Talk:Combustible Spell (3.5e Feat)

Too Much

The idea is sound, and the ability to set on fire is totally worth giving away for free. It's only a d6 each round and is basically an action economy tax to try and snuff it.

Except that's not what it is, it's 1/2 the spell damage. Each round. Holy crap that's huge, that's really powerful... and it's for free. No level adjustment at all.

That is way too much! Make it just regular being set on fire, or work out some hefty LA (and give it a duration because it's a death sentence otherwise). -- Eiji-kun (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2018 (MDT)

fireball already does this, actually don't most fire spells ignite combustibles?

sorry didn't see the 1/3 spell dmg, which seems to be 1/3 dice rounded down...

but seriously anything that does fire damage can cause people to catch fire, that's RP stuff with a mechanical effect. I really don't like the trend of I don't see any printed way to do something, so obviously we need a feat that says you can do it. Except that implies you can't do those things without the feat. Which, barring bonus feats, you only get 7 of. Everytime someone makes a feat like this they undermine character options, by putting them behind paywalls, paying precious feats to be able to do things you should already be able to do. Fire dangers says that instantaneous fire spells don't do this but most of the instantaneous fire spells then say they do, hell fireball says it can melt metals with low melting points like copper or lead.

Now Rant aside, scaling down the damage or inflicting the burning condition would be more balanced, also if by the wording you mean you can set fire to anything, including non-flammables like rocks, then I take back my rant or if you get to choose what catches fireGrog toad (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2018 (MDT)

Aaaaactually, fire spells don't normally catch things on fire, unless they are specifically flammable (as opposed to just able to be burned). So oil ignites and wet water filled people do not. Specifically it is the status of catching on fire I refer to.

Balmz did you clean up the wording? It looks better. Personally I find this effect to be too good for moderate when you're giving it out for free (try High to Very High, and I err to the latter), but at least it seems workable now. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2018 (MDT)

Agreed that VH is more appropriate. If it was a metamagic feat that had a spell level cost of +2 or +3 that would probably be fine at H, but since it's free to all fire spells you cast, VH is probably a better place for it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2018 (MDT)