New Spells: Mage Bolts, Vacuum Burst, Gravity Warp(edited)

[Nifft]

Brother MacLaren brought up horrid wilting, not me. Man, you are quick with the accusations... now I understand why you have to beg for feedback.

I think you were refering to VB, which has a reflex save.

... but not against damage, in the old version, which isn't here any more.

This new version is not very useful against Rogues, but is probably excellent for hitting fighters, clerics and wizards who are fighting your party's Rogues... mmm, stunned prey!

Wouldnt use, or wouldnt allow in your game? cause you said you wouldnt allow it. Do you really disalow any spell with multiple saves?

I'm the DM. There's no difference. And no, I don't add new spells with bad mechanics. Again, why so quick to jump to conclusions?

Well, more what I ment is all the "everything is broken" people seem to think Sonic is unbalanced as well, as so I would still have people complaining.

Sonic is more powerful. That's a fact in core D&D. That's why my spell that deals Sonic damage is Fireball with less range, yet one level higher.

I haven't seen anyone but you say "everything is broken".

Good luck, -- N

 

[Merlion]

Brother MacLaren brought up horrid wilting, not me. Man, you are quick with the accusations... now I understand why you have to beg for feedback

Well, thats because I am used to people being quick to call me "munckin, powergamer" etc etc...and to making immediate and absolute statements like "this is grossly overpowered" instead of offering opnions. I'm not talking about you, or just thease boards, but after a while of that sort of thing you come to expect it.

but not against damage, in the old version, which isn't here any more.

well, it was supposed to have a reflex save against the damage from the begining, and if it didnt at some point, it was a typo.

I'm the DM. There's no difference. And no, I don't add new spells with bad mechanics. Again, why so quick to jump to conclusions

Because you said you wouldnt allow it because it had 2 saves. that led to the conclusion that you dont allow any spell with 2 saves...which is odd cause although I may be wrong, I thought there were at least a couple PH spells with multiple saves. And I dont really see how its automaticaly a bad mechanic.

I haven't seen anyone but you say "everything is broken

I have. I've been posting here, and on Monte Cook's boards and the WoTC boards for over a year...and its pretty common. Theres a core of people that insist that just about anything someone who isnt on the wizard's staff writes is drasticaly to powerful.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Okay, there's quite a bit of crazy talk going on in this thread. Sorry to see you getting so insanely dogpiled, Merlion.

Mage Bolts is a bit weak for a 3rd level spell. 10d6 *total* damage vs. fireball, which can do 10d6 against everything in a 20 ft. radius. It's not ranged touch, which means there's no chance of a critical hit, further weakening it. But, like magic missile, it has no save. So the 10d6 are "equivalent" to 20d6, which puts it back in line with 3rd level power. As for the rogue argument: when you get the spell, it does 5d6 damage, so an average of 16 point. An average rogue, with no Con bonus (and when have you ever seen a PC rogue with no Con bonus?) has 20 hp, so no, it's not an automatic rogue killer. All in all, I'd call it balanced. It's got strengths and weaknesses, but I'd say in the end it balances with fireball.

Vacuum Burst: It should be an Evocation spell. (So should Gravity Warp.) The effect is an instantaneous damage effect, so it fits best in 3e as evocation magic, not transmutation. It follows the damage cap rules for a spell of its level. (A side note: you cannot compare a 5th level wizard spell that does damage to a 5th level cleric spell that does damage. Clerical damaging spells are intentionally weaker. They explicitly state this in the rules.) Yeah, it's not "energy" damage, but that makes it a nice change. It also helps weaken the people who run around with immunity to all energy at high level, which is a *good* thing.

Gravity Warp: Now, changing the save from Reflex to Fortitude is a bigger change. On this one, I'd reduce the damage to, say, 1d8/2 levels, or change the save to Reflex. If a rogue can dodge a fireball, why not a gravity warp? It makes just as much sense. Other than that, a very good spell.

All in all, I'd say you have pretty well balanced spells here. They match other similar spells at the same level.

 

[Merlion]

Ahhh me a breath of fresh air at last.
Now I realize everyone is going to think I like your post, Cyber, because you like my spells..and I'd be lieing if I said it wasnt nice for a change.
But the real, deep reason, is because your looking at this stuff from all sides...and thinking a little outside the box.
Now, to specfic points.

Vacuum Burst: It should be an Evocation spell. (So should Gravity Warp.)

