PDA

View Full Version : Two Fire Spells (PEACH)



urkthegurk
2012-09-08, 04:36 PM
Some spells for your perusal...

Incinerate:

Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous OR sustained
Saving Throw: Fort
Spell Resistance: Yes

The red-clothed mage grins, and jabs his hand at you with a weird clenching motion. A sharp pain in your chest makes you look down, and you blink in horror as your shirt starts to smolder. The flesh on your neck and arms starts to bubble, and you claw at your skin as you burst into flames from the inside.

Incinerate deals 1 fire damage to a creature for each of its HD.

The creature then makes a second Fort save to avoid taking 1d4 fire damage per HD it has.

Repeat this process each turn until the target succeeds two Fort saves against this spell in a row.

A creature that takes any damage from this spell must make a reflex save to avoid catching on fire.

A creature that spends a full round action drinking water gets a +4 bonus on its fort saves for that turn.


Burn Things:

Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One object or creature
Duration: Concentration (See Below)
Saving Throw: Ref
Spell Resistance: Yes

"You know how sometimes things aren't on fire? Yeah, I hate that."

The target takes 1d4 fire damage per caster level and catches on fire.

For each round you concentrate, the flames increase in intensity. If the target has successfully extinguished the flame, you may re-ignite it. If the fire is still burning you may increase it, if the target fails a Fort save. The fire gains on damage dice dealt per round by the damage caused by being on fire, and the damage die increases on increment (d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d10, etc.) to a maximum of 4d12. This fire is nonmagical, but the effect increasing it is magical.

If the caster stops concentrating on the spell, they may resume concentrating if the target is still on fire, and if the fire is the same one caused by this spell, as if they had not ceased concentrating by making a DC (10+targets HD) Concentration check.


****************

AND a zero-level spell, just as bonus for reading.

Living Coal

Level: Sor/Wiz 0
Components: M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Effect: You create a semi-permanent live ember that you can coax into fire at any given moment.
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: N/A
Spell Resistance: no

One ember or piece of wood becomes a living coal, from which you can coax fire. The coal emits heat, but not enough to burn. As a full-round action you can light an object on fire. To do this you must place the coal on the object and spend the round blowing and fussing over the spot.


******************

So, PEACH. I really don't know about the levels for these. I want them to be 'effective' evocation spells (ha ha ha ha no seriously) at their respective levels... do they deal too much damage? Not enough? I'm just throwing these spells out there, I haven't playtested 'em at all. Have fun!

Gamer Girl
2012-09-08, 06:02 PM
Your spells are broken, or more to the point they don't fit into the rules. Basic Rule: the more powerful a creature is the less damage it will take. You have the powerful creature taking more damage. And all that damage adds up, just think of 20d4 for even just three rounds 60D4 damage! That's just too much damage. And it also breaks the rules as a weak spellcaster can 'slip' this spell on to a powerful creature and then do massive damage.

You might want to rewrite them to a more standard 1d4 per caster level of damage.

You also need to drop the three rolls to end, that is too much...one should be enough.


Burn things gets worse with the 'forever fire' and the 'increase in damage' They are just too much. And you let the caster stop concentrating and then still come back and burn some more....that's too much.


Living coal....is also written a bit weird. First if this is an evocation? The duration should be instantaneous. Not permanent...the way you have it written now the coal will last forever. Why is the coal not hot enough to burn? A hot coal is within the power of a cantrip. And you want to make that ''catch a easily flammable object on fire'', as written you could use the coal to start a steel sword on fire.

urkthegurk
2012-09-08, 08:41 PM
Thanks for the PEACH! Lets see what we got here...



Your spells are broken,

:smallredface:

Ok, I see... lets do this in reverse order so I don't get sad.



Living coal....is also written a bit weird. First if this is an evocation? The duration should be instantaneous. Not permanent...the way you have it written now the coal will last forever. Why is the coal not hot enough to burn? A hot coal is within the power of a cantrip. And you want to make that ''catch a easily flammable object on fire'', as written you could use the coal to start a steel sword on fire.

