Spells that Break the Rules (But arent neccessarily broken)

[Merlion]

I have been thinking reccently about several spells in the PH which break the damage-dice cap rules in the DMG

None of these spells seem overpowered to me, either on paper or in my own experience, and I have heard few to no complaints about them.

I am just interested in hearing peoples thoughts on this, and on the idea that it means that the damage dice-cap chart may not be the absolute final rule of spell design that some seem to think

Personaly, I think we need far more detailed and extensive guidlines/advice/rules for spells. We have only the some times-ignore damage dice cap chart...nothing about different die types, secondary effects or unusual energy types (Force, untyped damage), and really nothing at all for defensive stuff...AC and save bonuses etc.

These are the rule-breaking spells

Burning Hands
Produce Flame*
Scorching Ray
Call Lightning*
Call Lightning Storm*
Flame Strike+
Fire Storm( as a 7th level druid spell)

*Produce Flame can eventually deal up to 20d6+100 damage, however it is incremental and cant be done all at once (although I think one could hurl flames in a round up to the limit of your BAB). This is even more true of the Call Lightning spells, so I almost hesitated to mention them

+ Flame Strike actualy breaks the cap for a 4th level Arcane spell, let alone Divine.

Its only a few spells...but it still gets me thinking...

 

[Pyrex]

Damage-over-time spells (Produce Flame, Call Lightning, Acid Arrow, etc) may do more damage total, but the time it takes to deal that damage is a huge balancing factor.

By the time you can cast Call Lightning Storm, 5d6 damage per round just isn't that impressive.

 

[Fieari]

Which dice cap are you referring to? I think I glossed over that part of the rules... I don't remember it at all, except in the GnG ruleset.

 

[dcollins]

I have been thinking reccently about several spells in the PH which break the damage-dice cap rules in the DMG

They are not rules. They are guidelines for any new house-ruled spells that the DM and/or players my create. The spells in the core rules are presumably already balanced in their own right.

 

[The Souljourner]

Ditto what dcollins said. There is no damage cap rule. There's a guideline about making new spells, suggesting where their level based damage should stop increasing in order to balance them with existing spells.

And as Pyrex said, damage over time is way underpowered when most fights only last like 5 rounds at best.

-The Souljourner

 

[Merlion]

Ok, but as I said in the initial post, and the title of the thread, I am not saying the spells are overpowered or broken or problematic

I am saying that they break the rules (and wether the damage die cap is a rule or a guidline is subject to arguement).

My point with bringing this up is several things: One the damage caps are not infalible or perfect, and therefore if someone creates a spell that does not fit them perfectly, or that say does its level's cap in damage and something else, doesnt make it broken.

Two: The rule/guidline is very limited and unclear and offers little to no assistance with spells that deal damage over time or in several bursts, has nothing about things like secondary effects, unusual damage types, or die sizes other than a d6.

There are also essentialy no tables or guidlines for non-damage dealing spells, only extollation to compare to existing PH spells.


I think some more detail would be nice

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ideally, one would have but a single damage spell description, with a bunch of modifiers that you could add together to construct your own custom damage spell, and which would automatically be an appropriate level for it's power.

The initial description would be a single target spell which did half damage on a successful save. This would be a 0th level spell for wizards, higher for classes that are not supposed to get damage spells.

ie:
Zap

Universal

Level: Sor/Wiz 0, All others 1

Components: V, S

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Targets: 1 object or creature

Duration: Instantaneous

Saving Throw: Reflex half

Spell Resistance: Yes

You zap the target with magic, doing 1d3 damage. This damage does not have an elemental type, and does 1/4 damage to objects.

Then we would have a list of changes which could be made, and the benefits and disadvantages of each. Examples would be making the attack a ray (no save, requires touch attack), making the attack a conjuration (no SR, must have an elemental type), making the attack a force effect (affects incorporeal, affects creatures only), making it into a cone, spread, emanation, giving it a duration, giving it certain status effects (stun, confuse, deafen etc).

I'd avoid making these alterations change the spell slot required for the spell - in general they should be internally balanced.

Further, damage caps should be based on the level of the spell.

Finally - you wouldn't just have a single spell - you'd still have to memorise a 'fireball' - it's just that fireball would be consistently built and balanced versus a 'lightning spray' or 'acid cloud' to the extent that an individual caster could pick out what he wanted.

I don't think this methodology should be applied to non-damaging spells, or to spells which are too different. Trying to expand such a system to cover instant death effects, or intelligent enemy-seeking missiles, or web spells would be a bad idea - you'd end up with a monster.

But for cone of cold and fireball and lightning, I think it should be quite easy, and highly beneficial.

 

[dcollins]

Ideally, one would have but a single damage spell description, with a bunch of modifiers that you could add together to construct your own custom damage spell, and which would automatically be an appropriate level for it's power.... I think it should be quite easy, and highly beneficial.

You've just described my worst nightmare. D&D with no flavor to it, merely a spreadsheet min/max exercise. Consider how well the Epic spell seeds system worked out, for example.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You've just described my worst nightmare. D&D with no flavor to it, merely a spreadsheet min/max exercise. Consider how well the Epic spell seeds system worked out, for example.

Note - I didn't specify using this for every spell, just for damage spells - you know, the ones which have a more-or-less identical description for every single one anyway?

A (A) of (Y) shoots from your (C) causing (D)(E) damage to all (optional: enemies) within (F). A (G) save (H) this damage.

Where (A) is a thing (fan, cone, cloud etc), (C) is a body part, (D) is a number, (E) is a die type, (F) is a range, and perhaps an additional qualifier (ie 10feet, or 10 feet from the point of origin), (G) is either fortitude, will or reflex and (H) is either negates or halves.

Yeah, that's real flavourful. Also note how I recommended limiting things to packages - specific benefits give specific penalties.

This would stop the problem where magic missile is often superior to higher level spells.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You have to eliminate damage over time spells for a few reasons

1. the combat won't last all that long
2. The low damage on each attack makes it easy to counter with DR
3. There are *so many* spells that would break these "rules" (if they were rules) e.g.
fire shield 1d6+caster level each time you are attacked for level rounds
wall of fire 2d6+caster level each round for concentration+level rounds
blade barrier caster level d6 each round for level minutes(!)
Acid fog, incendiary cloud etc...

It is clear that the designers were only basically considering "instant damage" when drawing up the conceptual dice caps.