Can anyone tell me why a spell like Corrosive Touch deals 1d4 and a spell like shocking grasp deals 1d6 (and gets a plus three to hit) when they are both the same spell level.
Futher why do any of the energy types all deal 1d6 but acid and sometimes sonic?
I know acid used to deal damage in round 2 one point I do beleave, but not anymore. So, why has the start damage remaind the same, inferior to the other energy types.
(before you say it yes burning hands deals a d4 but it has a multiple target effect)
Not sure about pathfinder, but in 3.5, this was due to acid being brutally more effective against objects. Sonic dealt less damage due to the extremely few creatures that resisted it. I believe this is unchanged.
Maybe its a game mechanic for balance because so few things are resistant to acid and sonic? I don't like it either, tbh... I have an acid mage in 3.5 and that was one of my complaints about it there too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Acid's not actually that much less resisted than Fire/Cold/Electricity in Pathfinder.
Running the numbers over a slightly-old-but-not-that-old database of creatures:
319 creatures with resistance/immunity to fire
305 creatures with resistance/immunity to cold
268 creatures with resistance/immunity to electricity
258 creatures with resistance/immunity to acid
52 creatures with resistance/immunity to sonic (a significant contingient of which are agathions, chaotic good outsiders)
The belief that acid is less resisted than the other damage types is technically true, but not by a very meaningful margin, and is extraordinariliy campaign specific. Because a large number of the total number of immunities/resistances are accounted for by large families of outsiders (devils, demons, angels, etc.), a campaign may have lots of or very few things with resistances to specific energy types, depending on which if any clades of outsiders you most frequently run into.
Wow, Joyd... thanks for that breakdown... I had no idea so many things resisted acid.
Still, I'm sure it's a game balance mechanic nonetheless... otherwise there'd be no reason for the difference in damage.
many acid spells also ignore spell resistance, which also ups their percieved value. not all of them do, but there are several that fall into that catagory.
Because it's a weak spell.
Paizo's made a lot of those. As well as some uber strong ones.
Acid's about as commonly resisted as electricity, so unless the acid spell is ignoring SR (and this one is not), it should be basically equally strong with the electric version. Heck, even if it ignores SR, a lot of times I don't think that's even factored in when comparing one blast with another.
As to why the spell was made so crappy? Probably as chris said, to "avenge" evocation. Which is a stupid freaking reason. I'd rather they just reassess what the schools mean. I don't like that evocations *must* all have SR, and conjuration is too big and powerful (transmutation is even bigger, but most of its library is crap or completely unsynergistic with each other, such as getting the opposite pairings of several spells like enlarge/reduce). Evocation can create energy. Why not also be able to create acid and lava, etc...?
I'd love to see Evocation mug Conjuration and take a whole bunch of its Creation stuff. ...I'd also love to see Necromancy mug it and take the Healing spells...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What each spell school means and can do is something that I wish had been reevaluated more with the 3.5->Pathfinder transition. What we have now isn't nearly as bad as what we had in 3.5, where so many schools could do so many things, but there's still quite a bit of blurring and lack of definition. If there were to ever be another system overhaul, it would be nice if things were defined a little more tightly - as in, "this school is best at this, and can sometimes get this", with exceptions made in cases of extraordinary flavor, and even there caution should be exercised. Just because you CAN make a transmutation spell that deals electricity damage and nauseates people doesn't mean you should.
I do think that "damage" is big and broad enough that multiple schools can have access to it, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to say, "evocation spells are supposed to be the best damage spells. Avoid making damage spells that are better than evocation spells."
-----------------
Part of the issue is that spell school is actually the second layer of "how spells are divided up in terms of who is allowed to do what". The much more important first layer is the spell lists themselves - druid vs. cleric vs. arcane vs. bard vs. etc. is actually a much more mechanically significant way to divide up the spells, since it defines what whole classes are capable of. For offensive spells, "defense targeted" is arguably another sort of half-layer; the game is for the most part reasonably good about keeping what spells that target different defenses can do separate. (Especially reflex vs. the other two.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also love to see Necromancy mug it and take the Healing spells...
+1
One of the best level one damage spells does acid damage. But only slowly and with the aid of a flask of acid.
The spell I'm talking about is grease.
Just use acid as a power component for grease and cast it on something the enemy can't drop, like his armor.
The spell lasts for 1min/level and deals 1 point of acid damage per turn.
Thats 10 at level 1, 20 at level 2 and so on.
I'd love to see Evocation mug Conjuration and take a whole bunch of its Creation stuff. ...I'd also love to see Necromancy mug it and take the Healing spells...
Amen!
From the fact the corrosive touch is creation spell I would say that it should ignore SR to keep with the way that subschool of magic works. Personally I think that both it and shocking grasp should inflict more damage as well.
