Scorching Ray

[Plane Sailing]

(It annoys me a little bit that Scorching Ray maxes out at 11th level, when 3rd level spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt maxes out at 10th.

Follows the pattern of Resist Elements (2nd level spell) though

 

[Stalker0]

Follows the pattern of Resist Elements (2nd level spell) though

Slam dunk plane sailing

 

[drnuncheon]

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

On the other hand, flame arrow was considered an incredibly wussy 3rd level spell back in 3.0, and this version doesn't even have the secondary function.

Also, don't forget that MAA does continuous damage, which is nice for targeting spellcasters (the more times they have to roll Concentration the greater the chance of failure, after all.)

J

 

[Staffan]

On the other hand, flame arrow was considered an incredibly wussy 3rd level spell back in 3.0, and this version doesn't even have the secondary function.

The big reason flame arrow v3.0 was wussy was that it required both attack rolls and saves, and had a damage that was consistently less than or equal to the area-effect fireball. Scorching ray on the other hand occasionally does more damage than 1d6/level, does not give a save, and is one level lower.

 

[Moleculo]

Not exactly, they don't. Lightning bolt CAN be cast on diagonals, and so forth. And if the opponents are Large, that makes it even easier - aim for the "back" half of most of 'em, and you have even more breathing room WRT your own fighters.

By straightline, I mean that the bolt must travel in a straight line, which it has to. Also, it has to originate from the spell caster.

Plus, with a preplanned tactic - every fighter delays until after the "big guys" have gone; they then full attack ... and 5' step AWAY. Even more room to fit that LBolt in, when your (also delayed) action comes up.

This scenario still doesn't garauntee a straightline between more than 2 targets. This is assuming that they even close the fighters and engage them specifically. If they remain at range, then the lightingbolt is even less useful for reason sited above.

Depends how greedy you are. Fireball seems, when placed to avoid comrades, to get an average of 2-3 enemies, uless used at extremely long range. 4-5, then.

This is one of the areas where Fireball excells. It starts out about 4 times the range of lightning bolt.

Of course, that may not matter - in one campaign, I was a half-celestial, and the wizard knew that his lightning bolt wouldn't even tickle me.

Well, the same goes for anything with fire resistance too? And since fire resistance is "more common" than lightning resistance, this would be a point for fireball.

You assume either fighter incompetence, and/or overwhelming numbers. Neither assumption should be held as sufficiently universal to devalue lightning bolt.

But doesn't the fact that you don't need very competent companions make fireball better? It seems worse to make the assumption that you're comerades are competent and that the enemy is not. We need to evaluate the spell in something close to a vacuum; any lines of argument requiring an outside actor or force to boost its worth is less useful in terms of looking at the power of the spells.

Fifteen? Bull. Absolute and total bull. And getting more with a Fireball requires you to get some or all of your allies, too. Fireball isn't selective!

I was using hyperbole.

My arguement is that fireball is a better spell, minus the energy type, on the grounds that it is easier to use. Easier = better. A fireball has a longer range, doesn't require enemies to run in a straight line, and is easier to use since its area is easier to use. I guess my problem with your arguement is that the scenarios seem insanely artificial; it requires basically consenting/unintelligent enemies, ample planning for battles, ample room for maneuvering, and very competent fighters. With all these assumptions, there is no way one can argue that lighting bolt, not accounting for the energy difference, is a better spell.

Still, your campaign may favor the lightning bolt, since it all depends on the DM's encounters and all.

 

[Darklone]

Scorching Ray at level 3 (wizard): 1d6 more than Shocking Grasp.

I never saw it as too strong. The spell just scaled up more with the additional hitpoints monsters and PCs got in the 3rd edition while fireball and other spells got relatively weaker.

 

[Hammerhead]

Really, even if Scorching Ray is better than Melf's Acid Arrow, isn't that more of a statement about the Acid Arrow instead? I've never seen anyone pick that spell, as a Sorcerer or a Wizard.

The Ray isn't as good as it first seems, at least at lower levels, because it requires an attack roll. Most higher level sorcerers have no problem hitting the Touch ACs of their 12th level opponents with a Disintegrate, but a 4th level one still misses nearly half the time.

 

[The Souljourner]

Yeah, the problem is really with Melf's Acid Arrow. It's never been good.

-The Souljourner

 

[Scion]

I always liked useing it to open doors in neverwinter nights

In actual gameplay I have used it as well, extend it and it is a pretty decent hit and run tactic for certain enemies. The big thing about it was the continuous damage though, and it may be much better with the new warmages edge (2d4 + int bonus every round? woo! it will beat out the damage for scorching ray by a great deal at that point)

 

[Hardhead]

In our campaign, the Sorcerer took both Melf's Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray. Scorching Ray was so overpoweringly good that it was downgraded to 3d6. And he still uses it over Acid Arrow except against creatures with SR.

As for the multiple touch attacks, that's not a hinderance. It just makes it not a all-or-nothing spell. If he misses with the first, he can still hit with the other two. Besides, at medium levels, it's not as if you ever really miss at touch attacks anyway, unless you're shooting a Rogue.