Explosive Cascade and Firebrand

[Pinotage]

Our 3e game is converting to 3.5e, and one of the players asked me to convert Explosive cascade and Firebrand (both from Magic of Faerun) to 3.5e. While one can probably just leave them as is, I've long been uncomfortable with the relative power level of these spells and feel that the levels should be higher than they are. I was hoping anybody could give me some helpful advice or insight into whether these spells should be higher level and if there might be any conversion issues. Now seems the ideal opportunity to change these spells, if required. What are others' experiences of these spells in game?

Thanks!

Pinotage

 

[andargor]

Our 3e game is converting to 3.5e, and one of the players asked me to convert Explosive cascade and Firebrand (both from Magic of Faerun) to 3.5e.

Firstly, this is borderline house rule territory, but I see where you're coming from.

IOC (3.5), we have used both Explosive Cascade and Firebrand quite extensively.

Explosive Cascade is appropriate for it's level. The fact that the targets have to be connected by a line essentially makes it a shapeable version of Fireball, albeit with a higher damage cap. We have found this spell balanced.

Firebrand on the other hand is borderline 6th level. The fact that it is an almost-targettable spell (5' radius bursts) with a large number of targets means that hosts of mooks get fried in no time. Against a few large targets, it is however less effective (or no more effective than other 15d6 cap damaging spells), as you are wasting a lot of those bursts (no overlap, as per RAW).

Bottom line: Explosive Cascade, ok. Firebrand: could be 6th, although if encounters have few combattants, it's fine as it is.

Andargor

 

[Trellian]

A wizard in my group recently chose Firebrand when he got access to 5th level spells, and I was also skeptical about the spell. If you have to tweak it, set the max damage to 10d6. It is still a highly useful spell as you quite freely can chose which opponents to hit.

 

[Egres]

Note that in the PGtF they didn't convert them,and then this means that WotC think that the spells are good as they are.

I'll admit that i didn't find any problems with my PCs when they used them.

 

[Hammerhead]

We changed Firebrand to level 6. It still seemed good at its higher level; my evoker used it quite a bit as a mid range, multi target, party friendly attack spell. Maybe at level 6 you couuld get rid of the expensive material component, though, to reduce book keeping.

No one really used Explosive Cascade, so I can't judge it with any great degree of confidence. However, I didn't pick it. When compared to the various energy orb spells, the damage seems low. While the area can be shaped, it's rather small and is easily wasted moving between targets. In the tight confines where you could easily hit several foes with it, a spell that hits multiple targets within X feet would probably work just as well.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Explosive Cascade is appropriate for it's level. The fact that the targets have to be connected by a line essentially makes it a shapeable version of Fireball, albeit with a higher damage cap. We have found this spell balanced.

The damage die cap for explosive cascade is the same as fireball (10d6). Definately balanced.

 

[ThirdWizard]

We havn't used Firebrand yet, but Explosive Cascade has seemed balanced. The wizard was sad when I informed him that he can't hit the same creature more than once with a single casting, but he got over it.

 

[BigAlzBub]

You might want to consider forcing the player to acquire the material components for the fire brand spell (ie alchemists fire), it may only be 15 gp per shot but it means that you have to ration the spell to when it truely needed, or else carry tonns of the stuff around with you and risk going up like a roman candle when you roll that natural 1 on a reflex save. Just a thought.

 

[Pinotage]

Thanks for all the replies. This might be a daft question but when Explosive Cascade says it has to run in a line, does the line need to be straight? Or can it just jump 5 ft from one square to another diagonally, straight or however? If you'll excuse the analogy, is it like a rook or bishop in chess or a queen?

Thanks

Pinotage

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Thanks for all the replies. This might be a daft question but when Explosive Cascade says it has to run in a line, does the line need to be straight? Or can it just jump 5 ft from one square to another diagonally, straight or however? If you'll excuse the analogy, is it like a rook or bishop in chess or a queen?

Thanks

Pinotage

Nope, the line can bend, zig-zag or twist, but needs to be continous, however you need it to fall. You cannot hit the same target twice with one cascade though, by having it circle back onto him. That's the advantage of cascade, you can slice right through a melee, leaving your allies intact and unsinged

As for "Firebrand" - not really overpowered and well balanced, 15D6 is an acceptable damage cap and the decent number of bursts can rarely if ever be brought into play - how many times does a group face opposition numbered more than a half-dozen that also needs to be taken down by a large yield evocation spell (average damage of 52,5 point at max level, before saves ) ?
Leave it as it is - if even the PGtF agrees to leave it unchanged, it really looks balanced.