Making Every Energy Type Unique


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

What 1st level spell still gives a -3 to -5 on attack and damage with a save? I'm not familiar with such a spell.

The biggest problem to me is that even with a successful save the penalties still happen. For the vast majority of spell and effects that apply penalties they are negated on a save (there are some that that aren't but they are a minority comparatively speaking).

In a couple rounds or with two spell casters you could completely neuter melee enemies by applying up to a -10 penalty to them, making them virtually worthless and they don't even get a save to negate it. They can attempt to reduce the damage, but that still only reduces the impact.

Sure, it's not as much a problem at low levels but by midhigh levels the penalty of failing a single save against certain damage spells means you're out of combat. You've turned basically every damage spell (of certain energy types) into a save or suck (and a save and still suck).

I agree with you that using spells to deal damage isn't terribly effective, but you're suggestion would make them more effective that a vast majority of other spells because the effect is still potent even on a save.


Claxon wrote:

What 1st level spell still gives a -3 to -5 on attack and damage with a save? I'm not familiar with such a spell.

The biggest problem to me is that even with a successful save the penalties still happen. For the vast majority of spell and effects that apply penalties they are negated on a save (there are some that that aren't but they are a minority comparatively speaking).

In a couple rounds or with two spell casters you could completely neuter melee enemies by applying up to a -10 penalty to them, making them virtually worthless and they don't even get a save to negate it. They can attempt to reduce the damage, but that still only reduces the impact.

Ray of Enfeeblement is a 1st level spell that can deal 6 to 11 strength damage (save for half) from a 5th level caster, thus imposing -3 to -5 on attack/damage. Sorry I wasn't very clear about that, I was distracted when I typed my last post.

You are completely right that many direct-damage-spells are save-for-half and many non-damaging-spells are save-to-negate. I chose to tie the special effects to the damage (in most cases) since the spell may have reduced damage from my modifications whether or not the target saves, so the spell should have some special effect whether or not the target saves, otherwise there is no compensation for the reduced spell damage when the target saves. Some other people have suggested that I uses much smaller effects that don't modify damage that could just be added onto regular spell, like metamagic that doesn't increase caster level. I do plan on looking into that idea in the future and using a save-to-negate system.

Hitting a target multiple times until they have -10 to their rolls is a possibility, but by that point they could also be dead from the damage, effectively giving them minus infinity to their rolls, and the probability of death increases with regular spells that deal more damage. I have considered capping the penalties, but I keep coming back to the fact that the spells are dealing reduced damage and the lost damage needs to be compensated for.

I will think about ways to cap debuffs. Perhaps if someone is already suffering from an element, further applications of that element deal regular damage without any special effect. Or only the worst set of penalties from an element applies, so the penalties don't stack. Or the maximum penalty could correspond to the level of the spell. Anyways, thanks for the feedback; I am going to think about your comments for my next draft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

@ Cyrad

Fire is simply super heated air. All that is required to start a fire is heat, oxygen and fuel to combust. A fire will start spontaneously in a room if the room is hot enough. Some laboratories have high temperature ovens (well over 1,000 deg C) and you have to be careful about what materials you put in there because they tend to spontaneously combust. Your claim that hot metal can't start a fire is also false for the same reason.

Your claim that light cannot inflict damage is contradicted by the existence of high powered lasers.

The idea that every source of heat, or even most sources of heat damage, are hot enough to spontaneously combust adventurers and/or their gear is ridiculous.

It is possible to ignite most anything with sufficient heat, but the amount of heat required to do that varies wildly (and in some cases requires heat levels higher than the sun's surface, or even the heart of the sun in the case of certain ceramics) and is usually far more than the heat required to deal damage, especially for organics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for blasting spells, making them more powerful infringes on the role of martials, who's one schtik is dealing damage, therefore, martials should always be better at dealing damage than a class whose schtick is versatility and a wide array of varied abilities, buffs, debuffs, and etc.

Making casters in shouting range of martials for damage output basically eliminates any point or purpose to the existence of martials (which in my opinion is already on the breaking point at high levels.).