You could, but its unlikely.

I meant that you can use it to start a fire- not that you can set anything on fire. A regular fire, like a campfire, or a enough to light a lantern or set a pool of oil on fire. It doesn't deal fire damage to an object, it merely makes it in danger of catching on fire. I suppose a DM could impose a Fort save on some objects, but I think things are either flammable or they're not. I'll think of a better way to word that.

The coal is not hot enough to burn so you can put it in your hand or your pocket without burning yourself. Its not a combat spell. It will last forever unless dispelled or suppressed, like an everburning torch.



Your spells are broken, or more to the point they don't fit into the rules. Basic Rule: the more powerful a creature is the less damage it will take.

What spell does less damage to higher level targets? This spell will still do less damage to quite a number of high-level targets, since the more HD you have the more likely you are to make your save.

But I'm aware is unorthodox. Lets talk about why.



You have the powerful creature taking more damage. And all that damage adds up, just think of 20d4 for even just three rounds 60D4 damage! That's just too much damage. And it also breaks the rules as a weak spellcaster can 'slip' this spell on to a powerful creature and then do massive damage.

You might want to rewrite them to a more standard 1d4 per caster level of damage.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that I make it into just an attack that does 8d4 damage to one target, because that would be super boring (and crappy.) Maybe I could change it to 1d4/caster level for the secondary damage. Or maybe I could make the secondary damage 1/hd of target, plus 1d4 con damage.

I think, say, 8-10 damage initially and the danger of catching on fire are a pretty low payoff initially. And after that it deals maybe 8d4-10d4 damage, plus 1d6 for being on fire. Again, pretty low. Its true, it keeps on going, but I don't see why this is a problem, as there are other spells that cause limited ongoing damage, or even instant death, with fewer available saves. And the target still has their actions, so they can attempt to eliminate the caster before they succumb. But maybe 5-6th level?



You also need to drop the three rolls to end, that is too much...one should be enough.

One roll is enough. If you succeed the first roll, the spell has no effect whatsoever. I think two rolls to end the effect is too easy, but I'd love to figure out the statistics for succeeding one, two and three rolls respectively, at the like CR's. I don't feel up to the crunching right now, though.





Burn things gets worse with the 'forever fire' and the 'increase in damage' They are just too much. And you let the caster stop concentrating and then still come back and burn some more....that's too much.

If you make your saves, it deals 1d6 damage/round, and the caster can't cast other spells. That doesn't seem too high to me. Its true, If you fail your saves, you might be dead in a few turns. But another 3rd level spell is fireball, which deals 1d6 damage per level, to everything in a 20-ft radius sphere. And Fireball is not a broken spell.

And they can only 'burn some more' if the target is still on fire.

TuggyNE
2012-09-08, 10:02 PM
Incinerate:
Effect: Target bursts into flame from the inside
Duration: Instantaneous OR sustained
Saving Throw: Fort

These are incorrect, or confusing, or incomplete. This is not an Effect spell, it has a target; you should write "Target: One creature" and be done with it. The Fortitude saves are ... very strange; at present it's "Fortitude partial", but the necessity for making three saves in a row is something I've never seen on a spell. I recommend against that, especially on a level 4. Duration should probably be adjusted a bit too.

I assume this is an Evocation [fire] spell, but it would be nice to have that written down.


Incinerate deals 1 fire damage to a creature for each of its HD.

The creature then makes a second Fort save to avoid taking 1d4 fire damage per HD it has. Repeat this process until it succeeds three Fort saves against this spell in a row.

As mentioned, this is weirdly non-standard, and unnecessarily overpowered. There are essentially no existing spells that become more effective as the target increases in HD; some become strictly less (like sleep), and many stay the same, effectively decreasing relatively (fireball, for example).


A creature that takes any damage from this spell must make a reflex save to avoid catching on fire.

Yet another save? No, please, don't clog up the rest of the combat with this stuff.


