Scorching Ray

[Grayhawk]

When 3.5e arrived I remember som talk about Scorching Ray being overpowered with it's 4d6 damage per ray.

At 11th level the 3 Scorching Rays will deal an average of 42 HP if they all hit, while a Melf's Acid Arrow will deal an average of 20 HP over 4 rounds, if it hits.

Granted, Scorching Ray needs two more attack rolls, has a much shorter range and is propably easier to resist, but was any consensus reached about whether it's actually balanced or not?

 

[Creamsteak]

Consensus reached about whether [anything is] balanced or not?



It's a good spell, and adds to any caster that wants to deal direct damage. It's still not necessarily a better choice than any other spell at that level. As a sorcerer, it's a bread and butter spell. As a wizard, much less important. 2nd level spells would be lacking without it, in my personal opinion. But consensus I don't have.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Second level always seemed to be a nowhere land of spells. In first and second edition, there just wasn't much worth taking. In 3.0, the buff spells were so Uber that you couldn't justify taking anything else. Playing a 3.5 Wizard right now (5th level), Scorching Ray is a very useful spell, but I don't feel like it's too powerful. I carry it almost every day, true, but I think it's within the realm of balance.

 

[Pielorinho]

Casters IMC still take Melf's a lot more often, but that may be a holdover from 3.0. Damage spells that are immune to SR are too precious to pass up, and melf's is a great one to empower or extend.

Daniel

 

[Grayhawk]

Would it still be a worthwhile spell if each ray dealt 3d6 instead?

(Btw Creamsteak, Slick is da man! )

 

[MacMathan]

IMC we have been using it at 3d6 for each ray for 9d6 max. We found that 12d6 max was a bit much, especially empowered to 18d6. It also keeps it within the guidelines in the DMG for single target second level spells maxing out at 10d6.

 

[Grayhawk]

IMC we have been using it at 3d6 for each ray for 9d6 max. We found that 12d6 max was a bit much, especially empowered to 18d6. It also keeps it within the guidelines in the DMG for single target second level spells maxing out at 10d6.

And your players are still using it and are happy with it?

 

[Thanee]

Well, we are still of moderate level, but so far Scorching Ray hasn't been overpowering at all. It's a very good spell, one that is seen quite a bit, but not more.

I find Ray of Enfeeblement a lot nastier, when empowered, as it will have a good chance to disable a low-mid strength character right away.

Bye
Thanee

 

[jgsugden]

A few things to note about this argument:

Acid arrow deals damage slower and in lower amounts (at least at reasonable levels), but is no longer subject to SR. That makes it a very important damage dealing spell.

Scorching ray deals 3 sets of 4d6 damage - 3 times an average of 14 damage. Fire resistance is the most common form of energy resistance out there.

It requires 3 attack rolls. Even though the expected damage dealt by the scorching ray would not change if the spell were to be changed to 1 attack roll, the percentage of times that 100% of the spell has an effect would change significantly, even if you always hit on a roll of 2.

Close range is more of a problem in some games than in others, but it often requires the PC to be within range for the enemy creature to come and attack them with melee weapons.

All that being said, it is a strong spell for its level, but it would be too weak if it only shot 2 rays and would also be too weak if it were kept as is as a 3rd level spell.

 

[The Souljourner]

In my campaigns, it has shown itself to be very well balanced. It has an insanely short range, such that a spellcaster has to put himself in danger just to reach an enemy... it requires an attack roll, which although it goes against touch AC, misses as often as it hits. The -8 for melee and cover almost always comes into play, and for an 8th level caster with +4 bab and *maybe* +2 for dex, that means he's starting with a -2 to hit. That's pretty damn bad.

Yeah, it does significant damage.... but 4d6 isn't what it used to be. Even when it hits, that's a mere 14 damage on average. Big deal. At 7th it's 28 damage... whoo... those beasties are shaking in their boots. And that's assuming the caster doesn't outright miss, which happens all the time.

So, yeah, it's fine, at least in the 3 or so campaigns I've seen it in.

-The Souljourner