I like the idea of giving various effects to energy damage, and I really like the idea of making choice of energy type a tactically important choice, but at no time should a blasting ever be as good as having a martial (in my opinion), unless that caster is completely, 100% dedicated to being a damage dealer, which meams all their feats, spell selections, and abilities focused on being a magical blaster.


sounds lame. perhaps instead of telling blasters they can't have nice things because other kinds of casters exist, we should avoid saying things that make me want to derail into better things for martials. let it suffice to say that martials not having nice enough things is no excuse for denying blasters nice things.


also, part of the problem is that people think of hit points as damage, and they're not quite so straight forward. so steam doing "burn damage" is fine because you're not necessarily "on fire" so much as losing whateveritishitpointsrepresent because the steam burned you and those burns still hurt...


relativemass wrote:
Ray of Enfeeblement is a 1st level spell that can deal 6 to 11 strength damage (save for half) from a 5th level caster, thus imposing -3 to -5 on attack/damage.

Correction: 1 to 11 Strength damage. For one round/level. And Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal any other damage besides this.


Rub-Eta wrote:
relativemass wrote:
Ray of Enfeeblement is a 1st level spell that can deal 6 to 11 strength damage (save for half) from a 5th level caster, thus imposing -3 to -5 on attack/damage.
Correction: 1 to 11 Strength damage. For one round/level. And Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal any other damage besides this.

Correction, 3-11 strength damage as the minimum roll is 6 and save for half reduces that to 3. Being technical, you could in theory have a targey with only 3 str to start with, and thus can only lose two points, but not only is it extremely unlikely to encounter such a target, but it would be a waste of a spell on such a target anyway and therfore, highly unlikely to ever happen.


cuatroespada wrote:
sounds lame. perhaps instead of telling blasters they can't have nice things because other kinds of casters exist, we should avoid saying things that make me want to derail into better things for martials. let it suffice to say that martials not having nice enough things is no excuse for denying blasters nice things.

Please, while a caster does less damage, that damage can be applied to groups and more reliable to hit chances. Besides, the ability to do tons of stuff amd still deal decent damage is shiny in it's own right. Killing the concept of martials just so you can do one thing better (that isn't even a major part of your class) is unfair.

If you want it that bad, make a houserule for a specific setting where martials are rare because casters can do it better. That'd not only be the honest way of doing, but you would then be upfront about the stupidity of playing a martial in your game. And in that light it might actually be appealing to try a game where martials are not a thing.

Eliminating martials in a game that still has them though is bad mojo, and if a player joins in and plays a martial because they didn't catch the consequences of what yoi did are going to be mighty unhappy when they figure it out.


Actually, as it's a 5th level caster that is mentioned, it's a minimum of 3 (1d6+2) and 1 on a succeeded save. So it's 1 to 8.

EDIT @relativemass: Remember, just because a 1st level spell can do this doesn't mean that a higher level spell should be able to do it as well in addition to its' normal effect. It would be like giving a free quickened spell (no additional cost of spell slot or action).


Rub-eta, not sure why I was thinking mid level caster, but I was.

"... I keep coming back to the fact that the spells are dealing reduced damage and the lost damage needs to be compensated for."

This is the part that bothers me. Reduced damage in comparison to what? The assumtion is that since "spells" do too little damage, that the comparison is nonspells, aka the purview of martials.Making spells equal to martials in damage means that casters will reign as the only viable classes since they will be able to fill martials and still do everything else on top of that.

Their "reduced" damage is better looked at as normal damage with martials as having the ability to do superior damage.


reduced compared to the normal damage of the spell... most of the effects he mentioned involve also reducing the size of the damage dice.

and nothing you said makes martials not having nice things a good excuse to deny them to anyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Allowing any one class to cover multiple roles equally well as specialists who cover only one role is very bad and is a very good reason for denying things to that class trying to cover multiple roles.

There has always been an issue with casters vs martials. This only makes that issue worse.

If you want some caster to fill the role of damage dealer, then make a new magic class that does nothing but be a damage dealer. And yea we are dealing with more than damage here, but in the end it amounts to the same result.


Aside from all that, some of these energy types I don't think should be energy types. Disease and distraction for example do not make sense as energy types. Effect types sure, but not energy types and should not be treated as energy types.


my point is it would be better to start a new thread about giving nice things to martials than to say no to nice things for blasters... go give nice things to martials and let us give nice things to blasters.

but i agree with you that some of those just shouldn't be energy types.

so on topic, penalties shouldn't stack. using that element again is a chance to do more damage and apply a greater effect... or perhaps extend the duration of the effect instead. they should all be measured in rounds by the way. and even with penalties not stacking, they're probably a bit powerful as free elemental rider effects.

