Talk:Beam of Radiance (3.5e Spell)

Power Level

True that it's paladin, but I take issue with the idea of uncapped swift action blasts with an additional gravy effect. Not at 1st level at least, I prefer uncapped spells are the realm of higher level things... 3rd or 4th for paladins. -- Eiji-kun 06:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's only 1d6 damage per two class levels (or 1d6 per class level with Professional Caster/whatever). I could be persuaded to reduce the gravy or increase the action size, though. --Foxwarrior 06:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO standard would be good... if most paladins didn't have auto-swift spells anyway (battle blessing) so it's a bit of a pickle. Don't know what to do with that one. Really I'm more concerned with the uncapped bit over the gravy. -- Eiji-kun 12:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your expression of concern by itself does not convince me. Try other words. --Foxwarrior 19:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Eiji is expressing a concern that this spell, by virtue of being uncapped, remains a relevant and useful level 1 spell far after other level 1 combat spells. The uncapped bit may also lead to it being valued over some 2nd and 3rd level spells that hit their caps, which is a bit odd. Since Paladin CL is half their paladin level, they can start out dealing 2d6 per beam, and even in the uncapped scenario only get up to 10d6. Which is decent, and probably better than most of their 2nd level spells at that CL. Capping the damage value keeps it from ever being stronger than a capped 2nd or 3rd level spell, but that may run counter to your design goals and not be something you particularly care about, especially if you think level 1 spells are weak-sauce and need a boost in general.

While I'm with him in a capping preference (5d6 IMO), I don't know that an action change is needed as much as a clarification and some additional work. Casting the spell is a swift action, but it's not clear that the ranged attack is made as part of that swift action and then as a swift action again for every subsequent round that the spell is active, or if it's a swift to cast and an attack or some other action per beam. Clarification on this point would be nice, and in the event that it is an attack action a limit to attacks made with the primary hand (to prevent TWF beamsage) would probably also be appropriate. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, wasn't that duration only for the Fear effect? It might need rewording if you read it that way... Anyway, what I think would better balance and fit in the class is the fact that the spell would only damage targets of evil alignment and undead (not impossibly with half damage for neutral. Some of these spells even have higher damage for Evil Outsiders, but, whatever). Isn't it an Evocation (GOOD) spell, after all? (as in: why would a spell be Good aligned if it could damage anyone?) Medium Range is rather high for a Paladin, too. Although I would rather see it as a Level 2 spell, it would still make for an excellent attack option before charging a foe...

I like the fact that it has only Verbal components, though, as it fits the melee character type. Also, what is this Professional Caster you're talking about? (Practised Spellcaster?) -HarrowedMind 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the fear duration makes lots more sense. Didn't even consider that. Should still be clarified though, with a Duration:Special or Instantaneous and 1d4 rounds, and a note in the text either way. I feel rather silly right now :-( - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It was Practised Spellcaster I was thinking of, yes. --Foxwarrior 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see my intervention has proven completely useful! :P (oops, forgot to sign) -HarrowedMind 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)