Talk:Specialized Heavy Ray (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	The bluez in the dungeon favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I nice follow-up to your heavy ray spell I'd just add to both spells a clause that specify that the damage is physical in natura, otherwise it wouldn't interact with DR/any metal

Damage Dice

This goes for this spell and its predecessor. Are you certain about having disintegrate-tier damage on an AoE-line Reflex save is a good idea? That and d12s are notably swingy. I am curious about why you went with this damage dice, especially at moderate level. --Leziad (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I have to agree with Leziad on this. I was unsure about the damage output myself, but didn't give any thought to it. I think these spells can retain their value even if you reduce the damage die. Or increase the balance level. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Originally when I wrote this spell, the damage was evenly distributed. So there was 1d4 bludgeoning damage, 1d4 piercing damage, and 1d4 slashing damage per caster level. But rolling a large number of dice seemed too heavy to me. So I just decided to roll 1d12 which would combine all three forms of physical damage. Another important point is that by rolling 3 dice, the minimum being 3, so it was possible to inflict heavy damage by "failing" its rolls. If you are level 10, and you roll 10 x 3d4 or 10 x 1d12, it's not the same thing. In the first case the average damage is 75 with a minimum of 30, and in the second case the average damage is 65 with a minimum of 10. The damage being physical, it is easy to find creatures with damage reductions, and the spell will be blocked against a (DR/-). I understand that the spell seems a little strong for moderate balancing, and I purposely wanted it strong, so after some thought I think it would be better to put it on high balancing. Neostar (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What about 3d6 per two levels instead of 1d12 per level? That 5.25 dmg per level instead of 6.5, but gives much more even results. --Leziad (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's 5.25 on average, but with a minimum of 15 at level 10 (instead of 10 at level 10 with 1d12), and with a much higher maximum damage. And yes, we also have to think about those who will use metamagic to maximize the damage. Moreover, the fact that there is a large fluctuation on the die result is part of the very principle of the spell which sometimes will do good damage, and other times will not. I'm not trying with this spell to "control" the average each time it's used, it's volatile and that's what I wanted. Neostar (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's a bit to unpack here and a few questions to add. Designing spells is funny because of the design space they fit into and their design goal. There are two spells this compares somewhat well with, so we'll be talking about disintegrate and lightning bolt. I tend not to care about spell "balance range" since its all material for Very High classes. The goal is not to make other material obsolete, but rather inclusive with its addition.

Right now, with its cap of 15d12, this is a superior disintegrate at a spell level lower in many ways. Targeting Reflex over Fortitude is the easier save to target for PCs, by a significant margin, which only gets easier as characters level up. You're looking at a typical range of 3-6 points difference on average when this comes into play. It hits multiple targets instead of a single target and does not require that touch attack that disintegrate does. Also, it's save for half damage instead of the 5d6 cap of that spell, so it's also more damaging on a successful save. Not accounting for the saving throw it targets and the successful saves made on average at that, disintegrate deals an average of 0.5 more per die as it stands currently. Taking saves into account, this spell dishes out more damage and easier. A more damaging disintegrate in a line at a level lower sounds not okay.

I'm not going to make an argument for why you want to use d12s because of their swingy-ness, but I will say that as using a daily resource and rolling low (that is, far below average or expected) feels bad. Especially bad if you had to spend an expensive material component to cast it.

The base version of this spell, heavy ray, just outstrips lightning bolt very heavily. You wouldn't even bother with lightning bolt against an enemy that was weak against electrical damage, of which none exist that I know of anyway (there's probably something in a splat-book somewhere or maybe Pathfinder).

As for that material component, well, let's take a look at costs:

• 5 cp worth of Iron
• 1 sp worth of Cold Iron
• ??? worth of Alchemical Silver (no price given by weight for this in the SRD; I could take a guess at like 10 gp, which is half the cost of applying it to a dagger which weighs 1 lb. as a light weapon)
• ??? worth of Adamantine (no price given by weight for this in the SRD; I could take a guess at like 1,350 gp, which is half the cost of applying it to a dagger which weighs 1 lb for the +3,000 gp weapon cost minus the masterwork component cost)

You need definite costs for these things.

This isn't all to say that there isn't design space for a spell like this. Here's some recommendations:

• 1d6 per level to a maximum of 15d6 at level 15 (10d6 at 10th for regular heavy ray). This is standard damage scaling for a multi-target spell of its level. This also has the benefit to players of using dice they likely have already as spellcasters instead of needing to dig out a bunch of d12s just for this one spell and have them clutter up their dice tray.
• You could potentially go with focuses instead of material components, or a combination. Your 50 gp adamantine charm is your focus and you use up a half pound of iron or whatever. It already has Spell Resistance apply so it isn't like they're just being pelted with conjured mundane metal, so focuses still work thematically in some sense. I do see that it might not fit the design idea of what you envisioned so not going that route is fine. Focuses do also have the benefit of solving the problem below.
• Instead of a specific weight ingot or a focus, you could have it cost as much as a piece of ammunition (like an arrow or sling bullet) of the appropriate type.

As a final question: What is your intention on bypassing DR/Magic?

I hope all this was helpful in some manner. --Ganteka Future (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit that there are adjustments to be made. After some comparisons, 10d12 at 10th level for a third level spell is too high. I want to show the metallic heaviness of this spell. And I was hesitant for a long time to write it with a full action cast time instead of a standard action to really show off its heaviness. As for the effect, I would like to keep a line effect. It is rather true (after some reflexions) that 10d12 damage for Heavy Ray and 15d12 for its specialized version is certainly too high. I can decrease it to 5d12 for Heavy Ray, and 10d12 for Specialized Heavy Ray but without the mention "per caster level". To balance these spells, I can raise them to level 4 and level 6 respectively and I can also add a Fortitude save for an unworn items. Finally, regarding the material component, I stick to the principle of using 1/2 lb of metal. It is true that is heavy in the bag, but it is the aim of the spell to be heavy. Oh, and last detail, damage of the spell is strictly physical, and cannot bypass a DR/Magic. Neostar (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep my eye on the articles and see what you end up deciding. You will need to define prices for alchemical silver and adamantine, since those are not materials priced by weight. As a fun note, I was curious, and a half pound of iron is roughly a 1" by 1" by 2" rectangular solid. You whip that bad boy out and shew shew shew shew or whatever noise the spell makes. --Ganteka Future (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)