Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6742565" data-attributes="member: 58197">Non-fire sorcerers certainly get the short end of the stick in 5E. However, there are reasons not to simply change the damage type on fire spells. One is that acid resistance/immunity is a lot less common than fire resistance/immunity; another is that fire spells sometimes have to be used with caution, due to the risk of setting stuff on fire that you don't want set on fire (e.g., buildings). Both of those mean that acidball is substantially better than fireball. Finally, I think there should be substantive differences between elements. Acid should &quot;feel&quot; different from fire.My suggestion would be to look at existing acid spells, then work with your DM to create some type of acid-based blasting spell that's comparable to fireball in power level but isn't a direct port. For example, you might have a 40-foot cone that deals 4d6 acid damage, Dexterity save for half. A creature that fails the save also takes 4d6 acid damage at the start of its next turn.This spell deals less damage on average than fireball (a successful save results in 4d6/2 damage rather than 8d6/2), takes slightly more time to deal its full damage, and has a worse AoE (both smaller and shorter range). On the other hand, it deals acid damage, doesn't start fires, and the cone is sometimes more effective at bypassing your allies while still hitting enemies.Edit: As usual, should have read the whole thread. Vitriolic sphere covers the territory nicely and is pretty similar to what I posted. Still, there's a substantial difference between a level 3 spell and a level 4 spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6742565, member: 58197"] Non-fire sorcerers certainly get the short end of the stick in 5E. However, there are reasons not to simply change the damage type on fire spells. One is that acid resistance/immunity is a lot less common than fire resistance/immunity; another is that fire spells sometimes have to be used with caution, due to the risk of setting stuff on fire that you don't want set on fire (e.g., buildings). Both of those mean that [I]acidball[/I] is substantially better than [I]fireball[/I]. Finally, I think there should be substantive differences between elements. Acid should "feel" different from fire. My suggestion would be to look at existing acid spells, then work with your DM to create some type of acid-based blasting spell that's comparable to [I]fireball[/I] in power level but isn't a direct port. For example, you might have a 40-foot cone that deals 4d6 acid damage, Dexterity save for half. A creature that fails the save also takes 4d6 acid damage at the start of its next turn. This spell deals less damage on average than [I]fireball[/I] (a successful save results in 4d6/2 damage rather than 8d6/2), takes slightly more time to deal its full damage, and has a worse AoE (both smaller and shorter range). On the other hand, it deals acid damage, doesn't start fires, and the cone is sometimes more effective at bypassing your allies while still hitting enemies. [I]Edit: As usual, should have read the whole thread. [/I]Vitriolic sphere[I] covers the territory nicely and is pretty similar to what I posted. Still, there's a substantial difference between a level 3 spell and a level 4 spell.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification