D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] scorching ray?

[Gwarthkam]

That's not the average damage. There are ranged touch attacks involved here -- even if you hit on a 2+, your average damage is going to be 88.35.

If you hit on a 3+, your average damage is going to be 83.7. If you hit on a 6+, your average damage is going to be 69.75.

With the fact that it's one spell level higher than Disintigrate, that doesn't look too ridiculous to me.

I'm only comparing Ranged touch spells here.

The probability of hitting is the same for all the spells, but may vary alot depending on attack bonus for the caster and touch AC for the target. It would seem appropiate to compare the only the invariant factors i.e. damage when hit.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I'm only comparing Ranged touch spells here.

The probability of hitting is the same for all the spells, but may vary alot depending on attack bonus for the caster and touch AC for the target. It would seem appropiate to compare the only the invariant factors i.e. damage when hit.

You're right. I blanked out on the RTA for Disintigrate. Carry on.

 

[Rel]

I thought that the appeal of Melf's Acid Arrow was that, as a result of the ongoing nature of the acid damage, that it forced the target to make Concentration checks for all spells they try to cast while under the effect.

That said, I could certainly see an argument to be made that one would less prefer to damage the enemy wizard a bit each round (forcing Concentration checks on his spells) with the Acid Arrow damage than to kill him outright with the higher Scorching Ray damage (also making Concentration checks difficult).

 

[DonAdam]

Note that a maximized, empowered scorching ray, at 7th level, is also better than a polar ray at 8th level.

 

[coyote6]

I thought that the appeal of Melf's Acid Arrow was that, as a result of the ongoing nature of the acid damage, that it forced the target to make Concentration checks for all spells they try to cast while under the effect.

The Concentration check is fairly trivial, though -- DC 10 + 1/2 the damage (from 2d4). That's, at max, a DC 14; compare that to casting a 0-level spell on the defensive (DC 15). Granted, Combat Casting doesn't help vs. damage (one reason why Skill Focus (Concentration) is probably a better choice than Combat Casting ), but it's still not too hard.

PCs in my game have been fonder of blasting critters with regeneration with acid arrows; it eats away at 'em even while they're unconscious from subdual (err, nonlethal) damage, or while they're running away.

 

[Skaros]

Note that a maximized, empowered scorching ray, at 7th level, is also better than a polar ray at 8th level.

Note it also requires the use of and purchase of 2 metamagic feats, whereas you can take polar ray without feats.

I have no issues with the spell. In the earlier post, it does more damage than MM on average, and less than fireball (fireball hits many more targets).

Sounds like something you'd put between 1st and 3rd level to me.

Skaros

 

[Gwarthkam]

Note that a maximized, empowered scorching ray, at 7th level, is also better than a polar ray at 8th level.

Yes, even at caster level 25 polar Ray ( avg. 89) doesn't catch up to an empowered maximized Scorching Ray (avg 93).

Polar Ray is only worth it at Epic levels, compared to Scorching Ray, and then only if you use metamagic to boost Polar Ray.

 

[Jhyrryl]

I agree with Skaros - scorching ray is not worth a 3rd-level slot, and it's too much for a 1st-level slot. The fact that it eventually exceeds the 10 dice of damage that the rules for creating new spells would expect is slightly offset by the need for multiple attack rolls.

What it sounds like is that polar ray may be a little under powered. As a single-target spell, it's doing significantly less damage as an Evocation than the nerfed horrid wilting is doing as a Necromancy spell.

 

[Gwarthkam]

Note it also requires the use of and purchase of 2 metamagic feats, whereas you can take polar ray without feats.

I have no issues with the spell. In the earlier post, it does more damage than MM on average, and less than fireball (fireball hits many more targets).

Sounds like something you'd put between 1st and 3rd level to me.

Skaros

But given only one target you want to kill via damage, scorching ray seems to be the best choice, or very close for characters level 3 to Epic. That makes single target damage spell selection easy for Sorcerers.

So, Scorching Ray competes very well with Magic Missile, Melfs Acid Arrow, various "Orb" spells from T&B, Disintegrate, and Polar Ray (to name a few). Thats getting alot from a 2.nd level spell. And given only one target Lightning bolt, Fire Ball etc.

I havn't seen a sorcerer not take empower, so I wouldn't call it a "cost"

 

[Skaros]

But given only one target you want to kill via damage, scorching ray seems to be the best choice, or very close for characters level 3 to Epic. That makes single target damage spell selection easy for Sorcerers.

So, Scorching Ray competes very well with Magic Missile, Melfs Acid Arrow, various "Orb" spells from T&B, Disintegrate, and Polar Ray (to name a few). Thats getting alot from a 2.nd level spell. And given only one target Lightning bolt, Fire Ball etc.

I havn't seen a sorcerer not take empower, so I wouldn't call it a "cost"

Anything you spend a feat on is a cost. I've never seen empower taken..that doesn't prove anything either.

I still feel that having to make multiple attack rolls, and the magic missile/fireball comparison places it as a good, but balanced, 2nd level spell.

Skaros