The reason behind this (as is the case with much of my work) is in-game logic/flavour. I didnt make them evocation because although what they do mechanicaly (deal damage in an area) is what evocation is best at, mechanicaly, what they are supposed to be doing to the game world doesnt involve Evoking anything. Neither of them create energies or conditions...they alter them. Vacuum Burst by causes all the air to evacuate an area, and Gravity Warp by spasmodicaly altering the intensity of gravity in an area.

(A side note: you cannot compare a 5th level wizard spell that does damage to a 5th level cleric spell that does damage. Clerical damaging spells are intentionally weaker. They explicitly state this in the rules.)

This is empyricaly true, as the rules do claim the clerical damage spells are less powerful. In practice however, this is very debatable especialy from 9th level on...however I digress..

Gravity Warp: Now, changing the save from Reflex to Fortitude is a bigger change. On this one, I'd reduce the damage to, say, 1d8/2 levels, or change the save to Reflex. If a rogue can dodge a fireball, why not a gravity warp? It makes just as much sense. Other than that, a very good spell.

Ok a little rant about save types. I made the save Fortitude instead of Reflex for much the same reason I made the spell Transmutation instead of Evocation. To me, dodging a fireball, and resisting the effects of massive flucations in gravity would be very different things. Plus, some times i just get tired of AOE damage spells with reflex saves This also goes into a minor point I have with reflex saves: they are supposed to represent getting out of the way of an attack...and yet, they are generaly saves for half damage. if you got out of the way, why are you still taking damage? I understand why, and it works...its just a minor thing I have

Okay, there's quite a bit of crazy talk going on in this thread. Sorry to see you getting so insanely dogpiled, Merlion

Well, I have to take some blame myself. I have gotten a little cynical and curmudgeonly due to all the negative crap I get (some of which comes from other boards).
People just seem to have a tendency to flip out when you do anything that breaks for the standard a bit. And some times seem to think if there is no spell that does a given thing at a given level in the PH, there never shopuld be.

 

[Merlion]

Oh and Cyberzombie, should you have time, I have considerable stuff...spells..classes...prestige classes...posted on here, and I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on them.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Mage Bolts is a bit weak for a 3rd level spell. 10d6 *total* damage vs. fireball, which can do 10d6 against everything in a 20 ft. radius.

Generally, that's not a very strong balancing factor. Area-of-effect spells have the advantage that you can hit many foes, but the disadvantage that you can't use them against foes in melee with your allies.

It's not ranged touch, which means there's no chance of a critical hit, further weakening it.

Actually, it strengthens it. Critical hits that are "20/x2" increase the damage of any attack by 5%. However, touch attacks have at least a 5% miss rate (and often more like 30-40%). Mathematically, you are better off with attacks that don't need an attack roll.

As for the rogue argument: when you get the spell, it does 5d6 damage, so an average of 16 point. An average rogue, with no Con bonus (and when have you ever seen a PC rogue with no Con bonus?) has 20 hp, so no, it's not an automatic rogue killer.

Not automatic, but very close. When you factor in Empower Spell (or add in a Quickened Magic Missile), it becomes much more lethal (a cleric or fighter can withstand even an empowered attack, and a wizard can have Shield up).
Mechanically, many players and DMs (myself included) simply dislike spells where the subject has no chance at all to defend himself. No hit roll, no save. It's a poor mechanic, and they came close to fixing that on MM but then caved in to the sacred cow. There aren't many spells like that. And because rogues have poor HP but good touch ACs and good Reflex saves, I view spells that do HP damage and ignore touch AC and Reflex saves to be spells specifically designed to kill rogues.

Area-of-effect spells that do d6/level should be Evocation. Opening that type of effect to other schools would make it a no-brainer to choose Evocation as a forbidden school for a specialist. Spell schools, illogical as it may sound, should not be assigned based on "what principles of the universe make this spell work" but "what role does this spell play."

 

[Merlion]

Generally, that's not a very strong balancing factor. Area-of-effect spells have the advantage that you can hit many foes, but the disadvantage that you can't use them against foes in melee with your allies.

I dont see that as a terribly strong balancing factor either since you can often use spells before your allies close into melee range. And depending on the enemies, letting off a fireball with your fighters in the area may well be with it.

Actually, it strengthens it. Critical hits that are "20/x2" increase the damage of any attack by 5%. However, touch attacks have at least a 5% miss rate (and often more like 30-40%). Mathematically, you are better off with attacks that don't need an attack roll.

