Talk:Gravitational Force (5e Spell)

RatingsEdit

Blocked Rating	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.Compare this to Reverse Gravity.

Removed the directional gravity completely--Franken Kesey 14:48, 22 April 2019 (MDT).

5E translation notesEdit

Some of the elements of this spell still carry some legacy sensibilities from 3.5/3E design: round-based duration, "caster level" scaling, assumptions about planar gravity, and a general degree of complexity and book-keeping uncommon in 5e design. Rather than try to just make up the right answers for things like duration, range, area of effect, let's instead examine some comps.

• Entangle: 1 minute concentration, 20 ft square area of difficult terrain with an initial save vs restrained.
• Warding Wind: 10 min concentration, 10 ft radius of difficult terrain that gives ranged attacks disadvantage.
• Hunger of Hadar: 1 minute concentration, 20 ft radius of difficult terrain and magical darkness that creatures save vs damage for 3/4ths.
• Sleet Storm: 1 minute concentration, 40 ft radius heavily obscured difficult terrain, creatures save vs prone, and make concentration checks.
• Slow: 1 minute concentration, six targets in 120 ft save vs 1/2 speed, -2 AC/Dex saves, no reactions, & action limitations. Retry save each round.
• Spirit Guardians: 10 minutes concentration, 15 ft radius halves speed and save vs damage for half.

This probably isn't everything, but it's a big pool of effects we can mine with an idea of their level appropriateness. From what you've got so far; it's almost certainly a concentration spell with a duration of 1 minute. You want something modular (like Enlarge/Reduce) that creates a stationary zone of debuff (probably a 20 ft cube). It seems to me like you want one mode to "lock down" a space, and the other to facilitate travel through it.

So the High-Gravity zone is something like "A creature moving through the area must spend 2 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves. Ranged weapon attacks through this area have their ranges halved." There's room for more but it's mostly a variant Warding Wind, so keep that comparison in the back of your mind.

The Low-Gravity zone can flip this. Advantage on Strength Checks makes sense (enhance ability is single target but lasts for an hour so it seems like an acceptable trade), likewise increasing your speed by 10 ft for one turn. The goal should be to keep this roughly on par with the benefits of High-Gravity. Vaegrim (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2019 (MDT)

Fixed duration and area to be more standard. However, your above mechanics, while rational, add even more math to a system that tries to avoid it. Of all my spells this is certainly the most complex as is. Additionally, increasing strength does not make sense. Changing gravity does not make a creature stronger or weaker. It only decreases or increases how much they can lift relative to normal. This is mentioned in the current spell and will suffice.--Franken Kesey 18:01, 21 April 2019 (MDT)

The trouble with relying purely on effective weight changes is twofold: the only standard weights are for equipment, and there's no guide for the DC for Athletics Checks to move heavy objects. The consequence of this is that practically speaking, that effect only interacts with equipment and encumbrance (systems many DMs largely ignore). That said, you're already giving out disadvantage on ability checks, why doesn't the same logic apply for your Heavy Gravity zone? "Changing gravity does not make a creature stronger or weaker", unless you're making an athletics check in a High Gravity zone?

I'm not sure what you mean by the suggestions adding "even more math", I'm directly cribbing mechanics from existing 5e Spells. That's specifically the advice I'm giving, try (where possible) to crib effects from existing spells of comparable levels. Vaegrim (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

5e really hates math. Well removed much of the math. Check out the current version.--Franken Kesey 10:27, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Compare the level to reverse gravity. Completely unacceptable for the same effect. --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Upped the level, and reduced cube to 30', also the 10'/level was removed 6 edits ago. I have always been open to improving an article. Winter cleaning template exist to tag articles with no recent activity or which have reached an in-pass. Neither is true in this case.

