Spell Effectiveness Calculator

[Dictum Mortuum]

So, check this out. It's mostly javascript.

Could you guys play around with it a little and report bugs? I'm mostly concerned on giving results that are close to the truth.

So far, stuff are ranked linearly. For instance, if you've got three options in a group it would be like:

best = 0
medium = 1
worst = 2

And the total score in that category is: (total_items_in_category - rank)/total_items_in_category. So, if I choose the 'best' item, I get the maximum (1/1), but if I choose the 'medium' one, I'm getting (3-1)/3  = 0.66/1 total effectiveness.

I'm considering another approach (e.g. using the logistic function to generate the results).

Any thoughts?

[Garryl]

Your link is broken. Don't use quotation marks around the url, and you've got http// instead of http://.

It's Treantmonk, not Treadmonk. Isn't it?

A spell with no components gets a lower effectiveness than one with somatic and/or verbal components.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Your link is broken. Don't use quotation marks around the url, and you've got http// instead of http://.

It's Treantmonk, not Treadmonk. Isn't it?

A spell with no components gets a lower effectiveness than one with somatic and/or verbal components.

Thanks, fixed the URLs and Treantmonk's name.

I'm working on the components - I have to have a way to differentiate between "I don't care about components" and "the spell has no components".

[Jackinthegreen]

Your link is broken. Don't use quotation marks around the url, and you've got http// instead of http://.

It's Treantmonk, not Treadmonk. Isn't it?

A spell with no components gets a lower effectiveness than one with somatic and/or verbal components.

Thanks, fixed the URLs and Treantmonk's name.

I'm working on the components - I have to have a way to differentiate between "I don't care about components" and "the spell has no components".

Do some coding to the effect of Components = Any for not caring, and then components = none for no components?  I know, easier said than done in most coding.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Your link is broken. Don't use quotation marks around the url, and you've got http// instead of http://.

It's Treantmonk, not Treadmonk. Isn't it?

A spell with no components gets a lower effectiveness than one with somatic and/or verbal components.

Thanks, fixed the URLs and Treantmonk's name.

I'm working on the components - I have to have a way to differentiate between "I don't care about components" and "the spell has no components".

Do some coding to the effect of Components = Any for not caring, and then components = none for no components?  I know, easier said than done in most coding.

Either that or include a checkbox for all categories that starts disabled but is enabled when you check something - kinda a "include or exclude from the calculation" button

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... also known as: TreantMonk20.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Personal Range?
Costly Components?
Hard counters?

Apparently Invisibility is halfway the best spell ever.

[Endarire]

What about spells with multiple targets but have no AoE, like magic missile?

[Dictum Mortuum]

Personal Range?
Costly Components?
Hard counters?

Apparently Invisibility is halfway the best spell ever.

Personal Range - forgot about that, I'm going to add it.
With "component" I meant costly component. I'm going to add another option with greater weight for costly components then.
Hard counters? What do you mean by that?

Invisibility is 46.6% for me. I think that the score for a spell to be worthwhile is around 70%.

What about spells with multiple targets but have no AoE, like magic missile?

I think that's under "Multiple, close together".

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Hard counters?

Your spell X does nothing because I have spell Y. No action required.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Hard counters?

Your spell X does nothing because I have spell Y. No action required.

But, that's 0% effectiveness because it does nothing. Adding a button "Hard counter" means that the person that tries to calculate the effectiveness of the spell already knows if he wants to check that box or not; thus, it is redundant.

[RedWarlock]

I don't think it's about the button being 100 or 0%, it's a less direct measure of the existence of that hard-counter spell in the opponent's arsenal, and thus the likelihood of it being used against you.

[Endarire]

Better rephrase "Multiple, close together" as "Multiple targets (usually close together), but not an area effect (AoE)"