is a respect for how different DCC is. It's going to be a very different game. But there's also a bit of wariness there. Consider this. That 3rd level Wizard is halfway to the "end" of the corebook play experience. He has 7 hit points. His saves are worse than a 2nd level halfling in BECMI. Sure, he's a walking, talking piece of fleshy artillery (although I think his actual damage output isn't as significant as one might think) but he is less durable than a 1st level D&D Fighter in almost any edition beyond AD&D.

There's a big disparity there. If the 3rd level DCC Wizard is casting like a 6th level D&D Wizard, why does he still only have single-digit hit points? I think there is room for casters to move upward in levels. Giving a "6th level" DCC Wizard the same casting capabilities as the current 3rd level DCC Wizard would not be a crazy move. And those spells… they're pretty weak. At least the ones we've seen. Sure, I can fire off two Magic Missiles in a round (dice willing) but my damage output isn't going to be significantly different because of that.

So, to answer the question of another thread, would I put my money on a 10th level 3e Wizard or a 5th level DCC Wizard? I'm still all in on the D&D Wizard. I take Quicken Spell and Improved Initiative and I pown that DCC Wizard most every time. And chances are he'd get swallowed by his Infernal Patron Bunny before he drops me to zero hit points or before I run out of Magic Missiles to drop his 15 hit point self.

I agree that's totally not the point of DCC. But I wanted to show how it's possible to somewhat quantify the differences between DCC and, say, 3e and give benchmarks for what levels could look like in DCC.

###

What I had to work with...

Code: Select all

3rd Level DCC Wizard
Hit Points 7
Saves F/R/W +1/-1/+3
AC 10
BAB +1
Spell Bonus +5
Spells known: 8 (Invoke Patron and Patron Bond, really means 6)

Assuming a roll of 11 because we need a benchmark somewhere. Average of real d20 is 10.5. Could have rounded down but decided to round up. Tried it with a "Take 10" approach but I felt that skewed the results downward.

Rolling average

1st casting: 16
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

2nd casting: 15
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d6 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

3rd casting: 14
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d6 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

4th casting: 13
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1 point of damage.
Scorching Ray: N/A
Closest 3e equivalents: Ray of Frost
3e Level: 1

5th casting: 12
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1 point of damage.
Scorching Ray: N/A
Closest 3e equivalents: Ray of Frost
3e Level: 1

6th casting: 11 to infinity
Total levels rolling OK: 9.5 levels of spells



Rolling well

1st casting: 21
Magic Missile: 1d4 times 1d6 + 3. Average 13 damage versus two targets..
Scorching Ray: 2 targets at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Scorching Ray
3e Level: 3

2nd casting: 20
Magic Missile: 1d4 times 1d6 + 3. Average 13 damage versus two targets..
Scorching Ray: 2 targets at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Scorching Ray
3e Level: 3

3rd casting: 19
Magic Missile: 1d4 times 1d4 + 3. Average 11 damage versus one target.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow
3e Level: 3

4th casting: 18
Magic Missile: 1d4 times 1d4 + 3. Average 11 damage versus one target.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow
3e Level: 3

5th casting: 17
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

6th casting: 16
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d8 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

7th casting: 15
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d6 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

8th casting: 14
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1d4 +3.
Scorching Ray: 1 target at 1d6 + 3, maybe catches fire
Closest 3e equivalents: Acid Arrow, Magic Missile
3e Level: 2.5

9th casting: 13
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1 point of damage.
Scorching Ray: N/A
Closest 3e equivalents: Ray of Frost
3e Level: 1

10th casting: 12
Magic Missile: 1 missile at 1 point of damage.
Scorching Ray: N/A
Closest 3e equivalents: Ray of Frost
3e Level: 1

11th casting: 11 to infinity
Total levels rolling WELL: 24


*** Use up a spell slot higher than normal b/c they are all Quickened!!!

===

3e 3rd level Wizard (same stats)

Hit Points 3 (that -2 Stamina hurts!)
Saves F/R/W +1/-1/+4
AC 10
BAB +1

3rd level total spell levels: 6
4th level total spell levels: 9
5th level total spell levels: 12
6th level total spell levels: 17
7th level total spell levels: 22

[Hamakto]

Let me put something out here to clarify some details for your example, as these details will change the calculations that you utilized. As always, everything is still subject to change:

1. A wizard knows 4 spells at first level. All four spells are in memory each day and they can be cast until your fail a spell check (for each spell). So a 1st level wizard is technically more powerful than the 3e counterpart because they potentially get more spells. The problem is that their magic is not consistent, so it is difficult to form a battle strategy around it. So a 3rd level wizard get six spells. Compared to a 3e wizard (with lower int score) --- 2 1st and 1 2nd level spell.