Also, this is much weaker than revers gravity. Reverse gravity is a 100' cylinder with potential damage of 20d6. While, even if a creature fell on the cubes long diameter the max damage is 10d6.--Franken Kesey 11:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Unlike in 3.5, very few monsters have flight or ways to deal with being unable to walk, which you might know if you had read through the 5e MM. This is a remove-from-combat spell for most melee monsters. Just remove the last part entirely, as the big part of reverse gravity is removing enemies from the field, not the potential damage at higher levels. Just remove that part since it's stepping on the toes of Reverse Gravity. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Removed all the flying mechanics. The low chance of them having flight does not justify complex mechanics. Put a single simple sentence to specify effects in the off-chance they do. The directional gravity is integral to this spell, and the recent changes put it at level 6, which is only one level below reverse gravity. It has been established above that this is weaker than reverse gravity. Even in 5e reverse gravity does do considerable damage. Any other issues with this?--Franken Kesey 12:54, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Side question: Have mixed considerations on if this should affect liquids. Technically it should, because liquids have no form outside their container (thus less than 500 lbs). With water, this has interesting affects but nothing overly amazing -- because it only lasts 1 minute (thus does not do anything like drowning). However, other liquids technically can be separated into parts less than 500 lbs. And this becomes over-powered with things like mud or lava. Since reverse gravity spells in all editions, and the about planes also fail to mention this mechanic. What are your thoughts on this? Should it only include water? Or is there another way to do this?--Franken Kesey 13:01, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Having a spell that does what another spell does while being both more versatile and at a lower level is unacceptable, in any edition. While the damage is not negligible, again, the real strength of reverse gravity is to remove enemies from fights. This would single-handedly remove something even as powerful as a begir (CR 11), storm giant (CR 13), ice devil (CR 14), purple worm (CR 15), iron golem (CR 16), or even the tarrasque from play. Their weights aren't mentioned anywhere, and it should be a size category, not some arbitrary weight, which would help alleviate the problem, at least a little. --Ghostwheel (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Regressing back to a different point, Reverse Gravity doesn't deal any damage, but you can take falling damage naturally from being in the area of effect. However, a 100ft tall, 50ft radius cylinder means that you cannot fall the required 200 feet to hit 20d6 damage. Unless my math on this is wrong, of course; but anyway you fall, you cannot possibly fall more than like... ~140ft? --TK-Squared (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Reverse gravity is not a permanent effect. It only last 1 minute. Thus you have to account for the initial max fall of 100 feet, then when gravity returns to normal, the second fall of 100 feet. In fact the area and effects of reverse gravity make it one of the most powerful damage dealing spells out there.--Franken Kesey 09:56, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

If you fall to the top of the Reverse Gravity cylinder, you have fallen 100-foot. When the cylinder is dismissed, you have fallen only 100-foot. That's 10d6. --TK-Squared (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

When the reverse gravity duration ends, gravity returns to normal. Thus if you fell the initial 100 feet, then you would fall back 100 feet. It is basic math TK, 100+100=200. Also, with earth-like gravity and no substantial wind resistance, a medium creature falls 100 feet in the first 2.5 seconds.--Franken Kesey 10:24, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Ooh, you're basing your entire idea that the people stuck in it fell 100 feet into a solid ceiling. You didn't say that so there just needed to be some clarification. Also, I'm sure if you studied 5e, you would know - as per the rules - you instantly fall up to 500 feet (XGE 77). Just to clean up any more misconceptions you may have about the system. --TK-Squared (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

First off, we are comparing the power of two spells SRD5:Reverse Gravity and Gravitational Direction (5e Spell). Technically, neither are this spell, thus this should be continued on the directional gravity page.

Secondly, it was brought up by ghostwheel that this spell was initially overpowered. He made some good points, thus this spell has been weakened and split up into two different spells.

Lastly, your argument further supports mine that reverse gravity is much more powerful than directional gravity. Sure, D&D uses a lot of enclosed spaces (it is expected, dungeons are in the name). But the application in open spaces makes reverse gravity super powerful. Max velocity is reached at 12 seconds at 174 feet per second (having fallen 1,483 feet at this point). The 30' cube of directional gravity is tiny in comparison. Thank you for supporting my argument.--Franken Kesey 10:51, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

What? It seems like either I missed something or you just went on a tirade about things that don't even seem to matter to the discussion at hand; I was simply trying to ascertain how the 20d6 number for damage was gotten for Reverse Gravity (spread over two applications of 10d6; one for hitting a ceiling 100ft up, and then falling back to the ground). I asked here because that's where the discussion is.

