PDA

View Full Version : [Spell] Kill With Life



BelkarsDagger
2006-08-22, 03:55 PM
Life Burn
Necromancy
Level: Wiz/Sor 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: Standard Action
Duration: Instaneous
Range: Close
Target: Any one living being
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistence: No
Life Burn consumes the life energies of the caster and converts them into harmful energies, before using them to attack the target. You may burn up to 2hp/caster level. For every 1 hit point you burn, the target receives one point of damage. If this would kill the caster, the spell damage is resolved normally.
Material Component: A pinch of salt.

I apologize if this already exists, as always tell me how I can improve it.

martyboy74
2006-08-22, 03:56 PM
Life Burn
Necromancy
Level: Wiz/Sor 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: Standard Action
Duration: Instaneous
Range: Touch
Target: Any living thing touched
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Life Burn consumes the life energies of the caster and converts them into harmful energies, before using them to attack the target. You may burn 2hp/caster level. For every 2hp you burn, the target receives one point of damage. If this would kill the caster, the caster dies and the target takes damage normally. Fort DC 20 to negate.

I apologize if this already exists, as always tell me how I can improve it.
Maybe you should give the caster an option to choose how many hit points they want to lose.

Loren_and_Kivsith
2006-08-22, 03:57 PM
Hmm, well, I think there would be very few situations where it would be advantageous to burn 2 hp in exchange for one point of damage. Making it an even exchange rate would be better, I think. Or would that make the spell too powerful?

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-22, 04:03 PM
Yeah, the point is if you have hit points to lose and the enemy doesnt, you can get rid of excess life to kill them

And I'll reword that, Psionic Devotee. It was meant to be that you could choose how much to burn.

asromta
2006-08-22, 04:14 PM
It seems weak. You do maximum 1 damage per caster level? And it is touch range? And there is a save? And you must burn your onw hp?

Maybe a lower spell level?

Shyftir
2006-08-22, 04:16 PM
Somebody has been playing a black M:tG deck recently...

Tallis
2006-08-22, 04:27 PM
It's a good concept, but far too weak. At low levels you would do more damage with melf's acid arrow without the save or taking damage yourself or having to enter melee.
Maybe d6 damage per 2 hp?

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-22, 04:29 PM
Hmm... I've never played M:tG, so this is unrelated.

I also see your complaints about it being too weak. Maybe hit points on a 1-for-1 basis? Every point you burn, they get one damage?

asromta
2006-08-22, 04:33 PM
Still to weak, because for example scorching ray deals 4d6. Which is average 14 damage at level 3. With your spell you deal 6 damage, and you have to take damage youself. At 1d6 per damage taken it might be more balanced.

And you need a SR entry.

martyboy74
2006-08-22, 04:41 PM
I'd say that they only reason to take this spell would be if if bypassed SR.

Randomman413
2006-08-22, 05:16 PM
Actually, this spell would be pretty good if you were a barbarian with a high constitution and a level or 2 of sorceror, this spell could be pretty useful for dispatching high hp, low damage output enemies. or enemies that are tied up with an ally and can't run away.

asromta
2006-08-22, 05:20 PM
You need 4 levels of sorcerer for level 2 spells, and 4 levels of 1/2 BAB and d4 hitpoints are going to hurt the barbarian. And you have arcane spell failure, and an AoO when you use it. And there is a cap of 2 damage/level on the hps that you can spend.

Randomman413
2006-08-22, 05:24 PM
Ah. I missed the 2hp/caster level limit, but it could be cast with only 1 level of sorceror. Its a level 1 spell.

asromta
2006-08-22, 05:26 PM
I didn't notice it is a level 1 spell now. It was a level 2 spell.

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-22, 05:27 PM
Yeah, I didnt want to post every other post saying I updated it. Is it finally balanced now?

asromta
2006-08-22, 05:29 PM
It is rather balanced, if you put SR: no. Prehaps make the damage 1d6 per 2 damage taken, to make the damage output equal to Shocking grasp.

And the save seems strange, any reason for not using 10+spell level+stat modifier?

Edelritter
2006-08-22, 08:12 PM
Life Burn
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Duration: Instantaneous
Target: 1 living creature
Saving Throw: Fortitude Half
Spell Resistance: Yes

A dark, swirling glow envelops your hand as you channel your very life force into power that will soon consume your foe.

Life burn consumes some of the caster's life energy, which it uses to channel a powerful ray of negative energy. You may burn up to 2 hp/caster level (to a maximum of 10 hp) when casting this spell. The ray requires a successful ranged touch attack to hit; if it does, life burn deals 2 points of negative energy damage to its target for every 1 hit point burnt by the caster.
If the caster takes enough damage to reduce him below 0 hit points to fuel this spell, resolve the spell before he falls unconscious or dies.

