Acid Variant of Burning Hands

[Hawken]

Acid damage is more powerful for three reasons:

1/ Fire-based critters are far more common than Acid-immune critters.
2/ Acid damages objects (like Sonic damage).
3/ Acid is less common than Fire, and therefore counter-measures are less frequent.

That last one you can change for your campaign, but it will take some effort.

Acid spells are more powerful for yet another reason:

4/ Acid spells are typically of school Conjuration (Creation), and thus do not allow spell resistance. You can harm a Golem with acid arrow, you cannot harm a Golem with scorching ray.

These reasons do not in and of themselves make acid any more or less powerful than any other energy type (not that acid is an energy type per se, but neither is cold).
Your reason#1: Frequency (or infrequency) of resistant creatures doesn't make energy more or less potent, it just means that; more or fewer creatures are resistant, nothing more. How you interpret that is up to you, but it doesn't make the acid any more or less potent.

Your reason#2: All energy types damage objects. And with dice used to determine damage, acid could just as likely do less damage than other energy types. While acid has the advantage of ignoring hardness, it doesn't ignite combustibles like fire does, it does chill objects or freeze liquids like cold does. Like anything else, it has its advantages and uses and its disadvantages and occasions where it is inappropriate.

Your reason#3: Acid may be less common than fire but that is because it is a chemical compound, not an energy type. Just because it is more complex a substance than fire, doesn't mean that countermeasures are less frequent in availability. If there are more countermeasures against fire, it is because fire is encountered more frequently and people choose not to have countermeasures against acid. Again, this doesn't make acid more powerful.

Your reason#4: This reason is easily corrected as acid was made conjuration just so Evokers wouldn't have all the good damage spells. Conjuration spells last longer and acid is more damaging to objects the longer it is around. An acid version of Fireball would be just as damaging as a typical Fireball. There is no reason that acid could not be used in more evocation spells. And vice versa, there is no reason a conjuration spell could not summon a fire arrow instead of an acid one or an electric one. Incindiary Cloud is similar in effect to Acid Fog and both are conjuration spells, but why not make an electrical version?

I didn't realise that acid ignored spell resistance.

Acid in and of itself doesn't, effects created by conjuration magic do.

I'm generally against making variants of an existing spell just by changing the energy type. It's redundant.

You're arguing against yourself. Changing something is not redundant. Making a duplicate of something is redundant. And a variant of a spell should be of equal power (albeit with different effects) not more or less power. A 1st level Acid Hands should do as much damage as a 1st level Burning Hands, just a different type of damage. The acid is no more or less potent than the fire, it just behaves differently and is useful under different circumstances. Acid hands is going to cause the same damage as Burning Hands and its not going to do anything else. Whereas Burning Hands has the potential to ignite combustibles that are exposed to it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I hate to sound grumpy, Hawken, but you make no sense.

Your reason#1: Frequency (or infrequency) of resistant creatures doesn't make energy more or less potent, it just means that; more or fewer creatures are resistant, nothing more. How you interpret that is up to you, but it doesn't make the acid any more or less potent.

Yes, applicability to the creatures encountered does increase overall potency. Conversely, you come come up with a death effect, but if it only affects creatures with eighteen heads born in the month of March, then it's useless and impotent in every situation except maybe one: meaning it's much less useful and potent than a death effect without the restrictions. This is actually VERY important to balance of power/potency. You shouldn't dismiss it so flippantly.

Your reason#2: All energy types damage objects. And with dice used to determine damage, acid could just as likely do less damage than other energy types. While acid has the advantage of ignoring hardness, it doesn't ignite combustibles like fire does, it does chill objects or freeze liquids like cold does. Like anything else, it has its advantages and uses and its disadvantages and occasions where it is inappropriate.

Almost EVERYTHING in D&D uses dice. Pointing that out doesn't help anybody. Ignoring hardness is, once again, important because of its universal applicability. Almost every object one may wish to damage has hardness of some sort, while not every object you damage with this spell needs to be heated, burnt, frozen, or whatnot. It's all about universal utility: the more frequently a spell is useful, the more powerful it is in-game.

Your reason#3: Acid may be less common than fire but that is because it is a chemical compound, not an energy type. Just because it is more complex a substance than fire, doesn't mean that countermeasures are less frequent in availability. If there are more countermeasures against fire, it is because fire is encountered more frequently and people choose not to have countermeasures against acid. Again, this doesn't make acid more powerful.

Ask a left-handed pitcher or batter about this one. Because there are so many right-handed players, other players are used to compensating for the right-handed players' playing style, and a lefty makes their foreknowledge and experience less useful. Being different in a generally standardized contest gives a decided advantage.
Perhaps your argument is that D&D shouldn't be standardized. Well, it is unless homebrewed otherwise, and it would be a disservice to the OP to launch into speculations about his spell's effects upon a houserule he isn't using.

Your reason#4: This reason is easily corrected as acid was made conjuration just so Evokers wouldn't have all the good damage spells. Conjuration spells last longer and acid is more damaging to objects the longer it is around. An acid version of Fireball would be just as damaging as a typical Fireball. There is no reason that acid could not be used in more evocation spells. And vice versa, there is no reason a conjuration spell could not summon a fire arrow instead of an acid one or an electric one. Incindiary Cloud is similar in effect to Acid Fog and both are conjuration spells, but why not make an electrical version?

Conjuration spells bring an entity or item into existence that had not existed previously, then that entity or item follows the natural laws of the plane during its brief existence. Evocation spells bring an effect into existence, such that the tangible aspects of the spell are purely magical and not inherently bound by natural laws. Acid spells are conjurations because the acid itself works just like acid produced by any other means. You can't conjure "electricity", because there is no such substance in the material plane; just items charged with electrical differentials. You couldn't conjure "fire", either, just flamable materials of high enough temperature to auto-ignite. Swapping out energy types in existing spells should follow some basic guidelines and remain similar to the existing system, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all.