A creature that spends a full round action drinking water gets a +4 bonus on its fort saves for that turn.

Reasonable enough.


Burn Things:
Effect: a creature or object catches on fire. The flames persist and grow in intensity as you concentrate.

Again, this is not an Effect spell, it's a "Target: One creature or object" spell. And the school is presumably Evocation [fire] as well.


Duration: Concentration (See Below)

This should just be "Duration: Concentration" straight.


The target takes 1d4 fire damage per level and catches on fire.

Ouch, another one that becomes more powerful as its target does.


For each round you concentrate, the flames increase in intensity. If the target has successfully extinguished the flame, you may re-ignite it. If the fire is still burning you may increase it, if the target fails a Fort save. The fire gains on damage dice dealt per round by the damage caused by being on fire, and the damage die increases on increment (d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d10, etc.) to a maximum of 4d12. This fire is nonmagical, but the effect increasing it is magical.

So, if I understand correctly, after four turns the target is taking 4d12/HD every round?

No, just no (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoJustNoReaction). That is not a level 3 spell, that is an epic spell (it is also a little underpowered for epic, but that's another story). The triple scaling is just absurd. Better would be to start with 1 point per caster level per round (capped at 10, because third-level damaging spells generally scale only up to CL 10), then increase to 1d3/level, 1d6/level, 1d8/level, and finally 1d10/level. Alternatively, bump the dice up slightly from that suggestion and allow a save every round to prevent increasing damage.


If the caster stops concentrating on the spell, they may resume concentrating if the target is still on fire, and if the fire is the same one caused by this spell, as if they had not ceased concentrating by making a DC (10+targets HD) Concentration check.

Non-standard, and there is no reason for this; just end the spell when they stop concentrating.


Living Coal

This is interesting, but honestly a bit too weak for even a cantrip :smalltongue: Sure, having a lighter in your pocket is nice, but it's not that big a deal. Making it Instantaneous instead of Permanent would improve that, but it's a little hard to justify. Instead, add some more perks, like immunity to going out in water or cold or vacuum, even faster ignition, and perhaps on-demand light or hand-warming. This is a very minor utility spell, like prestidigitation, so make lots of minor utility.

Don't, however, make this resellable, if you value WBL at all. (Perhaps note that the coal will burn anyone or anything [in the usual way] that isn't its creator, or an object attended by its creator [so your clothes don't get burned by it].)

Gamer Girl
2012-09-08, 11:31 PM
I meant that you can use it to start a fire- not that you can set anything on fire. A regular fire, like a campfire, or a enough to light a lantern or set a pool of oil on fire. It doesn't deal fire damage to an object, it merely makes it in danger of catching on fire. I suppose a DM could impose a Fort save on some objects, but I think things are either flammable or they're not. I'll think of a better way to word that.

The coal is not hot enough to burn so you can put it in your hand or your pocket without burning yourself. Its not a combat spell. It will last forever unless dispelled or suppressed, like an everburning torch.

You need to be careful with wording. You can easily write a cantrip that can burn down the world. But if you really want a hot coal item, then why not make the item? Trust me you don't want a cantrip that can create a permanent hot coal(or anything really) And why is the coal not hot enouf to burn a person? I've touched a hot coal or two and trust me they are hot enough to burn a person.





What spell does less damage to higher level targets? This spell will still do less damage to quite a number of high-level targets, since the more HD you have the more likely you are to make your save.

All most all spells do less damage to powerful foes for lots of reasons. The thing about the spell as written is that you can beat the save and do massive damage to a powerful foe, just because they are a powerful foe...and that is just weird.






Or maybe I could make the secondary damage 1/hd of target, plus 1d4 con damage.

Damage itself is boring...give the spell other effects...

urkthegurk
2012-09-09, 01:10 PM
These are incorrect, or confusing, or incomplete. This is not an Effect spell, it has a target; you should write "Target: One creature" and be done with it. The Fortitude saves are ... very strange; at present it's "Fortitude partial", but the necessity for making three saves in a row is something I've never seen on a spell. I recommend against that, especially on a level 4. Duration should probably be adjusted a bit too.