Material Component: A pinch of salt.

Is how I'd word it.

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-22, 09:07 PM
Life Burn
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Duration: Instantaneous
Target: 1 living creature
Saving Throw: Fortitude Half
Spell Resistance: Yes

A dark, swirling glow envelops your hand as you channel your very life force into power that will soon consume your foe.

Life burn consumes some of the caster's life energy, which it uses to channel a powerful ray of negative energy. You may burn up to 2 hp/caster level (to a maximum of 10 hp) when casting this spell. The ray requires a successful ranged touch attack to hit; if it does, life burn deals 2 points of negative energy damage to its target for every 1 hit point burnt by the caster.
If the caster takes enough damage to reduce him below 0 hit points to fuel this spell, resolve the spell before he falls unconscious or dies.

Material Component: A pinch of salt.

Is how I'd word it.


That actually doesnt sound too bad. Did I forget the material component? Yeah I did...

Edelritter
2006-08-22, 09:24 PM
Looking at it again, I'd even take out the saving throw, to be honest. Magic missile hits automatically and doesn't allow for a saving throw, and this is getting similar damage (at a faster progression, true) but at great cost.
Take out the save and it becomes a bit more appealing:

Life Burn
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Duration: Instantaneous
Target: 1 living creature
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A dark, swirling glow envelops your hand as you channel your very life force into power that will soon consume your foe.

Life burn consumes some of the caster's life energy, which it uses to channel a powerful ray of negative energy. You may burn up to 2 hp/caster level (to a maximum of 10 hp) when casting this spell. The ray requires a successful ranged touch attack to hit; if it does, life burn deals 2 points of negative energy damage to its target for every 1 hit point burnt by the caster.
If the caster takes enough damage to reduce him below 0 hit points to fuel this spell, resolve the spell before he falls unconscious or dies.

Material Component: A pinch of salt.
--

Hope it works for you. :)

martyboy74
2006-08-23, 08:02 AM
It'd be a lot more appealing if if didn't allow spell resistance. It'd give casters something to do against golems.

sandman09
2006-08-23, 10:50 AM
this is just a thought...but maybe you could include a dice roll of some sort to decide a minimum HP conversion...then the caster could add points from there, if they chose too

asromta
2006-08-23, 10:56 AM
In the text you metion a ray and a ranged touch attack, but it is not reflected in the upper part of the spell describetion. Which of the two is right?

martyboy74
2006-08-23, 11:03 AM
In the text you metion a ray and a ranged touch attack, but it is not reflected in the upper part of the spell describetion. Which of the two is right?
It is...as a ray.

Edelritter
2006-08-23, 11:26 AM
In the text you metion a ray and a ranged touch attack, but it is not reflected in the upper part of the spell describetion. Which of the two is right?
I was following the description of Scorching Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scorchingRay.htm) for 3.5 wording. It's a ray.


It'd be a lot more appealing if if didn't allow spell resistance. It'd give casters something to do against golems.
It'd be more appealing to be sure, but it makes no sense to me. You're basically throwing negative energy (my suggested version) or else raw magic at something and it shouldn't apply SR?

Brickwall
2006-08-23, 11:27 AM
Equal life exchange may be 'balanced', but only if other arcane stuff is not.

Also, with only one exception, all positive energy now belongs to Conjuration. The one exception is disrupt undead, and it's that sort of incongruency that makes me so very miffed.

Edelritter
2006-08-23, 11:32 AM
Equal life exchange may be 'balanced', but only if other arcane stuff is not.

Also, with only one exception, all positive energy now belongs to Conjuration. *The one exception is disrupt undead, and it's that sort of incongruency that makes me so very miffed.
You think the spell shouldn't be in Necromancy? Sacrificing your own HP to do negative energy damage sounds pretty necromantic to me. :)

asromta
2006-08-23, 11:34 AM
If it is a ray, it should mention:
Effect: ray

The scorching ray entry has it too.

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-23, 11:35 AM
:-/ I didn't really mean it to be a ray, just one of those damaging spells.

Edelritter
2006-08-23, 11:44 AM
:-/ I didn't really mean it to be a ray, just one of those damaging spells.
Well, feel free to word it up as you prefer. It should have some range (you don't do touch attacks that harm you if you're a wizard, that's just suicidal), so it can be either a spell that hits automatically (a la magic missile), or a ray or a ranged touch attack. The last two are practically the same thing.

Also, true. I missed the Effect: Ray thing.

BelkarsDagger
2006-08-23, 11:57 AM
Erm, I changed the range to Close instead of Touch.

asromta
2006-08-23, 12:00 PM
The spell in the first post seems good right now.