Spell research: which level should this spell be?

[Zebediah Magus]

One of my players wants to develop a version of an existing spell (Dalamar's Lightning Lance, from one of the Dragonlance books), changing the damage type for negative energy.

I tought one level higher was enough, but considering energy resistances and all I tought I should listen to other people's opinions.

So, which level should it be?

 

[Nifft]

What does the spell do?

Lanceless, -- N

 

[Zebediah Magus]

Its an evocation that creates a spear of lightning, dealing 3d6 points of impact or piercing damage (not sure which one) and 1d6/caster level of electricity (10d6 max). At 10th and 15th caster levels you create one more lance. All must be aimed, with a ranged touch attack, at enemies located within 30 feet of each other. It is a 4th level spell.

This spell itself is already very powerful, and might deserve some adjustments. I allowed it as it is, however, so I will keep it for this campaign. But the player wants to research a negative energy version, and such a spell would be even more powerful.

I tought about making it 5th level and reducing the negative energy damage dice to d4.

Still, a 15th level caster, hitting all three times with the ranged touch attacks, would deal 30d4 negative energy damage, plus 9d6 of piercing/impact, almost 40 dive of damage without adding any metamagic...

 

[Jhaelen]

One of my players wants to develop a version of an existing spell (Dalamar's Lightning Lance, from one of the Dragonlance books), changing the damage type for negative energy.

I tought one level higher was enough, but considering energy resistances and all I tought I should listen to other people's opinions.

So, which level should it be?

Well, there's the 'Corrupt Spell' metamagic feat in 'Complete Divine' which turns half of a spell's damage into negative energy damage. A corrupted spell uses up a spell slot one level higher.

So, if all the damage is replaced, I'd say it's two levels higher.

 

[DarkJester]

I'm not sure what I think about the spell.

On one side It's 4th level, a ranged touch attack dealing 13d6 damage, with a fortitude save for half damage. Having both a touch attack and saving throw is unusual, but o well. So far, the spell is looking pretty reasonable. It does the extra 3d6 untyped which is nice, a ranged attack and an usual save.

But when you throw in the multiple bolts it gets nasty. I couldn't allow a 10th level caster a spell that does 26d6 damage for a 4th level slot, fortitude save for half or not. That's the ultimate mage slayer spell. I might allow it if the player was limited to throwing one lance per round, or if they were normal attack rolls instead of touch attacks.

In general, I think I would allow a spell to do negative energy damage if I both decreased the damage die and increased the level by one. For example, Fireball > Negative Energy Ball - 1d4/level as a 5th level spell.

 

[Nifft]

3 things I'd do:

1/ MOVE THIS to HOUSE RULES; and

2/ Spear part deals 3d6 non-magical Piercing damage (crit on 20/x2, modified by spear feats) -- reduced by DR as though it were a weapon, though keep the touch attack part; and

3/ Lightning part deals 1d6/2 levels, max 7d6, and you get multiple spears;
OR
3/ Lightning part deals 1d6/level (max 20d6), and you do NOT get multiple spears.

Cheers, -- N

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

Agree with Nifft on all 3 points.

 

[Zebediah Magus]

3 things I'd do:

1/ MOVE THIS to HOUSE RULES; and

Nifft, I tought about that when I was writing the original post, but decided to post it here because I was aiming at a spell research question based on an existing spell, and not a fix to the original spell.

Of course, spell reasearch being vague as it is, maybe the other forum is best suited for it.

Thanks for all the feedback, so far I feel like I'll allow the player to reasearch it as a 5th level spell that deals d4 negative energy, or a 6th level with d6.

 

[Slife]

Personally, I think the fact it will be worse than useless against undead prevents it from being more than a +1 adjustment.

 

[Nifft]

Personally, I think the fact it will be worse than useless against undead prevents it from being more than a +1 adjustment.

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