  • i like the [fire] one.
  • [cold] slowing is cool. the dex damage is too much. it should be a penalty if at all that goes away when the slow does and maybe is only 1 for every 10 damage. also, this is a fort save.
  • [acid] seems alright if penalties don't stack (since several acid spells have recurring damage). also, this is a fort save.
  • i like [electricity], but there's no need for additional mention of a reflex save because it's just more damage. normal saves for the spell apply.
  • [force] already has a thing. it affects incorporeal things and pretty much nothing is immune or resistant.
  • [sonic] has some overlap with [cold], which is cool since the idea is that your equilibrium is thrown off and balance is a dex thing, but it should probably also be 1 for 10 damage since it also has that minor spell failure component (which should never stack with itself). again, this effect targets a fort save.

    the rest don't really seem like they should be energy types with the exceptions of maybe [positive], [negative], and [light]. but [positive] (life) and [negative] (death) already are unique in their abilities to heal or harm the living or unliving respectively. [light] should probably just be a short duration dazzled effect.


  • "be better to start a new thread about giving nice things to martials"

    Nothing exists in a vacuum.

    What is it with you and shiny? Making it work well is far more important (and must be done first if you want both good and shiny). If you care more about shiny than good, then go make munchkin d20.

    Casters are borderline above the rest before adding more of anything to them. The point behind this thread is to add some flavor, not to make them even more powerful.

    Magic in this game in this game fills the role of ultimate versatility. There are only two ways to balance versatility with specialists, A, limit the usage (which is completely nullified by 15 minute workday or similar), or B, to make less powerful than specialists. There is no other way to balance a versatility class against a specialist class.

    I think some of these suggestions are breaking that balance. I also get the impression that op finds the spells underpowered to begin with which if true, means anything the op does will break that balance.

    Further, considering that the starting point for all this has casters limited mostly by method A, mentioned above, and thus the prevalence of 15 minute workday and similar workarounds, I think the balance is threatened quite well enough without making it worse.

    So no, I'm not going to play the play the game of adding more shiny to everyone, it won't make the game better.


    sigh... you're impossible.


    @ Rub-Eta
    I intended to print 10th level caster NOT 5th level caster, so that was my mistake. A 10th level caster with Ray of Enfeeblement would deal 1d6+5 (6-11) strength damage (save for half), which is equivalent to imposing -3 to -5.5 on melee attack/damage (save for half).

    I feel that adding a low level spell effect to a mid level spell effect is a fair way to make a high level spell effect, but that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree with me.

    @TheAlicornSage
    Most of my energy effects actually reduce the damage dice (d6 -> d4), which would reduce the damage that offensive spells deal while adding debuffing abilities to compensate for the reduced damage. If you feel that blasters already deal too much damage then this would help dial them back a little without reducing the usefulness of their spells (at least that is my intent).

    @cuatroespada
    I wanted to cover all of the offensive magic types I have seen printed and make sure that every school had at least one offensive magic type. As a result I'm not sure what the best thing to call them is (energy type, element, damage type, offensive magic type, etc.), and some of the offensive magic types are kind of weird and hard to balance against a standard Fireball. Ya, I will work on streamlining the durations and maybe dropping some of the weird energy type (or whatever I end up calling them). Hopefully version 2 will be better.

    Thanks for your comments and suggestions, I have copied them down so I can remember them while I work on version 2.


    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:

    @ Cyrad

    Fire is simply super heated air. All that is required to start a fire is heat, oxygen and fuel to combust. A fire will start spontaneously in a room if the room is hot enough. Some laboratories have high temperature ovens (well over 1,000 deg C) and you have to be careful about what materials you put in there because they tend to spontaneously combust. Your claim that hot metal can't start a fire is also false for the same reason.

    Your claim that light cannot inflict damage is contradicted by the existence of high powered lasers.

    The idea that every source of heat, or even most sources of heat damage, are hot enough to spontaneously combust adventurers and/or their gear is ridiculous.

    It is possible to ignite most anything with sufficient heat, but the amount of heat required to do that varies wildly (and in some cases requires heat levels higher than the sun's surface, or even the heart of the sun in the case of certain ceramics) and is usually far more than the heat required to deal damage, especially for organics.