I'd say this can go either way. At mid to high levels touch attacks, against most enemies (and effect against most enemies is the most important factor) are going to almost always be successful, and although you may not crit often, when you do, your looking at massive damage. (and there is such a thing as Improved Crit (Rays, or Energy Missiles).

Not automatic, but very close. When you factor in Empower Spell (or add in a Quickened Magic Missile), it becomes much more lethal (a cleric or fighter can withstand even an empowered attack, and a wizard can have Shield up).

Yes, but thats the way of things. All classes have strengths and weaknesses, things that are more effective against them, and things that are less so.

Mechanically, many players and DMs (myself included) simply dislike spells where the subject has no chance at all to defend himself. No hit roll, no save It's a poor mechanic, and they came close to fixing that on MM but then caved in to the sacred cow

This isnt really correct. there are still defenses. Spell Resistance. Shield Spell. Spell Turning. Brooch of Shielding. Less defenses than many spells yes, but that also is hardly unheard of. its not a poor mechanic...its one you dont like (which is perfectly valid..the game has many mechanics that are valid but that I dont personaly care for).

And because rogues have poor HP but good touch ACs and good Reflex saves, I view spells that do HP damage and ignore touch AC and Reflex saves to be spells specifically designed to kill rogues.

None of my spells were specficaly designed to kill rogues, or anyone else in particular. I get ideas for spells based on magical concepts and things from fantasy literature for the most part.

Area-of-effect spells that do d6/level should be Evocation. Opening that type of effect to other schools would make it a no-brainer to choose Evocation as a forbidden school for a specialist. Spell schools, illogical as it may sound, should not be assigned based on "what principles of the universe make this spell work" but "what role does this spell play

This is true to a point..but only to a point. if we abbandon in-game logic, and flavour, entirely, it sort of deafeats some of the purpose of playing a roleplatying game rather than a combat sim.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'd say this can go either way. At mid to high levels touch attacks, against most enemies (and effect against most enemies is the most important factor) are going to almost always be successful, and although you may not crit often, when you do, your looking at massive damage. (and there is such a thing as Improved Crit (Rays, or Energy Missiles).

A "20/x2" critical does an average of 5% more damage than normal. 5% of the time, you'll do 100% more damage. BUT, you *always* have at least a 5% chance of doing 0 damage whenever you have to roll an attack roll. So, without Improved Crit, "make an attack roll and have a 5% chance of a x2 crit" is balanced by "make an attack roll and have a 5% chance of a miss."
Now, if you have Improved Crit (rays), you go up to 10% extra damage. So if your caster always hits on a 2 or better, he'll be doing 5% more damage, on average, than a spell with no hit roll.
But, if your caster needs a 3 to hit, he'd be better off with a spell that doesn't require an attack roll.
Yes, against some foes, a 2 or better will hit with a touch attack. It won't hit an NPC of equal Dex and size and no deflection bonus until you get to a BAB of +8. Or +7 if you have Weapon Focus (ray).

 

[Terath Ninir]

Now I realize everyone is going to think I like your post, Cyber, because you like my spells..and I'd be lieing if I said it wasnt nice for a change.
But the real, deep reason, is because your looking at this stuff from all sides...and thinking a little outside the box.

I gave up caring what people think about me and my posts a long time ago. I know what you mean -- comments on the actual *ideas* are worth far more than "you can't do that you break the sacred r00lz!!!!!" Some days this forum is good, some days all you get is people who don't understand that the purpose of house rules *is* to change the game...

The reason behind this (as is the case with much of my work) is in-game logic/flavour. I didnt make them evocation because although what they do mechanicaly (deal damage in an area) is what evocation is best at, mechanicaly, what they are supposed to be doing to the game world doesnt involve Evoking anything. Neither of them create energies or conditions...they alter them. Vacuum Burst by causes all the air to evacuate an area, and Gravity Warp by spasmodicaly altering the intensity of gravity in an area.

Ah. Well, I'd still have them solidly as evocations, myself. They use different sources of power (air and gravity) but do the same sort of thing as any other evocation. However, you're aware of what you're doing and, if that's where you want them in your game, more power to you.

This is empyricaly true, as the rules do claim the clerical damage spells are less powerful. In practice however, this is very debatable especialy from 9th level on...however I digress..

I'd say it is true in practice, but as you say, it's neither here nor there...

