Talk:Magic Missile Maelstrom (3.5e Spell)

Too Weak for a 9?
This... is a joke for a 9th level spell. Given that it doesn't even do meaningful damage, despite always hitting, to say nothing of having no meaningful riders, no meaningful contributions... hell, no meaningful anything, makes me wonder why it wasn't put at about 2nd level, where it probably belongs. -MisterSinister 05:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's ~85 points of unresistable damage on average a pop. 85 damage as a 9th level spell is not important at all... but the ability to hit regardless of save or AC puts it into the same reason why people use magic missile in the first place, reliability.  Certainly not a blast spell to pack unless you're going against something out of your touch attack abilities or out of your DCs.  Now, if you're saying that in spite of this function as a low damage reliable spell, it still is too weak, do tell.  But bring numbers in this case since it's a numerical matter. -- Eiji-kun 05:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is, magic missile is not a spell worth it's 1st level slot. Dagger damage at 1st level, even if it always hits, isn't even meaningful, since that slot contains sleep and color spray, which end a combat by themselves. Magic missile will never do this, even at higher-levels. Likewise, once you get to 17th level, 'reliably' doing 85-odd damage does not even come close to comparing to gate, shapechange or wail of the banshee. If you're gonna design a spell, you need to compare to things of that level people actually take because they're good, not because they don't know any better.


 * In terms of fighting things outside your DCs - have you seen the encounter guidelines? They stipulate that such encounters should basically occur so rarely (1 in 20 or so) that having a spell to deal with them seems kinda pointless. Secondly, even if this does happen, your spell does nothing whatsoever to chew through such a creature's hit points in a meaningful fashion anyway, as the damage is so low. Lastly, that argument falls flat, since at that level, only epic creatures form this kind of challenge - and at epic, there are no consistent balance points anyway, which means the GM is pretty much making up rules to keep playing.


 * So overall, no, this is not a 9th level spell, because it doesn't do 17th level things. It DOES do about 3rd level things, which is why I think it's an appropriate 2nd level spell. - MisterSinister 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute guys...Unless I got everything wrong: are you saying that a spell that does 2d6+2/level (that's 40d6+80 at level 20, for an average of 220 damage a pop) for 1 Round/Level, which you can maintain with only a Swift Action is too weak for a 9th level spell? Hell, I consider that damn powerful before even considering the fact that it's pretty much un-resistable Force damage which does not allow a save AND does not even require an attack roll neither! It is much, much stronger than, say, Sphere of Ultimate Destruction! A pretty dang good spell if you ask me and a very nice point of comparison...By the way, I love the reference to the old 8 Bit D&D/Dead Ale Wives skit! :P
 * Edit: Oh snap, it WAS edited. Pretty g*d d*amn strong, now, no? -HarrowedMind 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lawl, yes, I did go back and make some rather significant changes. Your numbers are off though, it's 2d6+2/lvl (average 180) and 1d6+1/lvl (average 90) in subsequent turns.  But I figure the thing that would make it interesting and unique beyond a mere blast is that I made it into a gift that keeps on giving.  Neither number is likely to be a one-hit kill, but it rapidly wears on the target in addition to whatever you're doing.  It could be compared to free degeneration 90 every round plus the initial blast. -- Eiji-kun 06:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an example where balance points could have been useful for Spells too. It was weak for a 9th level "wizard level" spell. Which may sound a bit weird, but there are lots of spells that fall short of the benchmark for their level. Rather than saying they are just bad, they could just be seen as belonging to a different level of play. --Aarnott 13:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I knew, only races and monsters were exlcuded from balance points, and this should have been labelled like that in the first place :-/ - Tarkisflux Talk 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with HarrowedMind that this spell isn't too weak at all to be a 9th level spell, and this is coming from someone who has to forcibly tone his creations down so they won't be too overpowered. The average damage it does in the initial round + the subsequent rounds (assuming it is maintained, and I don't know why it wouldn't be) is quite substantial (990, assuming a caster level of 20 and average damage) if it is all targeting one creature, despite the fact that it takes several rounds to achieve (and if you have to spend all those rounds attacking the same monster, it's probably an epic monster that will take several minutes to kill anyway). I would almost say that it is a bit too powerful; however, because it takes multiple rounds to really rake out the damage, its power is mitigated, and therefore it remains balanced. I also see this spell as very useful for clearing out tons of weak enemies very quickly, kinda like a giant can of bug spray. 9th level spells aren't (and normally shouldn't be) the "Kill the epic monster in one shot attack" (that's what epic spells are for), so I don't see why it isn't doing ENOUGH damage. I would say it is around Rogue level. Bravo on the Magic Missile Maelstrom. It is useful, reliable, and balanced. I am adding it to my list of usable homebrew spells. FiddleSticks96 03:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I just feel compelled to say that I consider epic spells generally fail. I need to cast for 5 days and spend tons of resources when I could just wish my way to victory? Thanks but no thanks.


 * The unstoppable component is the only thing preventing this from being around a level 6 spell, in my opinion. It does similar damage to disintegrate in that regard, maybe a bit better. But given how blaster builds are generally reliant on metamagic and such to do high damage, this spell being a 9 removes some of that capability.


 * In addition, it's hard to justify a lot of spells being 9's when your alternatives are like gate and wail of the banshee. - TG Cid 14:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to justify lots of spells at lots of levels when your alternatives are the really good ones. Only their edge case appliciation or use at lower balance ranges really works to keep them around. A level 9 that isn't as good as your really good alternatives is totally fine, it just won't see use unless you're playing at a lower balance range or you know in advance what to expect and it will be a better option than one of the alternatives. There is absolutely a place for these sorts of things though. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...Okay, I can see why wail of the banshee is seen as awesome (at least until you run into something immune to sonic attacks). But gate? It's basically a glorified plane shift or a way to call a big outsider to pummel your enemies for you. What about stuff the outsider can't handle, like a barrage of banishment spells?


 * Also, I might as well lower the spell level of Veles missile and/or buff its damage if it's going to have to compete with this in high-level play. This spell is like casting Veles missile once per round - sure, a single round isn't as strong as a Veles missile attack, but the sustained fire just blows Veles missile out of the water. And I'm also the kind of guy with a knack for going overboard!!!!! (At least Veles missile, as a deity-powered spell, is available to clerics and druids.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yours already does 10 damage per level compared to this one's 9, in the first round, but casting veles missile as a 9 could involve Empower Spell, in which case yours does as much as two rounds of this. Battles don't last all that long, so that's still really handy. --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Viewtiful Monarch?
Hey, I was just wondering if I could add this to the Viewtiful Monarch's spell list. :3 --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)