    It is weird how you appear to agree with me in an argumentative kind of way.


    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:

    @ Cyrad

    Fire is simply super heated air. All that is required to start a fire is heat, oxygen and fuel to combust. A fire will start spontaneously in a room if the room is hot enough. Some laboratories have high temperature ovens (well over 1,000 deg C) and you have to be careful about what materials you put in there because they tend to spontaneously combust. Your claim that hot metal can't start a fire is also false for the same reason.

    Your claim that light cannot inflict damage is contradicted by the existence of high powered lasers.

    The idea that every source of heat, or even most sources of heat damage, are hot enough to spontaneously combust adventurers and/or their gear is ridiculous.

    It is possible to ignite most anything with sufficient heat, but the amount of heat required to do that varies wildly (and in some cases requires heat levels higher than the sun's surface, or even the heart of the sun in the case of certain ceramics) and is usually far more than the heat required to deal damage, especially for organics.

    It is weird how you appear to agree with me in an argumentative kind of way.

    Not quite. While I was saying you are technically correct, many times it requires such extreme circumstances, that for all practical purposes you are wrong.

    People get sunburns without catching fire, people catch burns from stoves without catching fire, I have even jumped through actual fire without even getting a burn.

    Besides, fire is not superheated air.

    I had been trying to point out that just because something can occur in super extreme cases, does not mean it can be considered true as a general rule.


    @ TheAlicornSage
    The reason I chose to have fire damage set targets on fire was based on Alchemist's Fire and a Pint of Oil, which can set a target on fire, even if the initial attack only deals 1 damage. Technically, my modified fire only inflicts 1 point of burn for every 5 points of initial damage. I would still burn a target from 1 point of fire damage, as Alchemist's Fire and a Pint of Oil do, but you could choose to not inflict the burn unless they receive 5 or more fire damage.


    Yes, but I think the point bekng made is why attach ignitability to the fire energy type instead of leaving that to the various sources, thus allowing sources like oil (which provide a fuel with a flash point low enough to likely ignite and stick to the enemy) to include ignite but also allowing a desert to not spontaneously ignite a fire on anyone walking through without needing a special rule?

    You could in fact have a Burning condition that represents being on fire with the associated rules, then sources can simply say things like "50% chance of inflicting the Burning condition." In fact, doing it that way allows you to change the chances easily, so that getting directly hit with alchemist's fire might have a 75% chance of burning while splash has only a 25% chance, and you'd still have the burning rules in one place.

    For some of those other types that aren't energy, try calling them condition paths or trees, or just conditions that various spells/effects can inflict.


    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:

    @ Cyrad

    Fire is simply super heated air. All that is required to start a fire is heat, oxygen and fuel to combust. A fire will start spontaneously in a room if the room is hot enough. Some laboratories have high temperature ovens (well over 1,000 deg C) and you have to be careful about what materials you put in there because they tend to spontaneously combust. Your claim that hot metal can't start a fire is also false for the same reason.

    Your claim that light cannot inflict damage is contradicted by the existence of high powered lasers.

    The idea that every source of heat, or even most sources of heat damage, are hot enough to spontaneously combust adventurers and/or their gear is ridiculous.

    It is possible to ignite most anything with sufficient heat, but the amount of heat required to do that varies wildly (and in some cases requires heat levels higher than the sun's surface, or even the heart of the sun in the case of certain ceramics) and is usually far more than the heat required to deal damage, especially for organics.

    It is weird how you appear to agree with me in an argumentative kind of way.

    Not quite. While I was saying you are technically correct, many times it requires such extreme circumstances, that for all practical purposes you are wrong.

    People get sunburns without catching fire, people catch burns from stoves without catching fire, I have even jumped through actual fire without even getting a burn.

    Besides, fire is not superheated air.

    I had been trying to point out that just because something can occur in super extreme cases, does not mean it can be considered true as a general rule.

    You have misunderstood what I said. I gave a rebuttal to Cyrad when he said that hot metal or heat can't start fires. I did not say that heat always starts a fire. You have responded without understanding the context.