Three may be a bit much. However: ONE save prevents the spell from affecting it initially. Its only after that that multiple spells must be made to shake the damage.



I assume this is an Evocation [fire] spell, but it would be nice to have that written down.


Yes



As mentioned, this is weirdly non-standard, and unnecessarily overpowered. There are essentially no existing spells that become more effective as the target increases in HD; some become strictly less (like sleep), and many stay the same, effectively decreasing relatively (fireball, for example).


Now there is one! Yaaaay. It still becomes less effective against higher HD targets, as they're more likely to make those saves, though. I would argue a few spells like this would make Evocation a select-able school for a specialist wizard. If you're going to cast spells that do damage, why not have them actually hurt? Its important to the flavour of the spell, of the target burning itself up from the inside.

And honestly, in most cases, the damage is still roughly equal to the casters HD, since PCs tend to fight monsters with close to the same CR.



Yet another save? No, please, don't clog up the rest of the combat with this stuff.

Well, it only matters if they pass their Fort saves and don't just burn up in one round. And being on fire does sort of clog up combat, I agree...



Reasonable enough.


Thank you!



Again, this is not an Effect spell, it's a "Target: One creature or object" spell. And the school is presumably Evocation [fire] as well.


Yes, thank you



This should just be "Duration: Concentration" straight.


Nah. I'm sure people won't be too confused, and not every spell has to do the same things.



Ouch, another one that becomes more powerful as its target does.


No, that's per CASTER level, not per hd it has. Fixed.



So, if I understand correctly, after four turns the target is taking 4d12/HD every round?

Only if they ignore the fact that they're on fire. They can try and put out the fire as per the rules for 'being on fire'.



No, just no (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoJustNoReaction). That is not a level 3 spell, that is an epic spell (it is also a little underpowered for epic, but that's another story). The triple scaling is just absurd. Better would be to start with 1 point per caster level per round (capped at 10, because third-level damaging spells generally scale only up to CL 10), then increase to 1d3/level, 1d6/level, 1d8/level, and finally 1d10/level. Alternatively, bump the dice up slightly from that suggestion and allow a save every round to prevent increasing damage.


A third level spell that dealt 1/CL damage would be completely useless. What 3rd level spells are you comparing this to? It takes three rounds to even get up to 1d6, which is the standard for damage-dealing spells. Mine starts 1d4/CL, which is low. And the next round is 1d6. You're suggesting that instead of 4d12, it would be better to 6d8 damage on the fourth round? I don't follow.




This is interesting, but honestly a bit too weak for even a cantrip :smalltongue: Sure, having a lighter in your pocket is nice, but it's not that big a deal. Making it Instantaneous instead of Permanent would improve that, but it's a little hard to justify. Instead, add some more perks, like immunity to going out in water or cold or vacuum, even faster ignition, and perhaps on-demand light or hand-warming. This is a very minor utility spell, like prestidigitation, so make lots of minor utility.

Don't, however, make this resellable, if you value WBL at all. (Perhaps note that the coal will burn anyone or anything [in the usual way] that isn't its creator, or an object attended by its creator [so your clothes don't get burned by it].)

All this is very good advice, basically the intent I had when I made the spell. I'll edit it when I have some time.




And why is the coal not hot enouf to burn a person? I've touched a hot coal or two and trust me they are hot enough to burn a person.


Uh... magic.


You need to be careful with wording. You can easily write a cantrip that can burn down the world. But if you really want a hot coal item, then why not make the item? Trust me you don't want a cantrip that can create a permanent hot coal(or anything really)

I will re-word it. Now, you can only burn down the world if the world is especially flammable. And yes, as the two of you both point out in different ways, it should not be re-sellable.


All most all spells do less damage to powerful foes for lots of reasons. The thing about the spell as written is that you can beat the save and do massive damage to a powerful foe, just because they are a powerful foe...and that is just weird.
.