I personally like the orb of acid as a 0 level cantrip for my sorcerer/wizards as a good general attack spell at lower levels the ray of cold from the 0 level list as well does as much damage but allows SR, where the Orb does not. both spells have the same range, casting time, compoants, etc otherwise.
I picked acid orb more on the create and throw that the spell evokes with me. I also like to make sure I have a variety of spell effects in terms of energy, to help counter more energy resistant creatures. I do this as a player to expect my GM to plan on what tatics I have been using and create encounters to use them to plan to counter them. As a GM I do think about what the players have done in each encounter and how they may plan.
There may be a hidden reason for the differance in how they work for SR that we do not know. Also maybe it is done just because Fire and Ice are more likely to be picked and or used.
Now If you dont like the differance you can always make a house rule that they all must have SR or none have SR.
If necromancy is taking healing I think it's only reasonable for enchantment to take fear.
Yes to creations moved to evocation, healing moved to necromancy (or evocation if keeping that pesky positive energy thing) and moving fear to enchantment.
Agreed with both Jackiscool and Drejk!
Also light/darkness spells to illusion. But I may be alone on that one...
healing moved to necromancy (or evocation if keeping that pesky positive energy thing)
If you want to be logical you should definately stick healing with necromancy and not evocation:
Evocation seems affiliated with the 4 elements only,while necromancy seems energy-base (positive and negative).
...
319 creatures with resistance/immunity to fire
305 creatures with resistance/immunity to cold
268 creatures with resistance/immunity to electricity
258 creatures with resistance/immunity to acid
52 creatures with resistance/immunity to sonic (a significant contingient of which are agathions, chaotic good outsiders)The belief that acid is less resisted than the other damage types is technically true, but not by a very meaningful margin, and is extraordinariliy campaign specific...
There may be almost as many things with acid resistance, but as you said it is campaign specific. none of the campaigns i have been in did we actually encounter very many things that had acid resistance. And I think all of those were outsiders. Also, acid is one of the things that most consider will stop regenerating creatures.
Agreed with both Jackiscool and Drejk!
Also light/darkness spells to illusion. But I may be alone on that one...
Coming in late here (haven't read the whole thread, so sue me lol) but whenever you have "illusionary" light you run into questions about "how does the "illusion" of light reveal things otherwise cloaked in actual (or magical) darkness? Seems easier/cleaner to say light and darkness are conjuration (they conjure *actual* light or darkness into an area, thus ACTUALLY revealing or cloaking things.)
Also, acid is one of the things that most consider will stop regenerating creatures.
Regeneration(ex): Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally.
So that could apply to fire as well.
But a good catch.
Acid's not actually that much less resisted than Fire/Cold/Electricity in Pathfinder.
Running the numbers over a slightly-old-but-not-that-old database of creatures:
319 creatures with resistance/immunity to fire
305 creatures with resistance/immunity to cold
268 creatures with resistance/immunity to electricity
258 creatures with resistance/immunity to acid
52 creatures with resistance/immunity to sonic (a significant contingient of which are agathions, chaotic good outsiders)
Funny, when I did that, I got the following results.
Acid: 187
Cold: 238
Electricity: 126
Fire: 224
Sonic: 28
How did you get your numbers?
...
Regeneration(ex): Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally.So that could apply to fire as well.
But a good catch.
Certainly it will also apply to fire, but fire resistance seems to be much more likely in the creatures actually encountered in game.
Just reran the numbers again, and got the following results.
resistances, CR <= 10:
acid: 85
cold: 123
electricity: 67
fire: 116resistances, All CR:
acid: 188
cold: 240
electricity: 126
fire: 227immunities, CR <= 10:
acid: 62
cold: 86
electricity: 91
fire: 97immunities, all CRs:
Acid: 147
Cold: 163
Electricity: 200
Fire: 200
The newest acid spells(in UM) got hit hard with the nerf bat. Most have SR, something the acids spells have never really had before.
Well, nothing anyone has said explains why a level one spell of one energy type is so less effective than the other, or why the energy types of damage seem to kick acid and sonic around. I also don't see how grease can do damage and an acid flask are as effective as a spell for a caster, maybe a alchemist but thats not what I asked sorry.
I was just woundering if there was a reason for the disparity. There doesn't seem to be. I think I will just get Elemental spell and use level two slots for (acid)shocking grasp.
Yes to creations moved to evocation, healing moved to necromancy (or evocation if keeping that pesky positive energy thing) and moving fear to enchantment.
Agreed!
I prefer light/dark spells in evocation, but wouldn't care if they were shuffled to illusion.