    I did not say that fire was super heated air I said it was simply super heated air. Flame is made principly of very hot oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour or in other words: really hot air. Sure you can add metals to give the flame pretty colours and there may be some vaporised fuel but that is besides the point when giving a simple explanation. You have missed the nuance of what I have said entirely.


    seems like he's also missing the point that hit points don't represent taking actual damage so the on going damage from the fire effect needn't mean you're actually "on fire". lots of people seem to constantly be missing the point that hit points don't represent structural damage capacity. this isn't rifts.


    cuatroespada wrote:
    seems like he's also missing the point that hit points don't represent taking actual damage

    Do you have a source for this or is it just your own interpretation? I think this is why people are missing it.


    Hit points may not always be slashes, gashes, and broken bones, but they do always represent factors that inhibit your ability to continue fighting, all of which can rightfully be considered damage that needs healed or repaired.

    And when an ability deals continuous damage over several rounds, it is causing further damage. A mere burn doesn't do that. Either you are on fire, or in continued contact with something hot enough to cause a burn, and you could therefore break that contact and cease taking burn damage.


    in your perception. personally, i have no problem seeing a burn as something that continues to fatigue you or reduce your vigor or whateveryouwanttothinklosinghitpointsdoes. what i do have a problem with is your insistence that your perception of things is the correct one and that other people are trying to have badwrongfun by wanting the energy types to be distinctive and "shiny".

    Rub-Eta wrote:
    cuatroespada wrote:
    seems like he's also missing the point that hit points don't represent taking actual damage
    Do you have a source for this or is it just your own interpretation? I think this is why people are missing it.
    Ultimate Combat wrote:
    Hit points are an abstraction. When a fighter gains a level, his body does not suddenly become more resistant to damage. A sword's strike does not suddenly do proportionately less damage. Rather, hit points suggest that the fighter has undergone more training, and while he may have improved his ability to deal with wounds to a small degree, the hit points gained at higher levels reflect less his capacity for physical punishment and more his skill at avoiding hits, his ability to dodge and twist and turn. Each loss of hit points, in this case, suggests that he is becoming progressively less nimble over the course of combat—in other words, that the decreasing hit points are a marker for his overall endurance and condition. It's not quite as satisfying, however, to roll a critical hit and then tell a player that his opponent ducked out of the way, but that the sword's slash made the enemy a little less lucky.


    Thes problems being debated in this thread have mostly already been solved. Metamagic feats that apply effects to specific energy types work. The problem is in the metamagic system, not in the blasting spells. See the house rules link I posted above and check out the magic chapter -- you can get spiffy effects without throwing out martial classes.

    A couple of caveats, though:

    1. As TAS correctly points out, martials in the core game already have a feeble claim to existence. I would go further and say they pretty much have nothing to do outside of flavor, because "damage dealer" isn't a legitimate role in a game where SOL spells exist. The way around this is to massively buff the martials. Which we've done -- see "Classes" docs.

    2. To counterbalance energy spells potentially getting all kinds of bells and whistles, you need to start handing out specific energy resistances a lot more liberally. That way you introduce a rock-paper-scissors element into the game, in place of the "you lose" element.

    I'd also very strongly advocate removing spells that step all over existing skills and class features, but that's a discussion for a different thread.


    relativemass wrote:
    Claxon wrote:

    What 1st level spell still gives a -3 to -5 on attack and damage with a save? I'm not familiar with such a spell.

    The biggest problem to me is that even with a successful save the penalties still happen. For the vast majority of spell and effects that apply penalties they are negated on a save (there are some that that aren't but they are a minority comparatively speaking).

    In a couple rounds or with two spell casters you could completely neuter melee enemies by applying up to a -10 penalty to them, making them virtually worthless and they don't even get a save to negate it. They can attempt to reduce the damage, but that still only reduces the impact.

    Ray of Enfeeblement is a 1st level spell that can deal 6 to 11 strength damage (save for half) from a 5th level caster, thus imposing -3 to -5 on attack/damage. Sorry I wasn't very clear about that, I was distracted when I typed my last post.

    You are completely right that many direct-damage-spells are save-for-half and many non-damaging-spells are save-to-negate. I chose to tie the special effects to the damage (in most cases) since the spell may have reduced damage from my modifications whether or not the target saves, so the spell should have some special effect whether or not the target saves, otherwise there is no compensation for the reduced spell damage when the target saves. Some other people have suggested that I uses much smaller effects that don't modify damage that could just be added onto regular spell, like metamagic that doesn't increase caster level. I do plan on looking into that idea in the future and using a save-to-negate system.