What sort of reasons? I understand its weird, but why is that wrong? It doesn't act the same as a bunch of other fire spells, but Evokers don't exactly have a diverse toolkit you know.

The idea here is a creature is burning itself up from the inside. So a mammoth will burn hotter than a mouse. But a mammoth is still more likely to survive than a mouse.

TuggyNE
2012-09-09, 04:05 PM
Three may be a bit much. However: ONE save prevents the spell from affecting it initially. Its only after that that multiple spells must be made to shake the damage.

I strongly recommend simplifying this; there is no compelling reason multiple saves must be made, so avoid them.


Now there is one! Yaaaay. It still becomes less effective against higher HD targets, as they're more likely to make those saves, though. I would argue a few spells like this would make Evocation a select-able school for a specialist wizard. If you're going to cast spells that do damage, why not have them actually hurt? Its important to the flavour of the spell, of the target burning itself up from the inside.

Higher-HD targets are expected to have higher saves, and higher-level casters are expected to have higher DCs; higher-HD targets are expected to have more HP, and higher-level casters are expected to do more damage.

If your intention is to turn the target's strength against itself, you might need some additional explanation. (And, in particular, most creatures do not have any ability to set themselves on fire; how precisely are you turning this non-existent ability against them?)


And honestly, in most cases, the damage is still roughly equal to the casters HD, since PCs tend to fight monsters with close to the same CR.

This is not much of an argument for changing the standard, because it applies equally the other way around.


Nah. I'm sure people won't be too confused, and not every spell has to do the same things.

This one wasn't about confusion, but about an unnecessary complication that has unfortunate implications. Why does this spell get to resume after it's ended? Without a compelling reason, avoid this, and avoid the potential abuses it could have.


A third level spell that dealt 1/CL damage would be completely useless. What 3rd level spells are you comparing this to? It takes three rounds to even get up to 1d6, which is the standard for damage-dealing spells. Mine starts 1d4/CL, which is low. And the next round is 1d6. You're suggesting that instead of 4d12, it would be better to 6d8 damage on the fourth round? I don't follow.

Basically, I was working off an amped-up heat metal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heatMetal.htm). Initial damage could be accelerated, I suppose, but the difference between "4d12/CL" and "d8/CL" is pretty massive. (There are no spells that I know of that ever do 4d12/CL damage, which is why I said this was basically epic.)

Edit: Also, your example is incorrect; the spell as written scales 1d4/level -> 2d6/level -> 3d8/level -> 4d10/level -> 4d12/level (which incidentally shows that my timing was off by one initially). The first spell that does 2d6/level is disintegrate, a very powerful sixth-level spell with an attack roll and a save. A third-level spell that can easily quadruple the output of disintegrate is just not going to work.

Steamflogger
2012-09-09, 04:26 PM
If you want incinerate to deal damage commensurate to the target's strength, why not just have it deal constitution damage, something like:

Incinerate
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 round/caster level
Saving Throw: Fort Negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The target begins to burn from the inside out, taking 1d4 points of constitution damage per round. This damage is reduced by 1 for every 10 points of fire resistance the target possesses, and targets with fire immunity are immune to this spell. Targets immune to ability damage instead take 1d4+1 points of fire damage per round.

Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. The subject gains a +4 bonus on this save on any round that they drink a cold, non-flammable liquid, swim in a cool liquid, or take cold damage.

Material Component
A hot piece of coal.

TuggyNE
2012-09-09, 05:05 PM
This spell bypasses the racial immunity to ability damage of corporeal undead and constructs.

Ironically, because this is a Fort negates effect that does not target objects, they're immune to it anyway.

Steamflogger
2012-09-09, 05:26 PM
Wow, allowing it to target them in the first place was a huge error on my part (no con score and everything). Changed it so that it has a reduced effect on creatures immune to ability damage, but left the whole subtype thing alone (probably best to leave that up to a more general fire-starting spell).

urkthegurk
2012-09-09, 06:40 PM
Basically, I was working off an amped-up heat metal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heatMetal.htm). Initial damage could be accelerated, I suppose, but the difference between "4d12/CL" and "d8/CL" is pretty massive. (There are no spells that I know of that ever do 4d12/CL damage, which is why I said this was basically epic.)