I can't believe I just typed all that out. Except for the energy types, this is pretty fundamental to good game balance.

 

[DreamChaser]

Conjuration spells bring an entity or item into existence that had not existed previously, then that entity or item follows the natural laws of the plane during its brief existence.

You mean like holding a fixed arrow shape and propelling itself over range to strike a creature or object?

You can't conjure "electricity", because there is no such substance in the material plane; just items charged with electrical differentials.

You mean like Orb of Electricity? Okay maybe that is conjuring lots of ions...how about Orb of Force?

Conjuations avoid SR for pure metagame reasons not because the magic is less magical in them (though this is the "reason" given). The idea of conjurations as obeying any natural laws is disproven by the spells more often than it is proven.

DC

 

[the Jester]

These reasons do not in and of themselves make acid any more or less powerful than any other energy type (not that acid is an energy type per se, but neither is cold).
Your reason#1: Frequency (or infrequency) of resistant creatures doesn't make energy more or less potent, it just means that; more or fewer creatures are resistant, nothing more. How you interpret that is up to you, but it doesn't make the acid any more or less potent.

Your reason#2: All energy types damage objects. And with dice used to determine damage, acid could just as likely do less damage than other energy types. While acid has the advantage of ignoring hardness, it doesn't ignite combustibles like fire does, it does chill objects or freeze liquids like cold does. Like anything else, it has its advantages and uses and its disadvantages and occasions where it is inappropriate.

Your reason#3: Acid may be less common than fire but that is because it is a chemical compound, not an energy type. Just because it is more complex a substance than fire, doesn't mean that countermeasures are less frequent in availability. If there are more countermeasures against fire, it is because fire is encountered more frequently and people choose not to have countermeasures against acid. Again, this doesn't make acid more powerful.

Your reason#4: This reason is easily corrected as acid was made conjuration just so Evokers wouldn't have all the good damage spells. Conjuration spells last longer and acid is more damaging to objects the longer it is around. An acid version of Fireball would be just as damaging as a typical Fireball. There is no reason that acid could not be used in more evocation spells. And vice versa, there is no reason a conjuration spell could not summon a fire arrow instead of an acid one or an electric one. Incindiary Cloud is similar in effect to Acid Fog and both are conjuration spells, but why not make an electrical version?

I completely disagree with you here. Shrug. To each his/her own.

 

[smootrk]

Instead of calling it 'acid' call it a wave of highly corrosive energy (acidic). It it absolutely must have a secondary effect, then have it cause damage to objects (minimally, like 1 point per CL, up to 5) to major items worn or held by the target (like armor/robe/clothing, shield, weapon/other held item). No additional lingering effects beyond this strike, as no actual acid is 'conjured', simply a burst/cone of special magical energy.

 

[Aaron L]

The proposed cold version looks fine to me.
Didn’t mean to jump on you about the power level thing.

Extinguishing fires is far more similar (is that proper English?) in power level of the secondary effect in burning hands.

Just to let you know; that is perfectly fine and proper English

 

[Ciaran]

You can't conjure "electricity", because there is no such substance in the material plane; just items charged with electrical differentials. You couldn't conjure "fire", either, just flamable materials of high enough temperature to auto-ignite.

And a giant's legs will snap under its own weight because of the square-cube law!!!!!1!one!!

 

[Narsil]

And a giant's legs will snap under its own weight because of the square-cube law!!!!!1!one!!

No, you foolish boy, the Giants have permanent-effect "Defy Physics". As do Wizard, Sorcerers, Clerics, Deities, Outsiders, Giant Creatures of Any Type, Dragons and Psionic characters.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey, the Material plane doesn't pretend to be the same universe WE live it, but it has its rules, and I'm just going by how they describe the rules. *shrug*

 

[Olaf the Stout]

It should deal less damage, and it should NOT have any secondary effect!

But keep in mind that, at 3rd level, the Cone of Acid would be better than Acid Arrow, which is a 2nd level spell, even without any secondary effect. Way too strong.

(snip)

Nifft, I just did some average damage calculations of Acid Arrow compared to my proposed acid variation of Burning Hands. Here is how it breaks down:

Acid Arrow

1 5 (2d4)
2 5 (2d4)
3 10 (2d4 + 2d4)
4 10 (2d4 + 2d4)
5 10 (2d4 + 2d4)
6 15 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
7 15 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
8 15 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
9 20 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
...
12 25 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
...
15 30 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4)
...
18 35 (2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4 + 2d4) MAX


Burning Hands

1 2.5 (1d4)
2 5 (2d4)
3 7.5 (3d4)
4 10 (4d4)
5 12.5 (5d4) MAX
6 12.5 (5d4), etc.,


Some things to note:

Acid Arrow does 2d4 in the round that it hits. The extra 2d4's damage occur every round after that (i.e. an 18th level acid arrow spell does 2d4 damage every round for 7 rounds), whereas Burning Hands does damage in the round that it is cast only.

Acid Arrow ignores Spell Resistance. Burning Hands does not.

Burning Hands allows a Reflex save for half damage. Acid Arrow requires a ranged touch attack.

Acid Arrow affects only 1 person but has a long range (400 ft. + 40 ft./level). Burning Hands affects all creatures in a 15 ft. cone.

I think that this comparision shows that an acid version of Burning Hands isn't better than Acid Arrow in general. In some specific situations it may be better but I think that overall Acid Arrow is still a more powerful spell.

IMO I think that my acid version of Burning Hands is balanced provided it doesn't ignore Spell Resistance (unlike Acid Arrow) and I don't give it any secondary effects. What does everyone else think?

Olaf the Stout