Also, I'm not making an argument? Well, actually, the only argument I'm trying to make is that you should learn the rules of 5e, but we all know that's something ridiculous to dare suggest. You're for some reason now trying to spout physics around to prove something? That seems to be the biggest problem when trying to discuss things with you; you seem to be trying to prove something completely separate? Oh well, we've figured out where 20d6 falling damage comes from, and that's all I wanted to know. --TK-Squared (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Continue on the Gravitational Direction (5e Spell) page, the change in gravitational direction no longer applies to this page.--Franken Kesey 11:48, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

TK's Tritique ThowEdit

Howdy folks, let's look at this 5e Spell and see what we can say about it and figure out what's wrong with it. Mainly because there are things wrong with the spell.

• 1) Range. The range isn't a 30' cube - though notably "30'" is against the usual way of describing range and size in 5e. The range how far away you can cast the spell, and usually for a spell of this type will be just a range - not a shape. So, for example, you could have it be Range: 100 feet.
• 2) The Components list 'M' and 'F'; however it doesn't list what the Materials are, and a Focus is only required if you're using a Focus instead of Material Components. In 5e, there is no F for a component, and what the component is is always listed.
• 3) Let's stick with Components; the only Components are M, F. This means that there are no Somatic nor Verbal components to this spell. This makes it absolutely fantastic in general because it's a free Still Spell Metamagic without even being a Sorcerer! Probably should make Components into: Components: V S M (Lodestone).
• 4) Range again. As we've moved the shape of the effect out of the Range section, it needs to be described in the wording. Here you can say: This spell causes manipulations in gravity in a 50-foot cube.
• 5) 500lb. All my characters are 501lb so that this can't affect them. A character's weight doesn't have any mechanical meaning to the game, and now adding in the fact that a character must track their weight just in case this spell turns up adds complexity to the character framework that is wholly unnecessary. This can simply be said that it doesn't affect creatures that are of size Huge or greater.
• 6) "strength, and strength related skill checks incur a disadvantage". This wording is all messed up and not in line with how 5e works. Firstly, what exactly is the intention here? Do you have disadvantage on all Strength Saving Throws and all Strength checks? Because Saving Throws and Ability Checks are different things. I think that this is meant to read: Creatures in the area have disadvantage on all Strength checks.
• 7) The same thing applies to *Light Gravity* and giving Advantage.
• 8) Max 5d10. Does this... alter how falling damage works in some way? Like, if I fall 150 feet, get into the *Heavy Gravity* field, fall the further 50 feet and hit the ground, do I only take 5d10 damage? Or is it meant to be that only the first 5 die in the Falling Damage calculation use d10s, while the rest use d6s? This just requires far too much clarification.
• 9) Adding a whole separate effect when used at "three higher spell slots". Firstly, the wording here is wrong. We know what spell slot this uses (3rd) and we know what spell slot is three levels higher because 5e assumes we have a basic grasp of mathematics. Take for example the spell Conjure Woodland Beings.This should read: When you cast this spell using a 6th-level Spell Slot, you may also choose the following instead of the other options...
• 10) Why are you adding a whole different option for upcasting instead of just making the upcasting a different spell in the first place, as with Lesser Restoration and Greater Restoration? Upcasting just increases things for the spell, it doesn't add this whole different ability to it instead for some unknown reason.

