Spell balance question: Lethal vs. non-lethal

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I was pondering creating a variant fireball for my urban illusionist (and a fellow party member) and was wondering if making a fireball-type spell (identical stats, just reskinned) that did non-lethal damage, rather than lethal -- with no option to change it on the fly to lethal -- would be the same level as fireball, a lower level or higher level.

Thoughts?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'd say same level. Presumably it's lost the fire descriptor and so won't have to face those resists/immunities...just nonlethal immunities instead. But nonlethal is inferior to lethal unless the entire party is doing lethal, since a cure spell will wipe away an equal amount of both.

So a 3rd level 20 ft radius burst of 1d6/level (max 10d6) nonlethal concussive damage or whatever sounds fine.

You could also check out PHB's Whelm spell line, but IMO those spells mostly suck and they grossly overvalued the ability to do nonlethal with spells.

 

[Nebten]

I would say it would be the same level, but I believe it will be stronger in the hands of a PC then any other type of elemental based spell.

It bypasses any resistance and there are not any/many? spells such as Protection from Fire that grant resistance to non-leathal damage (that a bad guy would memorize). It actually would get stronger at higher levels since more creatures have natural elemental resistances (devil/demons). Sure it wouldn't damage constructs or undead, but that's what fighters and priests are for. I would say in the course of a campaign it would be the second most dangerous type of spell with Sonic typically ranked as first.

As for healing, how often does a single bad guy heal himself in combat, or even a group of them in your games? Most games I play, maybe a potion or two at low levels and a single Heal at high levels.

I couldn't say it would be an illusion spell though. It would fall either under evocation or there is an argument for necromancy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I couldn't say it would be an illusion spell though. It would fall either under evocation or there is an argument for necromancy.

Not even a quasi-real, illusory version of a fireball? (Or, perhaps a phantasmal one, since it's doing non-lethal damage.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As for healing, how often does a single bad guy heal himself in combat, or even a group of them in your games? Most games I play, maybe a potion or two at low levels and a single Heal at high levels.

I couldn't say it would be an illusion spell though. It would fall either under evocation or there is an argument for necromancy.

In games I've played, enemies getting healed happens all the time. Especially at higher levels. Just had a fight in our level 17 gestalt game where the enemy cleric//Something? had Fortunate Fate (level 7 spell; acts like a contingent Heal spell) and an actual Contingency Heal spell up as buffs!

Even at low levels, healing has been one of the best uses for minions of the BBEG. He's much stronger than them, so keeping him alive longer is thus much more valuable than anything offensively they could be doing.

[sblock]And I use healing all the time for NPCs when I DM. Heck, I managed to stretch one battle against a small group of evil clerics into a 15 round grind fest by keeping them all constantly getting healed by each other and rendering focus fire tactics basically pointless. It was a lot of fun...for me. [/sblock]

Maybe my experiences are different than most others'. My group has embraced a lot of the splat book immediate/swift action healing options that make in combat healing more valid of a choice, too.


And I think this hypothetical spell should absolutely be evocation.

 

[the Jester]

Compare to whelm, overwhelm, et al.; I believe they're PH2 material.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Compare to whelm, overwhelm, et al.; I believe they're PH2 material.

I somehow never got the PHB2. Anyone care to paraphrase?

 

[Nebten]

Not even a quasi-real, illusory version of a fireball? (Or, perhaps a phantasmal one, since it's doing non-lethal damage.)

Then the enemy would have to save vs illusion first (Save for none). Then if he failed, he would have to make a saving throw vs the damage. This would fall in line with the phantasmal & shadow spells. I have no problem if you add that rider, but I wouldn't if it was just a Fireball that did non-leathal damage. It would then be stronger then Shadow spells in damage out put, but not in versitility.

 

[the Jester]

The Whelm spells are enchantments, which imposes certain limitations, but so do illusions. Looks to me like the designers put a premium on nonlethal damage by spell, which makes sense IMHO. Briefly:

Whelm: 1st level sor/wiz and beguiler; close range, one target; 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels above 1st nonlethal damage (max 5d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Whelming Blast: 2nd level; 30' cone; 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels above 1st nonlethal damage (max 5d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Mass Whelm: 4th level; close; 1 target/level; 1d6 nonlethal/level (max 10d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Overwhelm: 6th level; touch; one target; Will negates, SR applies; deal nonlethal damage equal to the target's current hps.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Whelm spells are enchantments, which imposes certain limitations, but so do illusions. Looks to me like the designers put a premium on nonlethal damage by spell, which makes sense IMHO. Briefly:

Whelm: 1st level sor/wiz and beguiler; close range, one target; 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels above 1st nonlethal damage (max 5d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Whelming Blast: 2nd level; 30' cone; 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels above 1st nonlethal damage (max 5d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Mass Whelm: 4th level; close; 1 target/level; 1d6 nonlethal/level (max 10d6). Will negates, SR yes.

Overwhelm: 6th level; touch; one target; Will negates, SR applies; deal nonlethal damage equal to the target's current hps.

Thanks. I'll talk to my DM about access to these spells. These are just what the doctor ordered.