Ok a little rant about save types. I made the save Fortitude instead of Reflex for much the same reason I made the spell Transmutation instead of Evocation. To me, dodging a fireball, and resisting the effects of massive flucations in gravity would be very different things. Plus, some times i just get tired of AOE damage spells with reflex saves This also goes into a minor point I have with reflex saves: they are supposed to represent getting out of the way of an attack...and yet, they are generaly saves for half damage. if you got out of the way, why are you still taking damage? I understand why, and it works...its just a minor thing I have

As with the school of magic, if you want to do it that way, fine. You're not stumbling into it blind. The Fortitude save does make it a little more powerful than a Reflex save does. I've seen parties where *everyone* had Evasion.

One thing that would be nice to have in official D&D is the Arcana Unearthed system of Simple, Complex, and Exotic spells. Gravity Warp would definitely be exotic. Then there'd be no worries about the spell level. Of course, as DM, you could just make it a rare spell.

Well, I have to take some blame myself. I have gotten a little cynical and curmudgeonly due to all the negative crap I get (some of which comes from other boards).
People just seem to have a tendency to flip out when you do anything that breaks for the standard a bit. And some times seem to think if there is no spell that does a given thing at a given level in the PH, there never shopuld be.

Welcome to the club! If you ever feel like working some crankiness out, come on over to Nutkinland.com . Most of us are cranky over there.

I'll take a look at some of your other ideas when I get the chance. I haven't spent much time on ENWorld in years. Since it was Eric Noah's boards, really. But I make time for House Rules.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

None of my spells were specficaly designed to kill rogues, or anyone else in particular. I get ideas for spells based on magical concepts and things from fantasy literature for the most part.

The idea for your spell itself - warping space itself to damage an opponent - is really quite neat. The implementation (mechanics) is what I disagree with.
I think it should be evocation (keeping it in the school that does such effects), and do d4/level with a Fort save or d6/level with a Reflex save. I also think it should not affect incorporeal opponents (is that also true of disintegrate? It should be.)

Does it really matter *how* the spell accomplishes its task? I could make up a conjuration spell that brings a mass of flaming hot gases from the sun to a point I designate, and specify that it does d6/level fire damage in a 20' radius with a reflex save for half. The DM would look at me, laugh, and say "Nice try, but you picked evocation as one of your forbidden schools. Don't try to get around that." You could lawyer your way into making almost any spell fit any school, which would make the concept of schools meaningless.

Magic Bolts is absolutely not weak. It compares quite well to an Empowered Magic Missile (also a 3rd-level spell, but MM itself really should be 2nd-level) and it is better than Polar Ray (an 8th-level spell that requires a hit roll). It probably will be better in most circumstances than disintegrate (2d6/level, but requires a hit roll *and* allows a save for less-than-half damage). I still think that area-of-effect versus single-target is a wash. No real reason to give one more damage than the other.

I gave up caring what people think about me and my posts a long time ago. I know what you mean -- comments on the actual *ideas* are worth far more than "you can't do that you break the sacred r00lz!!!!!" Some days this forum is good, some days all you get is people who don't understand that the purpose of house rules *is* to change the game...

Look, I'm not trying to be a stickler for the rules for the sake of the existing rules. I am trying to get you to think about the concepts behind the rules. Why are certain spells the way they are? Why are there no spells that are "Reflex Save or be Helpless"? (because it would provide a super-easy way to kill a party's cleric - and, no, Merlion doesn't have such a spell) Why doesn't transmutation have the mass-damage spells that evocation has? (because it already has the most versatile and best spell list in the game) If a rule is simply arbitrary and does no good, feel free to change it. But if a rule balances the game, keeps it fresh by preventing any one option from being the "The Best," and otherwise makes the game more fun, think carefully before discarding it. If you want to ditch the theories behind the rules, then come out and say that. But I didn't think that was what Merlion was pitching.

Comments on ideas are NOT inherently worth more than comments on the rules. This is, as the name says, the House Rules forum. It's about rules. Part of the point of this forum is for other players to make suggestions and comments on the impact of your house rules on the game. As a player and as a DM I've come up with hundreds of ideas of things that would be cool in my mind but that could just possibly have the effect of making the game less fun for some players in some way I hadn't thought of. That's the hard part. Coming up with good ideas, while challenging, is far easier than determining what the impact of those ideas will be. How does a change to this spell affect that class? Does a spell render a given class obselete? Does a spell make wizards much more powerful against many more foes than they were before? That's the hard part. You need a lot of opinions on "How will this change affect my game" because there are so many factors to consider. It's taken TSR/WOTC many years to design a halfway balanced game in which there isn't One Best Weapon and One Most Powerful Class. This isn't simple.