Care to comment on a spell...?

[Ruavel]

below is a spell put to me by one of my players... it's an adaptation (& improvement) on something similar in an older version of the game...

I'm currently in two-minds about approving it, and would love to hear some comments from other DM's and players...



(Evocation) [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 8; SuM 8;
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: One 5ft radius burst per level
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

You create up to one mass of flame per level to explode upon the battlefield. Each mass of flame is treated as a 5-foot-radius burst and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per level (maximum 20d6) to all creatures within the area. The bursts to not need to be contiguous, and may be distributed within the range as you see fit. Burst effects that overlap to not inflict additional damage.
Material Component: A flask of alchemists fire.]

thanks people...

and before anyone asks, yes the name has been left off intentionally...

 

[Geoff Watson]

It's nearly identical to Firebrand from Magic of Faerun, except for level.

What does SuM mean?

Geoff.

 

[Staffan]

Definitely doesn't seem overpowered to me. It's still a measly 1d6 per level damage, which is balanced by the great flexibility the spell has in targetting.

 

[kreynolds]

It's nearly identical to Firebrand from Magic of Faerun, except for level.

Yup. Cool lookin' spell, Ruavel.

 

[MarauderX]

It looks good to me as a pinpoint fireball... and at 8th level it is pretty good.

But the munchkin in me sees the potential for surrounding a huge critter with it, and the critter taking XXd6 points of damage for each 10' exposure it has. If my 20th level caster rains this spell down on a all sides of a gigantic dragon, it will end up taking 20x20d6 damage... a bit much for the spell IMO.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Since that was explicitly removed as a possibility, I think the spell is fine.

 

[Magic Slim]

Since that was explicitly removed as a possibility, I think the spell is fine.

I don't think it was. Overlapping was specifically made impossible, but not for multiple bursts to hit the same creature of great size.

The spell would seem more fair if no two bursts can hit the same creature.

Slim

 

[kreynolds]

I don't think it was.

I don't think it necessarily has to. If a spell doesn't must make a specific exception within its description, such as with meteor swarm, then there's no need. As far as I can tell, spells like meteor swarm are an exception.

 

[Magic Slim]

I don't think it necessarily has to. If a spell doesn't must make a specific exception within its description, such as with meteor swarm, then there's no need. As far as I can tell, spells like meteor swarm are an exception.

So MarauderX's scenario is an impossible one to you, when you read the spell's description?

But the munchkin in me sees the potential for surrounding a huge critter with it, and the critter taking XXd6 points of damage for each 10' exposure it has. If my 20th level caster rains this spell down on a all sides of a gigantic dragon, it will end up taking 20x20d6 damage... a bit much for the spell IMO.

Slim

 

[kreynolds]

So MarauderX's scenario is an impossible one to you, when you read the spell's description?

Absolutely.