I have an idea: make the spell more dynamic. You can choose at time of preparation (if wiz.) or casting (if Sor.) whether you want the spell to allow for save, SR, or touch, So, you can deliver it as a touch with no save or SR,or cast it to allow SR but no save and no touch, or you could cast it so it allows save, with no SR and no touch (or something like that). Too complicated?
IS this a viable and balanced Level 9 spell
- Thread starter Belzbet
- Start date
Empirate
First Post
Prior discussion aside, let's look at the three defenses many posters seem to think viable: attack roll, save, SR.
An attack roll is trivial much of the time at the levels we're talking about. Quickened True Strike has come online 8 levels ago and WILL be used in concert with a potentially encounter-ending spell. That also gets rid of miss chances, btw. We're looking at touch ACs upwards of 40 to even have a slight chance of not being hit.
Saving throws seem to be the biggie here. Getting your save DC up beyond a certain point is kind of hard. Adding a save to negate would therefore quite invalidate the spell if it only does damage (look at the kind of save-or-dies you could have been throwing around forever by now). A save for half damage... maybe. I'd still only memorize a pure damage spell in a 9th (!) level slot if the damage dealt would be more or less unmitigable.
Spell Resistance is kind of weird, in that some creatures will be totally vulnerable to the spell (so no balancing factor at all), while against others you need to make a roll. In a core-only game, spell resistance is actually a meaningful defense against a spell attack (that's one reason why Conjuration is such an OP school). Out of core, spell resistance is rather easy to handle (such as by casting Assay Resistance beforehand), unless it is of a ridiculous value.
All in all, I'd say these defenses are kind of whacky. Using them as a balancing factor can quickly make the spell either a) not balanced (further) at all, or b) unattractive to ever use.
Tacking on a save should only be done if the primary effect is rather a bit on the strong side (such as 10 points of damage/CL PLUS daze for 1d4 rounds PLUS extra damage/effects vs. Undead).
Tacking on a ranged touch attack only forces the use of Quickened True Strike, which is a bit of a resource, but no big deal. A melee touch further needs a means of delivering the spell at range (such as the Spectral Hand spell), but doesn't decrease the spell's actual power - it only tells the caster how many hoops he has to jump through, either making the spell unattractive to him/her OR not doing a damn thing to balance it.
Allowing SR to defeat the spell introduces a number of effects largely based on the campaign (lots of evil outsiders? Don't use. Lots of more mundanely powerful foes? You're good to go), and on the books used (e.g. Spell Compendium or no).
None of these will have any impact on a campaign in which the usual iconic core spells are used as-is (which is the majority of campaigns, I'd guess). Namely, if you make the spell unattractive: not only in that it deals single target damage, and not even enough damage to truly irritate half the foes you'll be facing at this level; but ALSO in allowing a save or making the caster jump through some hoops to confirm the outcome - then they'll just whip out trusty old Gate or Shapechange and go to town.
BTW, to all those who think these spells shouldn't be used as a benchmark: the only thing we really need to know for this discussion is whether the OP's campaign allows Gate, Shapechange, Time Stop etc. If it does, these are the benchmark, because people in his campaign WILL be using them.
An attack roll is trivial much of the time at the levels we're talking about. Quickened True Strike has come online 8 levels ago and WILL be used in concert with a potentially encounter-ending spell. That also gets rid of miss chances, btw. We're looking at touch ACs upwards of 40 to even have a slight chance of not being hit.
Saving throws seem to be the biggie here. Getting your save DC up beyond a certain point is kind of hard. Adding a save to negate would therefore quite invalidate the spell if it only does damage (look at the kind of save-or-dies you could have been throwing around forever by now). A save for half damage... maybe. I'd still only memorize a pure damage spell in a 9th (!) level slot if the damage dealt would be more or less unmitigable.
Spell Resistance is kind of weird, in that some creatures will be totally vulnerable to the spell (so no balancing factor at all), while against others you need to make a roll. In a core-only game, spell resistance is actually a meaningful defense against a spell attack (that's one reason why Conjuration is such an OP school). Out of core, spell resistance is rather easy to handle (such as by casting Assay Resistance beforehand), unless it is of a ridiculous value.
All in all, I'd say these defenses are kind of whacky. Using them as a balancing factor can quickly make the spell either a) not balanced (further) at all, or b) unattractive to ever use.
Tacking on a save should only be done if the primary effect is rather a bit on the strong side (such as 10 points of damage/CL PLUS daze for 1d4 rounds PLUS extra damage/effects vs. Undead).
Tacking on a ranged touch attack only forces the use of Quickened True Strike, which is a bit of a resource, but no big deal. A melee touch further needs a means of delivering the spell at range (such as the Spectral Hand spell), but doesn't decrease the spell's actual power - it only tells the caster how many hoops he has to jump through, either making the spell unattractive to him/her OR not doing a damn thing to balance it.
Allowing SR to defeat the spell introduces a number of effects largely based on the campaign (lots of evil outsiders? Don't use. Lots of more mundanely powerful foes? You're good to go), and on the books used (e.g. Spell Compendium or no).
None of these will have any impact on a campaign in which the usual iconic core spells are used as-is (which is the majority of campaigns, I'd guess). Namely, if you make the spell unattractive: not only in that it deals single target damage, and not even enough damage to truly irritate half the foes you'll be facing at this level; but ALSO in allowing a save or making the caster jump through some hoops to confirm the outcome - then they'll just whip out trusty old Gate or Shapechange and go to town.
BTW, to all those who think these spells shouldn't be used as a benchmark: the only thing we really need to know for this discussion is whether the OP's campaign allows Gate, Shapechange, Time Stop etc. If it does, these are the benchmark, because people in his campaign WILL be using them.
Yes I do allow these spells and any and pretty much any spell in other sources.
Empirate
First Post
Depends on the kind of balance you prefer, I guess. Getting a slight area upgrade over 3rd level's Fireball doesn't cut it for me, personally - so Meteor Swarm might as well be left out of the game where I'm concerned. Gateing in a Solar is exactly the thing a super-high level Wizard would be expected to do in my games, on the other hand. Other games may function differently.
xigbar
Explorer
While it's true that munchkins will use that arguement, I find it silly that this perception gets carried over to all optimization in general. It completely misses one of the main points of optimization, which is to educate DMs on what can be done specifically as to prevent it from happening when a munchkin does comes along. If you actually bother to read all of the thread that Pun-Pun was first made in, you'll notice that the guy who made it expressly says not to actually try to using, and it was just a theoretical excersize.
Similar Threads
