PDA

View Full Version : Frost to Fire [spells]



Dhavaer
2007-05-31, 04:07 AM
Freeze
Evocation [cold]
Level: Sor/Wis 4
Components: V, S
Casting time: see text
Range: Short
Targets: 1 creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous, see text
Save: Fort partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

If this spell is cast as a standard action, the targets take 2d6 cold damage plus the casterís primary casting ability modifier, and are slowed (as the spell) for one round. A successful Fort save halves the damage and negates the slowing effect.
If it is cast as a full round action, the targets take 2d6 cold damage plus 1.5 times the casterís primary casting ability modifier, and are slowed (as the spell) for 1 round/caster level. A successful Fort save halves the damage and negates the slowing effect.

Fire
Evocation [fire]
Level: Sor/Wis 4
Components: V, S
Casting time: see text
Range: Short
Targets: 1 creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous, see text
Save: Ref partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

If this spell is cast as a standard action, the targets take 6d6 fire damage plus the casterís primary casting ability modifier. Additionally, if they fail a Reflex save they catch on fire.
If it is cast as a full round action, the targets take 12d6 fire damage plus 1.5 times the casterís primary casting ability modifier. Additionally, if they fail a Reflex save they catch on fire. This fire does 2d6 damage per round instead of the usual 1d6, and the save to put out the fire uses the spellís save DC instead of 15. It also takes twice as long to put out by smothering.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-05-31, 04:49 AM
Thunder on my right hand; Lightning in my left hand.
Fire behind me. Frost in front of me.

Frost to Fire.

Miraqariftsky
2007-05-31, 06:04 AM
Both are of the same level but why does the latter appear to be so much more powerful?

Dhavaer
2007-05-31, 06:07 AM
Both are of the same level but why does the latter appear to be so much more powerful?

I don't know. It's much weaker than the first one.

Reinboom
2007-05-31, 11:32 AM
The first one = Slow with a different save, +1 DC, and 2d6 damage but takes a full round action. Also, the initial damage is stopped by the DC, unlike in Fire, which makes a tiny difference.
May I request something to make this cooler? (pun very intended) Make a creature hit by the full round cold vulnerable to fire damage for 1 round?


Fire, castable by 7th level - deals 12d6 + 1.5 x caster primary casting ability mod without save or touch? 49-52 damage average (depending on equipment or buffs) is pretty hefty when it's nearly guaranteed. Then with an added bonus of setting the opponent on fire every once in awhile, this is gold. You may wish to adjust it a bit.

Greenfaun
2007-05-31, 12:19 PM
Thunder on my right hand; Lightning in my left hand.
Fire behind me. Frost in front of me.

Frost to Fire.

Yeah, that's what I was hoping this would be about, too. Crivens!

On the other hand, they seem like perfectly good spells to me. I'm not sure about the full-round casting modifier, though. It seems like more of a general houserule to apply to magic than something that should happen on a spell by spell basis.

Smiley_
2007-05-31, 12:24 PM
I like the idea.

A standard Fireball or a cone of cold does not freeze or set a target on fire.

As for the range, I would change it to touch seeing as how the save is a fortitude save.

And if either of the spells is overpowered, it would be the freeze one. The slow affect can really screw the hapless subject up.

Fizban
2007-05-31, 07:30 PM
Thunder on my right hand; Lightning in my left hand.
Fire behind me. Frost in front of me.

Frost to Fire.

Care to enlighten those of us who don't get the reference?

Dhavaer
2007-05-31, 08:11 PM
Care to enlighten those of us who don't get the reference?

Terry Pratchett's Wintersmith.

Icewalker
2007-05-31, 08:19 PM
Hrm...

The damage for the fire spell is too high though. Comparing it to a fireball from a 7th level caster who would have this, it'd deal 5d6 more damage and light them on fire. Course it also only hits one person.

I think lowering it to 10d6 sounds a little better. That way it is still superior as a spell one level higher, without going hugely overboard. I've always liked spells that light people on fire.

My friend keeps telling me to read Terry Pratchet's books, and I keep seeing references to them on these forums. Gotta check them out.

DragonTounge
2007-06-12, 12:18 PM
I think the fire spell does too much damage. Other than that, great spells!:smile:


The damage for the fire spell is too high though. Comparing it to a fireball from a 7th level caster who would have this, it'd deal 5d6 more damage and light them on fire. Course it also only hits one person.

Acualy the spell hits one person per level. That means that it would hit 7 people.

Abjurer
2007-06-12, 01:46 PM
You might want to add caps to the number of rounds.
Then again, it is a fourth-level spell. It mightn't be necessary.

Callix
2007-06-13, 07:03 AM
A standard Fireball or a cone of cold does not freeze or set a target on fire.

Actually, if they fail their reflex saves, and happen to be wearing anything flammable, it does. No-one ever plays this, but the spell description says it sets flammable objects on fire. Go figure.