2. A 3rd level wizard does not have quicken. At 5th level they get a chance to cast two spells per turn, like a Warrior fighting. First spell is a d20+castingskill... 2nd spell is a d14+castingskill.

The loss from d20 to d14 is brutal because on a failure, you lose the spell. So most second spells being cast will be lower level spells at best.

PS - Please take the above not as criticism, but just additional information to help you in your calculations.

[geordie racer]

So, to answer the question of another thread, would I put my money on a 10th level 3e Wizard or a 5th level DCC Wizard? I'm still all in on the D&D Wizard. I take Quicken Spell and Improved Initiative and I pown that DCC Wizard most every time. And chances are he'd get swallowed by his Infernal Patron Bunny before he drops me to zero hit points or before I run out of Magic Missiles to drop his 15 hit point self.

Wouldn't the DCC wizard just summon his Infernal Patron Bunny to lay the smackdown on the 3e Wizard if the 3e Wizard didn't waste the DCC spellcaster first in round one ?

[Hamakto]

I took a few minutes out and put together a brief spreadsheet. There is one tab for each spell level.

This table gives a percentage chance of how many times you could cast the spell (on average) before you fail a spell check.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=CNyf0boL

[geordie racer]

I took a few minutes out and put together a brief spreadsheet. There is one tab for each spell level.

This table gives a percentage chance of how many times you could cast the spell (on average) before you fail a spell check.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=CNyf0boL

Nice one Andy, interesting stuff. I do like the harsh way the % to succeed drops after that first casting. The 5th Level Wizard with high INT has to Spellburn 5 points to get a similiar casting percentage for his second 6th Level spell as for his first. Since the first has only a 35% chance of success he's probably already burnt stat points to assure himself of casting that, so successfully casting more than one high level spell per day is gonna take it's toll.

I like that power level. I've just been reading Lin Carter's 'Giant of World's End' and Zelobion the Magician, who is Lord of a domain, doesn't cast many spells, but they're all impressive and he makes each one count, whether it be predicting the future, polymorphing someone to resemble their inner nature or mass hold person. He doesn't piddle around with utility spells but he also knows his limitations.

I prefer this to the endlessly-teleporting invisible flying ninja Gandalf builds that one of players adores.

With a 10th Level high INT Wizard only getting a 60% chance of successfully casting a first 6th Level spell, I still think it's not too-overpowered if you want a plane-hopping Amber style adventure without the wizard confidently using power word kill or meteor swarm-type spells every round in combat.

[mshensley]

Jeff Rient's 3rd level Wizard

FTFY

[smathis]

Let me put something out here to clarify some details for your example, as these details will change the calculations that you utilized. As always, everything is still subject to change:

1. A wizard knows 4 spells at first level. All four spells are in memory each day and they can be cast until your fail a spell check (for each spell). So a 1st level wizard is technically more powerful than the 3e counterpart because they potentially get more spells. The problem is that their magic is not consistent, so it is difficult to form a battle strategy around it. So a 3rd level wizard get six spells. Compared to a 3e wizard (with lower int score) --- 2 1st and 1 2nd level spell.

2. A 3rd level wizard does not have quicken. At 5th level they get a chance to cast two spells per turn, like a Warrior fighting. First spell is a d20+castingskill... 2nd spell is a d14+castingskill.

The loss from d20 to d14 is brutal because on a failure, you lose the spell. So most second spells being cast will be lower level spells at best.

PS - Please take the above not as criticism, but just additional information to help you in your calculations.

Thanks, Andy. I think #1 was touched on in the post -- somewhat. It was difficult to pin down the DCC Wizard so I tried to benchmark him at two results on the scale -- one at average and the other at slightly above average. That said, the inconsistency of their spellcasting does make them hard to nail down.

