Spell research: which level should this spell be?

[Slife]

Really? Would you allow a special version of fireball that doesn't hurt or heal undead as a 2nd level spell?

If not, what's the difference?

Cheers, -- N

Energy substitution normally doesn't change the spell's level. Being an exotic energy type is enough to bump up the spell a little, but it isn't as bad as if it were, say, city damage, dessicated water damage or bludgeoning damage.


The analogy you put is a little bad, though. I would, however, drop inflict critical wounds down a level if it were changed to fire damage.

 

[Nifft]

Energy substitution normally doesn't change the spell's level. Being an exotic energy type is enough to bump up the spell a little, but it isn't as bad as if it were, say, city damage, dessicated water damage or bludgeoning damage.

The analogy you put is a little bad, though. I would, however, drop inflict critical wounds down a level if it were changed to fire damage.

Negative isn't a valid choice for energy substitution, due to the general lack of resistance.

My analogy is meant to illustrate this chain of thought:
- When a spell is highly situational (can only be used in limited circumstances), it may be lower level than the raw damage output would usually indicate.
- "Fails to work on undead" isn't enough to qualify for the above condition.
- "Only works on undead" is enough to qualify. (See disrupt undead for an example in Core rules.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Maldor]

Nifft
i think your missing something hes not saying lower the level he's don't raise it
i don't think it relly needs raiseing becuase of the neg. energy after all ther is alot more monsters immune to neg E. then lighting i mean capare the number of undead and constucts to the nuber of monsters that have elelectity restance of 15 or higher and that does even heal them like a undead would be by neg E. this could also be a benafit thogh if he is a necromacer but that is situational and so relly shouldn't matter after all just because one caster gets more use out of a spell hen other caster doesn't make them cast it at a lower or high level

but the spell its based on is a bit on the powerful side i would make it one lance around but you could hold them for up to 1 rnd/ caster level

 

[ThirdWizard]

Spell looks about on par with cone of cold and the negative energy version is decidedly weaker than disintegrate so I'd put it squarely at a 5th level spell.

 

[Thanee]

+1 level is probably fine with d4s of negative damage, as you said, or +2 levels with d6s, but I would definitely not allow the multiple spears to be aimed at the same target (neither original nor researched version), because that's just way too much single target damage then (more than Disintegrate!!).

Spell looks about on par with cone of cold and the negative energy version is decidedly weaker than disintegrate so I'd put it squarely at a 5th level spell.

Why is it weaker than Disintegrate?

Bye
Thanee

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why is it weaker than Disintegrate?

Disintegrate is untyped damage, can affect objects, and destroys bodies negating death throes (you might mock this last one, but I've seen it used for this to great affect many times).

Also I did my math wrong. 39d6 damage is more than I first estimated (bad at math). This gives it 9d6 more damage than disintegrate at 15th level, 7d6 more at 16th, 5d6 more at 17th, etc. Save for half is better, too. I don't know if this is going to affect my opinion, though. It's nice damage, but...

I see disintegrate good for 3 things: defeating things with low Fortitude saves (mostly undead, but also spellcasters who have low hp already), destroying structures, and bypassing death throes. Since the new version of the spell isn't particularly good at most of these things I don't see it as that great a spell even with the increased damage, as a 6th level spell.

All in all, given the two spells, I can't think of a reason not to always choose disintegrate over the suggested spell.