So yeah, that's what I got for right now just by glancing at the spell. It needs to be really brought into line with how 5e works. --TK-Squared (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Thank you for the feedback. Will respond to the points:

1. Did not have a place to put area in the 5e spell framework. But will change the range to normal (medium), and find another place to put area.
2. Did know what would be a good material component, changing to Lodestones. Thank you for the idea.
3. See above.
4. See above.
5. This echos a few other concerns on weight. Did not want it to effect all objects. Will change to huge creatures. But that does nothing to boulders. Do not want to affect a 1000 lbs boulder. Would changing it to: "Does not affect huge sized creatures or larger or object weighing more than 500lbs." work?
6. Initially wanted it to affect dexterity and weight. But apparently 5e does not deal with weight much. Thus simplified to a simple strength bonus. Because 5e hates math. Will simplify even more to remove the double stacking of skill checks (to just benefit strength and ranges).
7. With regards to the max damage. The long diagonal of a 30' cube is 51.9 feet. I rounded down to 50 ft. In the rare circumstance that a creature fell along this diagonal the max damage would be 5d6 (unmodified). Creatures do not reach max velocity in 50 feet. I did specify above that this can be used in conjunction with light/heavy gravity.
8. Will change wording to standard.
9. Hmm. Might change to two different spells. Not a bad idea.

With all that being said, what are your thoughts on liquids? How should this affect them?--Franken Kesey 14:18, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

* 1) All you have to do is look at a similar spell (like Reverse Gravity and understand that the area of the spell is in the description. Also, "medium" is not a thing in 5e.

* 5) Then, your spell is problems with unnecessary complexity if we now have to take into all sorts of consideration what objects are and aren't effected. Especially as the direction of the gravity is not normally changed, so it doesn't even matter at all if a boulder that happens to weight 501lb is even affected.

* 6) "5e hates math". This is such a ridiculous thing to say and seems like a demonstration of any ignorance of how 5e works in general. 5e is streamlined and simplified by the introduction of Advantage and Disadvantage. I didn't even say anything about "double stacking" of skill checks, it just seems like you don't really understand how ability checks and saving throws actually work in 5e.

* 7) I got how you calculated 5d6 damage, but as I described in what I can only assume you ignored, you can fall into the area of the spell. At which point, according to what you're saying, I'd only take 5dx damage, no matter how far I fell. So I could jump from 5000 feet into one of these fields and just take 5d4 (~12 damage on average).

As for liquids, I don't think it matters at all? Why are we trying to define what the spell does to liquids? --TK-Squared (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Completely removed the directional gravity from this. Will turn into a separate spell called Gravitational Direction (5e Spell).

7) Will need to add mention of how it affects creatures who were falling outside of area in future spell. Will continue about liquids in future spell. It should have some effect on a pond or stream when gravity is changed. It is odd that it is not even mentioned in the original spells.--Franken Kesey 14:40, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

2) and 3) are still issues in this current revision. As noted previous, 5e does not have an 'F' component (Focuses merely replace non-expensive components), and this spell does not have Verbal or Somatic components. This is an extreme oddity and should be rectified. --TK-Squared (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Fixed, gave it a somatic component.--Franken Kesey 08:40, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Power LevelEdit

...Have you looked at what spells can do in 5e? Granting disadvantage to attack rolls to a bunch of enemies, especially if your other characters have means apart from specifically melee or ranged attack rolls in combat, is way too strong at 2nd level. I'd peg this at least at 3rd level, more comparable to slow/stinking cloud.

EDIT: Make that 5th level at the very least, due to a lack of save. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Gave it a save and made it 3rd level. It benefits and detriments all in area (not just allies).--Franken Kesey 15:14, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

I'm not so sure Ghostwheel, I compared it to Warding Wind in the first place.Vaegrim (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Warding wind has a smaller area, is centered only on you, and only has half the effect of this spell.

Also Kesey, you have to think things through. Does it grant a save only when it's cast? What if someone moves out and back into the area? Is it each round? You have to answer all of these. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Single save on entering (and every time you reenter). Will add to spell. May also need to add that the save is optional (esp. with light gravity, which is mostly beneficial).--Franken Kesey 16:41, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Fixed, clarified save.--Franken Kesey 08:40, 23 April 2019 (MDT)