PDA

View Full Version : Need help with newly designed spell (Pathfinder)



Lord of Shadows
2011-11-07, 12:15 AM
The arcane casters in our group came up with this one over the weekend:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Disarm
School Evocation Level Sorcerer/Wizard 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components S
Range Short (25 ft. plus 5 ft. per 2 levels)
Target One attended object
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw None Spell Resistance No

This spell allows the caster to attempt to disarm a creature with a blast of force. He makes a Disarm Combat Maneuver against the target objectís possessor using his Caster Level for his Base Attack and his Intelligence modifier (or Charisma for a Sorcerer) instead of his Strength modifier. If the attempt is successful, the targeted object is knocked from the possessor as normal. Feats and other modifiers applicable to disarm attempts apply normally to both the caster (except for Strength) and the item's possessor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Seems ok at first, but then when considering its effect at higher levels (plus they want to desgin a "Mass" version that does one item per 2 caster levels). How does this sound, and what are some ways it could be done better?

The Pathfinder "Disarm Combat Maneuver" can be found here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Disarm)

Thanks

lunar2
2011-11-07, 12:22 AM
well, for one thing, they still have to make a ranged touch attack to even hit the weapon to try to disarm it. personally, i would have made it second level. there's no reason the wizard should be able to do what the fighter can do with a 1st level spell. 1st level spells are typically weaker than melee combatant equivalents, when they can be directly compared.

Garryl
2011-11-07, 12:55 AM
Looks like a simplified version of 3.5's Disarm spells (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20041020a), tweaked for PF.

At low levels, you're spending one of your few spells to have a 50-50 or less chance of making a foe provoke an AoO and lose a move action. At higher levels, unless you're doing absurd things with your CL, you'll have an even lower chance without also investing in attack roll boosts to keep up with rising CMDs. Plus, it's still only effective against opponents that use weapons. Many higher level enemies don't use weapons at all, instead relying on natural attacks and spells.

bloodtide
2011-11-07, 01:06 AM
As written this spell is way, way too powerful.

It allows a spellcaster to disarm with a fighters BAB plus the ability modifier at range. So the spellcaster won't provoke an AoO, or get the -4 for no weapon or have to worry about 'dropping their weapon'. And the spell is auto hit with no saving throw and no spell resistance.

To make it more balanced:

*Eliminate the range. Don't let a spellcaster disarm someone form the safety of 20 feet away. Make it a touch attack.

*If you want to keep the ranged effect, then make it a ranged touch attack to hit the target before you can do the disarm.

*It would also be a good idea to lower the disarm to something like +1/two or three levels. You could keep the range attack, even with no touch attack if the disarm was less.

*While you can get away with no save, the spell should allow for Spell Resistance to be checked.

damerdar
2011-11-07, 02:19 AM
Check out Pilfering Hand (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/spells/pilferingHand.html#_pilfering-hand) from Ultimate Combat.

Lord of Shadows
2011-11-07, 09:58 AM
Check out Pilfering Hand (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/spells/pilferingHand.html#_pilfering-hand) from Ultimate Combat.

I don't think they looked in UC in their research. That sounds alot like what they were wanting, and it's already in the rules.

Thanks!

Lord of Shadows
2011-11-07, 10:05 AM
To make it more balanced:

*Eliminate the range. Don't let a spellcaster disarm someone form the safety of 20 feet away. Make it a touch attack.

*If you want to keep the ranged effect, then make it a ranged touch attack to hit the target before you can do the disarm.

*It would also be a good idea to lower the disarm to something like +1/two or three levels. You could keep the range attack, even with no touch attack if the disarm was less.

*While you can get away with no save, the spell should allow for Spell Resistance to be checked.

Yes, several of the non-casters had concerns about how powerful it was. They predicted a slew of new, similar spells (first level Trip, first level Sunder, first level Bull Rush, basically taking all the Combat Maneuvers and making a spell equivalent).

It could also be combined with feats that increase caster level and can be very cheaply quickened and combined an offensive spell like fireball and still being able to take a move action.

I like the suggestions you have, they do seem to make it more balanced.

Thanks!

Lord of Shadows
2011-11-07, 10:12 AM
well, for one thing, they still have to make a ranged touch attack to even hit the weapon to try to disarm it. personally, i would have made it second level. there's no reason the wizard should be able to do what the fighter can do with a 1st level spell. 1st level spells are typically weaker than melee combatant equivalents, when they can be directly compared.

Yes, I was thinking it should be higher level, as written. Lots of good ideas from everbody. Thanks!