Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sasha's Searing Light (3.5e Spell)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
HarrowedMind (talk | contribs) |
HarrowedMind (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::I'm pretty comfortable with low level combat spells becoming obsolete as higher level spells come online actually, since they can be replaced with utility stuff and the slot isn't wasted even if a particular spell drops out of use. It's not like low level combat spells get cast outside of really long workdays anyway. It tends to work better in a setup where the caster has an at-will ability to fall back on though (even if that thing is combat), just in case they want to do a long workday. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]</sup> 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC) | ::I'm pretty comfortable with low level combat spells becoming obsolete as higher level spells come online actually, since they can be replaced with utility stuff and the slot isn't wasted even if a particular spell drops out of use. It's not like low level combat spells get cast outside of really long workdays anyway. It tends to work better in a setup where the caster has an at-will ability to fall back on though (even if that thing is combat), just in case they want to do a long workday. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]</sup> 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | Truth is: I am pretty much on both sides on this issue. Capped spells are kind of a pain (which is why I love spells like Erad's Silent Killer, shh), although in this case, the spell is just too powerful for such a low-level spell (the ability to deal 1d10 untyped damage/level without even a save is simply too much for me). I guess my solution for these lines of spells would be to keep them scaling, but at a reduced rate so as not to make them equal to higher level spells (in this case, why would I cast a 3rd level spell if I could empower this beast?). As a rule of thumb, 1d6 damage/2 levels would set a pretty good standard, I guess. It's definitely not the most powerful spell of your arsenal, but it's nothing to laugh at neither, and leaves you an option the get rid of the underlings without resorting to higher-level spells or just waiting for your fighter, ranger and the like to do the job for you. Also, the range is pretty high... [[User:HarrowedMind|-HarrowedMind]] 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) | + | :::Truth is: I am pretty much on both sides on this issue. Capped spells are kind of a pain (which is why I love spells like Erad's Silent Killer, shh), although in this case, the spell is just too powerful for such a low-level spell (the ability to deal 1d10 untyped damage/level without even a save is simply too much for me). I guess my solution for these lines of spells would be to keep them scaling, but at a reduced rate so as not to make them equal to higher level spells (in this case, why would I cast a 3rd level spell if I could empower this beast?). As a rule of thumb, 1d6 damage/2 levels would set a pretty good standard, I guess. It's definitely not the most powerful spell of your arsenal, but it's nothing to laugh at neither, and leaves you an option the get rid of the underlings without resorting to higher-level spells or just waiting for your fighter, ranger and the like to do the job for you. Also, the range is pretty high... [[User:HarrowedMind|-HarrowedMind]] 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:35, 21 September 2011
Power Level
While I am a fan of uncapped spells, I specifically am a fan of uncapped high level spells. The uncapped growth of thus at 1st level displeases me. -- Eiji-kun 09:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Capping low-level spells seems the same as imposing an HD limit on, say, color spray (i.e. it's kind of silly). It's already about the same power level as a Tome warlock's eldritch blast (granted, with a bit better range) but it's not useable at will either. Imposing a damage cap is specifically what I personally would want to avoid so as to not make the spell completely obsolete at a higher level. - TG Cid 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty comfortable with low level combat spells becoming obsolete as higher level spells come online actually, since they can be replaced with utility stuff and the slot isn't wasted even if a particular spell drops out of use. It's not like low level combat spells get cast outside of really long workdays anyway. It tends to work better in a setup where the caster has an at-will ability to fall back on though (even if that thing is combat), just in case they want to do a long workday. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Truth is: I am pretty much on both sides on this issue. Capped spells are kind of a pain (which is why I love spells like Erad's Silent Killer, shh), although in this case, the spell is just too powerful for such a low-level spell (the ability to deal 1d10 untyped damage/level without even a save is simply too much for me). I guess my solution for these lines of spells would be to keep them scaling, but at a reduced rate so as not to make them equal to higher level spells (in this case, why would I cast a 3rd level spell if I could empower this beast?). As a rule of thumb, 1d6 damage/2 levels would set a pretty good standard, I guess. It's definitely not the most powerful spell of your arsenal, but it's nothing to laugh at neither, and leaves you an option the get rid of the underlings without resorting to higher-level spells or just waiting for your fighter, ranger and the like to do the job for you. Also, the range is pretty high... -HarrowedMind 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