Edit: Also, your example is incorrect; the spell as written scales 1d4/level -> 2d6/level -> 3d8/level -> 4d10/level -> 4d12/level (which incidentally shows that my timing was off by one initially). The first spell that does 2d6/level is disintegrate, a very powerful sixth-level spell with an attack roll and a save. A third-level spell that can easily quadruple the output of disintegrate is just not going to work.

It deals 1d4/CL one round and then 1d6 damage the next round. Not 1d6/cl. Just 1d6, from being on fire.




I strongly recommend simplifying this; there is no compelling reason multiple saves must be made, so avoid them.


multiple damage must be made against disease or poison, so I'm basing this of those.



Higher-HD targets are expected to have higher saves, and higher-level casters are expected to have higher DCs; higher-HD targets are expected to have more HP, and higher-level casters are expected to do more damage.

All of these examples are upheld in my spell.



If you want incinerate to deal damage commensurate to the target's strength, why not just have it deal constitution damage, something like:

Incinerate
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 round/caster level
Saving Throw: Fort Negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The target begins to burn from the inside out, taking 1d4 points of constitution damage per round. This damage is reduced by 1 for every 10 points of fire resistance the target possesses, and targets with fire immunity are immune to this spell. Targets immune to ability damage instead take 1d4+1 points of fire damage per round.

Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. The subject gains a +4 bonus on this save on any round that they drink a cold, non-flammable liquid, swim in a cool liquid, or take cold damage.

Material Component
A hot piece of coal.

I like

I've increased the caster levels of both spells, to bring them in line with some of the objections raised above. Let me know if you think these issues are resolved.

TuggyNE
2012-09-09, 08:38 PM
It deals 1d4/CL one round and then 1d6 damage the next round. Not 1d6/cl. Just 1d6, from being on fire.

That could not possibly have been more confusing. :smallsigh:


multiple damage must be made against disease or poison, so I'm basing this of those.

But why? It's not a disease, and it isn't poison. Even the spell poison only has two saves total.


All of these examples are upheld in my spell.

Not exactly; damage that scales with target HD specifically breaks the usual paradigm, because a very weak caster can be just as effective against a very strong enemy. The exceptions to this (Con damage, energy drain, etc) generally have their own special additional defenses, or are considered overpowered as is.

Turning a target's inner energy against themselves is a fascinating concept, but it needs a more thorough treatment (fluffwise and mechanically) than just saying "d4/target HD fire damage". Also, it's starting to veer off from Evocation, frankly. Evocation's schtick is basically "I shove something dangerous at my target, and it gets hurt a lot", while this is something Necromancy ("I manipulate my target's life force") or Transmutation ("I change the target's structure as it suits me") would probably fit better. There are some targets this spell probably shouldn't work on for example, water elementals, and perhaps plants and some targets it doesn't work on that perhaps it should for example, constructs. I'm also beginning to suspect a Will save might fit better than Fort.

SinsI
2012-09-10, 01:48 AM
What spell does less damage to higher level targets? This spell will still do less damage to quite a number of high-level targets, since the more HD you have the more likely you are to make your save.

I'm quite sure you're wrong. The save DC difficulty increases at a rate of at least 1/caster level but even good saves increase at half that rate, and if it is your bad save...
You might boost it somewhat with +5 cloak and +6 Con item, so at best the chances to make your save stay the same...

TuggyNE
2012-09-10, 02:42 AM
The save DC difficulty increases at a rate of at least 1/caster level

That's not actually the case. Standard formula is 10+spell level+casting mod (not caster level), so max-level or Heightened saves go up by a little over 1 per two levels (assuming the caster invests in casting stat boosters).

Caster level never directly feeds into DCs.