The DCC Wizard looks to outclass the 3e Wizard in "spellbookery". But in casting? It depends on how the dice roll. The spells we've seen are lower in power level than comparable spells in 3e. Except maybe magic missile. And with the variable effects? Who knows? That's why I classified the DCC Wizard at 3rd level as casting like a 5th or 6th level 3e Wizard.

But that all changes with point #2. Dieter had me under the impression that all DCC Wizards cast twice per round -- as if they got Quicken Spell as a class feature. If that's not the case, then there's a big drop in how powerful DCC Wizards are. They would be close to parity, IMO.

Still, I was disheartened by how much BOOM the spellcasters lacked.

Thanks for doing that spreadsheet too. I think it lends support to my assertion that DCC Wizards are "morning people". And also that it makes little sense to cast anything but 1st level spells if Scorching Ray is indicative that the effects of a spell are based on what you roll and not on the spell's "level".

For instance, if you roll the same number on the Magic Missile chart and again on the Scorching Ray chart, there's hardly a difference. The only difference is that a casting is failed on a 13 and under on the Scorching Ray chart. That's really it.

Which doesn't make sense. I reiterate... If I have a 10% greater chance of failing the spell, shouldn't I expect a 10% better return on that risk? That's simply not reflected on Scorching Ray once you get past a DC of 20 or so.

[smathis]

Nice one Andy, interesting stuff. I do like the harsh way the % to succeed drops after that first casting. The 5th Level Wizard with high INT has to Spellburn 5 points to get a similiar casting percentage for his second 6th Level spell as for his first. Since the first has only a 35% chance of success he's probably already burnt stat points to assure himself of casting that, so successfully casting more than one high level spell per day is gonna take it's toll.

I like that but I'm also wary of it. I'd have to get a feel for it during play. It seems to me that the Wizard should have something akin to the Cleric in how spell points go up and down. Otherwise, the DCC Wizard is going to be all flash and bang at the beginning with not much left in the tank after that.

I like that power level. I've just been reading Lin Carter's 'Giant of World's End' and Zelobion the Magician, who is Lord of a domain, doesn't cast many spells, but they're all impressive and he makes each one count, whether it be predicting the future, polymorphing someone to resemble their inner nature or mass hold person. He doesn't piddle around with utility spells but he also knows his limitations.

I prefer this to the endlessly-teleporting invisible flying ninja Gandalf builds that one of players adores.

I like that sort of Magic too. But DCC won't be like that. Unless there's some edits to the spell, DCC Wizards look to be one or two really big spells (maybe) and then a bunch of 'pewwww pewwww' laser spells. I don't think there will be endlessly teleporting Gandalf ninjas but it seems like the DCC Wizard is going to be significantly less impressive than Zelobion.

With a 10th Level high INT Wizard only getting a 60% chance of successfully casting a first 6th Level spell, I still think it's not too-overpowered if you want a plane-hopping Amber style adventure without the wizard confidently using power word kill or meteor swarm-type spells every round in combat.

I'm down with that too. But... I'd like to see what sort of effects are at the DC22 and DC26 range for those spells. If the correlation of the charts of Scorching Ray and Magic Missile are indicative of how the rest of the spells are built... that Wizard would probably be better off just using Magic Missile.

Unless Scorching Ray is a goof, the spell effects appear to be based on the die roll. Not on the spell level.

[smathis]

Jeff Rient's 3rd level Wizard

FTFY

I don't know what "FTFY" means and, right now, those don't look like friendly F's. So I'll just offer my apologies. My bad.

[mshensley]

Jeff Rient's 3rd level Wizard

FTFY

I don't know what "FTFY" means and, right now, those don't look like friendly F's. So I'll just offer my apologies. My bad.

nah, it's friendly enough: FTFY means Fixed That For You.

I just wanted credit to go to the correct person.

[jmucchiello]

nah, it's friendly enough: FTFY means Fixed That For You.

There are places on the Internet where FTFY is always considered snarky, sarcastic or condescending (you idiot, I had to fix that for you). So be careful using it and don't assume it is always friendly.

[smathis]

There are places on the Internet where FTFY is always considered snarky, sarcastic or condescending (you idiot, I had to fix that for you). So be careful using it and don't assume it is always friendly.

It's all good. I don't frequent those places.

I'm sure most people can imagine what I thought the F's stood for. I was stuck on the "T" though. Oh well, I guess my imagination is not what it used to be...