    Hitting a target multiple times until they have -10 to their rolls is a possibility, but by that point they could also be dead from the damage, effectively giving them minus infinity to their rolls, and the probability of death increases with regular spells that deal more damage. I have...

    So, it's worth noting that it's not necessarily easy, but possible to reduce or avoid such damage and more importantly that you can heal that damage up mid-combat assuming you've got restoration or lesser restoration. But your penalties to attack and damage can't actually be reduced or removed. And as pointed out by others, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal HP damage. And another point is there are plenty of dex based characters who use either dex to attack or dex to attack and damage which means Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't bother them much. Which ends up again with straight penalties to attack and damage being much worse because it would affect both dex based and strength based martials.


    Claxon wrote:
    So, it's worth noting that it's not necessarily easy, but possible to reduce or avoid such damage and more importantly that you can heal that damage up mid-combat assuming you've got restoration or lesser restoration. But your penalties to attack and damage can't actually be reduced or removed. And as pointed out by others, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal HP damage. And another point is there are plenty of dex based characters who use either dex to attack or dex to attack and damage which means Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't bother them much. Which ends up again with straight penalties to attack and damage being much worse because it would affect both dex based and strength based martials.

    I know that Ray of Enfeeblement is save-for-half and that it only deals strength damage, I have never claimed otherwise.

    Modified acid imposes the same penalties as the sickened condition and anything that removes sickened also removes the penalties from modified acid. My original post was already very long, so I didn't include that nuance. If there was no reasonable way to cure a condition, then I would agree with you that the condition would be unbalanced.

    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Yes, but I think the point bekng made is why attach ignitability to the fire energy type instead of leaving that to the various sources, thus allowing sources like oil (which provide a fuel with a flash point low enough to likely ignite and stick to the enemy) to include ignite but also allowing a desert to not spontaneously ignite a fire on anyone walking through without needing a special rule?

    If most fire sources already had some fiery effect I wouldn't be making these modifications, but Burning Handing, Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Incendiary Cloud, Meteor Swarm, Flame Strike, Flame Blade, etc. doesn't have any fiery effects. Source writers have included extremely few fiery effects, so I am giving them an effect.

    If I am misunderstanding you and you are saying that I should write separate effects for burning chemicals, steam, hot liquids, hot metals, hot lava, hellfire, magic rays, spontaneous combustion, microwaves, inductive heating, friction heating, etc. then that would be too much and people would instead ask me to consolidate the effects into just "fire".

    The Exchange

    Relativemass - I don't feel like the game really needs the kind of detail you're planning, but tying the effects to the target's defense rather than the caster's offense seems like it would provide more of the flexibility you need (such as large burns producing bleed, vs. large scalds lowering natural armor bonus to AC, or whatever). In your shoes, I'd attach these new weaknesses to monster subtypes (inventing new ones like Wood as necessary) or even types (for really fundamental issues like undead vs. fire), so you don't have to revisit the entire Bestiary. Treat your house rules more like an expansion of the Vulnerability disadvantage (and the special variants that monsters such as the Basidirond or various Golems have).


    Don't forget about what happens to your encumbrance when your strength drops. Some players forget they'd topple over under the weight of their gear.

    "If I am misunderstanding you and you are saying that I should write separate effects for ..."

    Not a series of effects, I was suggesting two (or possibly a third for magnesium or greek fire type special cases). A primary effect of heat, then an effect for cases where igniting on fire makes sense. Then while all fire sources will have the primary heat effect, only some will have the ignite effect.


    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Don't forget about what happens to your encumbrance when your strength drops. Some players forget they'd topple over under the weight of their gear.

    Well, Enfeeblement is Strength Damage, which does not effect carrying capacity. You'd need Strength Drain for that. Strength Damage just applies to skills, melee attack rolls, weapon damage rolls that are modified by strength, CMB for small or larger characters and CMD.


    swoosh wrote:
    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Don't forget about what happens to your encumbrance when your strength drops. Some players forget they'd topple over under the weight of their gear.
    Well, Enfeeblement is Strength Damage, which does not effect carrying capacity. You'd need Strength Drain for that. Strength Damage just applies to skills, melee attack rolls, weapon damage rolls that are modified by strength, CMB for small or larger characters and CMD.

    Since when? Is that something pf changed? Where does it say that?


