Talk:Blossom of Razors (3.5e Spell)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Contents
Ratings[edit]
|
Spanambula likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I'm cool with the changes made to the spell. |
|
Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Apart from the part where this spell contradicts more or less the only restriction of Conjuration spells, it seems like a useful 1st level spell that one might actually sometimes want to use instead of color spray or sleep. |
Wait
1d6 PER CL with no save, the save being against sickening? As a first level? That doesn't seem right there bro.... -- Eiji-kun 08:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've got to go with Eiji-kun on this one: it is a bit too powerful for a first-level spell as is. I would probably reduce its damage by one half on a successful Fortitude save. I've got to say, though, that Damage Reduction goes a long way to resist this spell on most creatures on higher levels, IF it applies, as being magical slashing damage in nature, it could only bypass Damage Reduction/slashing or magic, making the uncapped dice kind of acceptable, I guess. Of course, this doesn't apply on most player characters... -HarrowedMind 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since they would be casting this instead of color spray or sleep or something else that would take out multiple targets, this doesn't look that bad actually. And since it's not specified as magic damage, lots of DR is going to apply against it at mid levels. It's an auto hit for ok damage and a save against sickened for a bit. That said, it could be reworked to a "half damage + sickened for 1 round on successful fort save" form if the sickened angle wanted to be played up a bit. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
School[edit]
Since Conjurations specifically states that it can't create stuff in a target, can this get changed to Evocation or Transmutation? - Tarkisflux Talk 01:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion what?[edit]
Whoa, hang on. All this spell needs (aside from a change to Transmutation school) is a max 5d6 damage cap, and change the Cleric spell level to 2, bringing it in line with DMG damage cap rules, and I'd have zero objections to it. This isn't a bad spell, it's just too abuseable in it's current form. Spanambula (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really have too much of an issue with the damage cap I suppose, but I don't see why the cleric has to get this at a higher spell level. I have always thought it was wack that clerics got seemingly randomly punished compared to arcane casters in terms of overall spell strength, with a few prevalent exceptions such as plane shift and the like. Alternatively, what if the damage was downed to 1d6 plus an additional 1d6 at every additional odd-numbered caster level? I would much rather have it scale through later levels than have it stop being useful at all once you hit level 10 or so (which, to counter my own argument, it probably will be anyway). Even in that case, the effort made to maximize/empower/twin/whatever a spell with an average damage of 35 at level 19 will probably not be worth what it costs, putting to rest most of the aforementioned examples of metamagic usage barring some really cheesy shit. - TG Cid (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- IMHO, my typical thing I do for an uncapped scaling but low level spell is something akin to 1d6 + scaling solid number, like 1d6 + CL in damages. The scaling is mild enough not to make it abusable for the cost of only a 1st level slot, but remains relavent for the first few levels when you normally would run into a 5d6 cap. I'll leave the actual numbers up to you.
- On the matter of clerics and weaker spells, its probably a result of clerics having stronger spell mechanics (your "spellbook" is automatically full), stronger raw numbers (d8, two good saves, mid BAB), and at the least fluff of being utility white mages rather than destructive-focused black mages. The last one doesn't matter so much, but the first two probably do. YMMV. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