And again, I think we need to see more evocations that ignore SR. Damage dealing is pretty weak already, why is it one of the schools with the most SR-negating spells, too? Maybe have two subcategories of "blasting" spells in evocation - ones that just directly do damage like setting someone on fire or freezing them or electrocuting them, and then ones that are more like the Creation line that just create hazardous areas/substances that then damage creatures that touch it or get within proximity. Like acid, or lava, or even the flaming sphere / ball lightning and acid fog / incendiary cloud type things. Latter category not being affected by SR, former category being affected by SR but being a bit more potent, both categories as evocation.
Well, nothing anyone has said explains why a level one spell of one energy type is so less effective than the other, or why the energy types of damage seem to kick acid and sonic around. I also don't see how grease can do damage and an acid flask are as effective as a spell for a caster, maybe a alchemist but thats not what I asked sorry.
I was just woundering if there was a reason for the disparity. There doesn't seem to be. I think I will just get Elemental spell and use level two slots for (acid)shocking grasp.
It really is silly. At least with Ray of Frost (which is a cantrip), it's a range attack so you don't have to get up close and risk bodily harm trying to touch someone.
Well at least I'm not alone thinking that the Spells out there for all classes need to be revamped for power level and not just copied from old sorces. I think that is what lead to the power words being so underpowered. "PIZO REVAMP SPELLS PLEASE."
I can see no SR lowering damage. I can see rta lowering damage. I can see continual effect lowering damage. I can see saves raising damage. I can see the need for Schools of magic to be redone. I can see multiple targets lowering damage. But what I can not see is the Base Differance in energy damage that just happens to be there. To may years and .5 .0 this has weekend spell lists and given rise to the disparity between spells of equal level. I'll just deal with it thanks.... Time to kill Mistra(or whoever is the magic god) again.
Hey, don't blame this on old sources / 3E! :)
In 3E, Corrosive Grasp was a 1st level spell in Spell Compendium. It gave you one touch per caster level. Each one dealing 1d8 acid damage (still had SR, oddly). It also acted as bonus damage on grapple checks to your unarmed damage (or armor spikes or whatever damage source you were using to grapple with).
It was a pretty cool spell. Less immediate POW! than shocking grasp, but over time could inflict much more damage.
Yeah I remembered that one it's actually why I asked the question. I have all those old books. It was a bit overpowered back then but the nerf bat hit a bit to hard I think. O and I can see duration splitting or spreading out damage.
I also don't see how grease can do damage
If you use a flask of acid as a power component for grease the grease deals 1 point of damage to anyone in the area or touching the greased object.
So if you grease the targets armor he can't drop it and it deals 1 damage per round for 10 rounds per casterlevel.
In 3.5 acid did full damage and ignored hardness against objects if I remember correctly... in PF all of the elements (spell) do half damage and have to get through hardness unless specified otherwise or by dm fiat (dry straw v fire for example).
You remember incorrectly. Acid (and sonic) damage wasn't halved like other energy damage, but hardness did apply.
Acid's not actually that much less resisted than Fire/Cold/Electricity in Pathfinder.
Running the numbers over a slightly-old-but-not-that-old database of creatures:
319 creatures with resistance/immunity to fire
305 creatures with resistance/immunity to cold
268 creatures with resistance/immunity to electricity
258 creatures with resistance/immunity to acid
52 creatures with resistance/immunity to sonic (a significant contingient of which are agathions, chaotic good outsiders)
Funny, when I did that, I got the following results.
How did you get your numbers?
Acid: 187
Cold: 238
Electricity: 126
Fire: 224
Sonic: 28
Took a pull-down of the spreadsheet at d20pfsrd.com that's maybe a few months old, did some spreadsheet magic, and counted the columns. It's certainly possible that I made any number of errors during the process.
That's roughly what I did too. Downloaded it, filtered based on whether the resistances column contained the 4 energy types, and counted the records.
Weird.
It's especially stupid when you can just use elemental spell on shocking grasp to get the same effect, but for more damage...
It's especially stupid when you can just use elemental spell on shocking grasp to get the same effect, but for more damage...
... or use the earth elemental bloodline power to do the same thing for free, on the fly.
I useed the ask james thread and he says that
yes you get the plus +3, yes you get it if you change it unless the gm rules that it doesn't make since, witch he agrees with. so if you use Elemental spell half it and it would apply across the board.
...
If you use a flask of acid as a power component for grease the grease deals 1 point of damage to anyone in the area or touching the greased object.
So if you grease the targets armor he can't drop it and it deals 1 damage per round for 10 rounds per casterlevel.
I can't find this, where is it at?
Under alchemical power components. I can't recall which accessory described them for PF, but I'd guess Adventurer's Armory.
|
Be a little careful using raw data like those numbers as without some kind of weight they aren't quite as useful an indicator as you might think.
In any particular campaign you might see more of a particular type of creature that would distort how effective the different energy types are when compared to that chart, especially given that whole creature types are granted resistance or immunity from some energy types.