Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6887837" data-attributes="member: 6701872">It is sort of both, actually. I have to admit my earlier comment didn't consider the spell appropriately because I was treating it as both multi-target and single-target, but doing so in an inappropriate way by dividing the multi-target damage among each of the attacks.It seems more appropriate, now that I've realized that error, to make sure that the spell does not exceed the single target damage guideline if used against a single target, but also does not exceed the multiple target damage guideline if spread among as many targets as is possible.So that means taking the 5d10 single target damage, adding 25% because a die roll going the right way means 0 damage rather than 1/2, and dividing that among the number of attacks granted by the spell - so each attack could have a maximum damage of 15-16 and be within that guideline, if all the spell did was grant these attacks. And that would work because 16 damage maximum is within the 6d6 plus 25% (45) multiple target suggested maximum damage.Of course, it is still important to make the damage even lower than this if it retains abilities outside of just attacks that deal damage.I believe that adhering to a general truth of the 5th edition spell system would be even better than simply reducing the scaling. That general truth being that spells which scale their effects depending on the level they are cast at usually only scale a single trait of the spell, not multiple traits - such as fireball gaining additional dice but not longer range or larger area of effect, bless gaining additional targets but not larger benefit or longer duration, or hunter's mark gaining longer duration but not additional targets or greater damage.I think the reaction abilities added to the attack and AC abilities push the spell to a higher level than 3rd, even with the limitations relative to the other spells I mentioned.But then, I don't think that a 3rd level spell that performs as if it were half of a 3rd level spell (counterspell, but only in certain situations and with a stricter effective level limit), more than all of a 2nd level spell (scorching ray), better than one 1st level spell but for shorter time (shield of faith), and entirely better than more than one casting of another 1st level spell (shield) can possibly only be a 3rd level spell and not be considered overpowered.My recommended version would be something along these lines:OBSIDIAN SPEARS3rd-level conjurationCasting Time: 1 actionRange: SelfComponents: V, S, M (a drop of ichor and a sliver of obsidian)Duration: Concentration, up to one minuteFour spear-tipped obsidian spider-like appendages sprout out from your back. For the duration, you have a +2 bonus to AC.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with each obsidian spear with a reach of 10 feet. On a hit, the target takes 1d6 piercing damage and 1d6 necrotic damage.You can end the spell early by using your reaction to interpose the obsidian spears to protect you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack.At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you create one additional spear appendage for each slot level above 3rd.</blockquote>

Verification