    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    swoosh wrote:
    TheAlicornSage wrote:
    Don't forget about what happens to your encumbrance when your strength drops. Some players forget they'd topple over under the weight of their gear.
    Well, Enfeeblement is Strength Damage, which does not effect carrying capacity. You'd need Strength Drain for that. Strength Damage just applies to skills, melee attack rolls, weapon damage rolls that are modified by strength, CMB for small or larger characters and CMD.
    Since when? Is that something pf changed? Where does it say that?

    As far as I know it isn't stated specifically in the rules it is assumed by omission. On page 555 of the CRB it lists what stats are affected by strength drain and things like melee damage are included but reduction in carrying capacity is not. Whereas for drain it says the ability is actually reduced. In my view the wording is unnecessarily vague.


    relativemass wrote:
    Claxon wrote:
    So, it's worth noting that it's not necessarily easy, but possible to reduce or avoid such damage and more importantly that you can heal that damage up mid-combat assuming you've got restoration or lesser restoration. But your penalties to attack and damage can't actually be reduced or removed. And as pointed out by others, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't deal HP damage. And another point is there are plenty of dex based characters who use either dex to attack or dex to attack and damage which means Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't bother them much. Which ends up again with straight penalties to attack and damage being much worse because it would affect both dex based and strength based martials.

    I know that Ray of Enfeeblement is save-for-half and that it only deals strength damage, I have never claimed otherwise.

    Modified acid imposes the same penalties as the sickened condition and anything that removes sickened also removes the penalties from modified acid. My original post was already very long, so I didn't include that nuance. If there was no reasonable way to cure a condition, then I would agree with you that the condition would be unbalanced.

    Those nuances are especially important to determine if something is too powerful or not, the way you present it there is no cure (except waiting) which is what makes it too powerful. If you have just said it imposes the sickened condition (but can scale up) it would have been much more reasonable because there are ways to remove (and avoid) sickened. Hell, even if you just added a caveat of healing the damage that caused the penalty reduces the penalties. It's extra book keeping, but more balanced. If every 5 points of acid damage causes a -1 penalty, then every 5 points of healing (to the acid damage part) could reduce the penalty by 1. Perhaps that is a better way to do it.

    Also you could simplify things by saying a minimum amount of damage imposes X condition (and can scale up) rather than creating a whole new set of rules.


    This is the couple feats that I had mentioned previously.

    Blast Augmentation
    When casting a spell that deals energy damage, and requires a savings throw, the caster can add a secondary effect, at the cost of increasing the casting time by one step (swift action becomes move action, standard action becomes full round action, etc.)
    If the target(s) fail their savings throw, they are also afflicted with the secondary effect for 1 round. They can spend a move action to remove the effect early.

    Fire: burning*, fatigued, shrouded*
    Cold: entangled, fatigued, shrouded*
    Electric: deafened, shaken (non fear effect in this case), shrouded*
    Acid: burning*, sickened, entangled
    Negative: shaken, sickened, fatigued
    Positive/Divine: shaken (effects undead), shrouded*, burning*
    Force: deafened, fatigued, shrouded*

    *burning: The effected creature takes 2 damage per spell level at the end of it's turn.
    *shrouded: Creatures more than 5 feet from the afflicted creature gain concealment. The creature takes -4 on spot checks.

    Improved Blast Augmentation
    prerequisites: Blast Augmentation, caster level of at least 5
    effect: The duration of the secondary effect is increased to 1d4 rounds on a failed save, and 1 round on a successful save, as long as the target(s) take at least 1 damage. Creatures that are unaffected by the primary effect (whether through immunity, resistance, special qualities, etc.) are unaffected by secondary effects too. Even if a creature is afflicted with several secondary effects from Blast Augmentation, a single move action will remove them all.

    This solution seems to me, to add a lot of flavor and a little more punch to blast spells, which are generally regarded as too weak to be used in serious play, compared to the devastating effects of slow, confusion, black tentacles, and the such. It costs a feat or two and takes more time to cast, preventing quickened spell abuse and just free extra power. I hope it makes a blaster a more viable option rather than the current "controller or GTFO" that we usually see.


    Sorry if the effects are kind of lazy. I just looked over dirty trick to see what kind of conditions seemed reasonable (blind seems way to strong for this kind of thing), and made up the rest while I was typing.

    51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Making Every Energy Type Unique All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules