Is it balanced for it's level? Too strong? Too weak?
Fire Shackles
Level: 4
School conjuration (creation), Fire
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (fragment of lava rock)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target One Creature
Duration 1 round/2 level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell causes a patch of elemental fire to appear below the target while searing chains made of elemental fire shoot up from the patch and try to restrain it. The elemental chains end in shackles that attempt to connect to the targets limbs and neck.
The creature is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round at the beginning of your turn, including the round that Fire Shackles is cast. The shackles do not provoke attacks of opportunity. When determining the shackles CMB, the shackles use your caster level as their base attack bonus and receive a +4 bonus due to Strength and a +1 size bonus.
If the shackles succeed in grappling a foe, that foe takes 1d6+4 points of crushing damage + 1d4/2 levels of fire damage (Max 7D4) and gains the grappled condition. Grappled opponents cannot move without first breaking the grapple. All other movement is prohibited unless the creature breaks the grapple first. The Magma Shackles spell receives a +5 bonus on grapple checks made against opponents it is already grappling, but cannot move foes or pin foes. Each round that fire shackles succeeds on a grapple check, it deals an additional 1d6+4 points of crushing damage +1d4/2 levels of fire damage (Max 7D4).
The CMD of Fire Shackles, for the purposes of escaping the grapple, is equal to 10 + its CMB.
The shackles created by this spell cannot be damaged, but they can be dispelled as normal. The entire area of effect is considered difficult terrain while the shackles last.
Two things:
Is the bonus fire damage supposed to be balanced out by the shorter duration?
What's the intent and purpose of the "movement is prohibited" clause?
EDIT: Oh, target: One creature. That powers it down quite a lot. Maybe too much.
Here is the difference that matters the most to me , you changed the target to one creature and said each round your tentacles receive a new CMB check , does this mean your tentacles move after said creature even if they miss the CMB check and target moves?
You overcomplicate the spell when it should be relatively simple. There's also no such thing as "crushing damage."
My 2 copper: make the fire damage effected by SR.
Here is the difference that matters the most to me , you changed the target to one creature and said each round your tentacles receive a new CMB check , does this mean your tentacles move after said creature even if they miss the CMB check and target moves?
Yes it is based on the Black Tentacles spells and the wording on how the CMB check works is taken exactly from that spell, including the checks from round to round.
And yes the concept is the field moves with the creature but only can affect the one creature targeted. That is one of the reasons I cut the spell duration in half.
Two things:
Is the bonus fire damage supposed to be balanced out by the shorter duration?
What's the intent and purpose of the "movement is prohibited" clause?
EDIT: Oh, target: One creature. That powers it down quite a lot. Maybe too much.
Well according to the Ultimate Magic spell creation guidelines, an arcane single target damaging spell has a max damage of 15d6 at 4th level. Since this spell would be ongoing from round to round and because the spell has a chance to Grapple and immobilize a target I cut the duration in half, lowered the damage die one step and cut the damage dice in half on the fire damage to make it more balanced.
On average, if this spell succeeds on 3 rounds it will hold the target immobile, give them the grappled condition and do the same average damage as a 15d6 spell.
I thought that would be relatively balanced especially considering that the spell has to actually successfully hold the creature to do any damage at all.
I believe that was put into the wording of Black Tentacles to represent that you cannot fly, swim or earthglide out of the effect, for example. The grapple effect cancels all movement modes unless you succeed in escaping the grapple.
You over complicate the spell when it should be relatively simple. There's also no such thing as "crushing damage."
Crushing should read bludgeoning damage. My bad.
Could you give a clarification of what is 'over complicated'? The entire grapple process is taken word for word from Black Tentacles, another 4th level spell. I used it as a base template so I would have mechanics already considered balanced for a 4th level spell as far as grappling goes.
The rest is thematic for the character trying to invent the spell since he is a fire based character.
I am asking for criticisms and idea's so if you have a suggestion on how to do it 'less complicated' I would love to hear it.
How does this compare to Black Tentacles?
Same exact grapple process and potency. Single Target spell that moves with the target instead of a static area of effect. Added fire damage on a successful grapple. Half the duration of Black Tentacles. Material Component changed for thematic reasons but it is still a 0 cost component just like Black Tentacles.
I don't like a Conjuration [Creation] effect following the target around.
Maybe something like grapple (or the spell ends), then automatically entangle, entangle can be broken as a standard action cmb check, target takes fire damage and is subject to grapple checks as long as he's entangled.
You over complicate the spell when it should be relatively simple. There's also no such thing as "crushing damage."Could you give a clarification of what is 'over complicated'? The entire grapple process is taken word for word from Black Tentacles, another 4th level spell.
Exactly. Black tentacles is a bloated spell despite having a rather simple effect. For example, it recites grapple rules and says things that should go without saying. Just have the spell do a grapple check against a single creature and deal fire damage for each round the creature is grappled.
It doesn't make much sense to me that they deal bludgeoning damage when the fire chains are not a physical object.
It is a lot of fire damage. 1d4 per two levels doesn't sound like much, but consider the duration. 1 round per two levels.
fourth level caster:
2d4 over two rounds
4d4 in total
6th level caster
3d4 over 3 rounds
9d4 in total
8th level caster
4d4 over 4 rounds
16d4 in total
Do you see where I'm going with this? It increases exponentially. Sure you can say that it stops if they break free, but thats still a lot of damage if they fail. And I didn't even count the additional 1d6+4
Seems fine to me. Single target is good since it's going more damage than black tentacles, but against only one target. No save / no SR is a big deal, but requiring an attack roll kinda balances it out. I'm gonna list a few things to refine.
- Increase duration to 1 round / level. 'Cause why not, it's still against only one target, might as well standardize it.
- Make sure that the specific square or squares the shackles originate from is indicated and that they can't reach further than any adjacent squares to go after the target.
- It's actually bludgeoning damage, not crushing damage.
- Remove the maximum fire damage. Again, you're only targeting one foe here.
- You could simply state that until the grapple is broken, the foe cannot use any form of movement at all. No need for two sentences kinda saying the same thing.
- Simplify the escape DC as 15 + caster level and make it possible to escape with the Escape Artist skill as well.
Are you targeting a creature or a square? Does the "patch of elemental fire" get bigger when the spell targets bigger creatures? Does it work against a flying creature? How does that look? So it sounds from the text like it targets an area like black tentacles, but the spell data says it targets a creature. I would allow it either way, but the range makes it devastating against flyers, and decent against the earthbound. I also raise an exception to the exponential damage. I would make the fire damage constant, not per 2 levels.
Exactly. Black tentacles is a bloated spell despite having a rather simple effect. For example, it recites grapple rules and says things that should go without saying. Just have the spell do a grapple check against a single creature and deal fire damage for each round the creature is grappled.
It doesn't make much sense to me that they deal bludgeoning damage when the fire chains are not a physical object.
Well I went with Black Tentacles to start since my GM likes black tentacles and thinks it is balanced. She can be notoriously picky with spells suggested by me so I wanted to start with a base line that she already accepts as far as grappling goes.
As for the bludgeoning damage specification I thought that if I were to add fire damage I should specify the damage that is brought over as legacy from the original spell. Since elementals all do slams that are bludgeoning damage with an elemental add on I figured that would be in keeping with elemental fires semi 'solid' nature sort of like a non-newtonian substance.
Also since this a spell to be used in just a home brew game I prefer to have all the necessary rules to run the spell IN the spell so I don't need to look them up seperately in the book. My GM and me will have copies of the spell so we only need to look at the spell itself for all the rules needed when it is used. It makes the spell larger and uses more print but that is not a problem for us. We find the time savings in running the spell worth it.
I am sure that for publication purposes it could be streamlined for less text but that is not an issue for us at our table.
I'll probably just remove the bludgeoning damage all together.
The problem with reciting rules is that it's not only unnecessary, but you can also get them wrong and cause ambiguity.
It's still an exponential damage gain. I didn't realize we were taking Linear Fighter, Exponential Wizard so literally.
I would clarify that the target is 1 5ft square and if any part of a creature is in the square the chains attempt to grapple them. No crushing damage (or other physical damage) but I think the fire damage is fine since the area is limited.
As well, if the creature can avoid being grappled or break the grapple they avoid the extra damage.
The problem with reciting rules is that it's not only unnecessary, but you can also get them wrong and cause ambiguity.
Not sure what you mean there. If copy and pasting the appropriate rules from the online, official SRD is getting them wrong then my bad but I don't see where that happens.
Since I am writing this for our home table use and not to be published or to submit to an official publication then formatting issues or bloat in the text should not be a problem.
Most of the players at our table are very casual, older gamers who do not have all the books or even rules memorized so having the appropriate rules in the spell text on custom spells for things like grappling saves us additional rules searching during play. The format may not be to your personal or professional liking but it works for our use at our home game. It does in fact lessen confusion, ambiguity and rule searching time for US.
That said, do you have any issues with the spell balance itself? Damage, Duration, overall effectiveness etc?
It's still an exponential damage gain. I didn't realize we were taking Linear Fighter, Exponential Wizard so literally.
At maximum strength (7D4 per round) the target needs to fail three grapple checks over three rounds to take average fire damage equal to a 15d6 damage instant spell (which according to Ultimate Magic is what a single target, 4th level Arcane damage spell should do.
If doing 1d4/2 levels is too much what would you suggest? Just telling me I am wrong does not help me unless you show me alternatives and explain why they are better and/or more balanced.
I would clarify that the target is 1 5ft square and if any part of a creature is in the square the chains attempt to grapple them. No crushing damage (or other physical damage) but I think the fire damage is fine since the area is limited.
As well, if the creature can avoid being grappled or break the grapple they avoid the extra damage.
Having the target be one immobile 5 foot square would make the whole spell useless so I am going to have to strongly disagree with you on that.
The spell as written already specifies that all damage is contingent on a successful grapple check every round. If the target is no longer grappled it takes no damage. If the grapple check from the spell fails for a round the target takes no damage.
Wait if the whole point of the spell is to follow the target around then I can't justify it dealing any scaling damage.
If that's the case then basically just have it be a targeted black tentacles that follows the character.
Having it be mobile and deal a bunch of damage just is a big no to me.
I mean the big saving grace with black tentacles is that if you can make one successful save you're out. With your spell your basically screwed for the duration of the spell, there's no getting out and getting away. Things like liberating command wont be helpful because they'll only help you avoid one round.
Might be useful to target a square like some suggest, but have some of the chains rip off if they escape and leave them entangled for the duration, maybe with half fire damage and a check to escape the entangle, maybe a save to half the damage again while entangled.
It's still an exponential damage gain. I didn't realize we were taking Linear Fighter, Exponential Wizard so literally.At maximum strength (7D4 per round) the target needs to fail three grapple checks over three rounds to take average fire damage equal to a 15d6 damage instant spell (which according to Ultimate Magic is what a single target, 4th level Arcane damage spell should do.
The problem isn't the damage, it's the duration. If you're damage is 1/2 caster level, and your duration is 1/2 caster level, and every round it does the damage, then the damage is exponential, because it's calculated by multiplying 1/2 caster level by 1/2 caster level.
Yes, you can break out of it. Let's take a look:
At level 7. The spell:
CMB = +12, + 17 against foes it's already grappling = 7 (Caster level) + 4 (STR) + 1 (Size)
CMD = 22
Target. Consistent numbers are hard to come by, so let's estimate. Assuming full BAB and an average combined STR and DEX of +6:
CMB = 10 = 7 (BAB) + 3 (STR)
CMD = 23 = 10 + 7 (BAB) + 3 (STR) + 3 (DEX)
Round 1. Casters turn.
Trying to beat 23. Oh hey, look our fighter made it. So he steps off and that's it? Okay fine then. But let's say (just to see what happens) that he fails, which he has an almost 50% chance to do.
He takes 3d4 + 1d6 + 4
Round 1. Fighters turn.
Trying to beat 22. He made it. So that ends that.
That thought experiment did not go the way I thought it would. I'll put it up anyway, because it might be useful to someone. It didn't go the way I thought it would, so I'll point out the flaw in my experiment. It assumes that the target has full BAB. And it kind of proves that it only has a 50% success rate against such a person. However, if you were to use this spell, you wouldn't target the guy with full BAB. If you hit a caster, they have no chance. It has decent range, they can't cast, and probably wouldn't have the stats needed to bust out. If we redid it against an average 7th level full caster...
Target. Consistent numbers are hard to come by, so let's estimate. Assuming half BAB and the approximate average of 1 STR and 2 DEX.
CMB = 4 = 3 (BAB) + 1 (STR)
CMD = 17 = 10 + 4 (BAB) + 1 (STR) + 2 (DEX)
Round 1. Casters turn.
Trying to beat 17. Yep, caught all right.
He takes 3d4 + 1d6 + 4
Round 1. Defenders turn.
Trying to beat 22. Not a chance.
Round 2. Casters turn.
Trying to beat 17. Stuck for certain.
He takes 3d4 + 1d6 + 4
Round 2. Defenders turn.
Trying to beat 22. Still not doing so good.
Round 3. Casters turn.
Trying to beat 17. Hasn't got a chance.
He takes 3d4 + 1d6 + 4
Round 3. Defenders turn.
Trying to beat 22. Nope.
Then it ends. It total the defender has taken 9d4 + 3d6 + 12 damage and has been immobilized for 3 rounds and unable to cast. His enemies have probably set up around him ready to murder him. I'd call that a little bit powerful for taking out casters.
The problem isn't the damage, it's the duration. If you're damage is 1/2 caster level, and your duration is 1/2 caster level, and every round it does the damage, then the damage is exponential, because it's calculated by multiplying 1/2 caster level by 1/2 caster level.
I understand your argument, what would you do to fix the spell?
If your thought is that the fire damage should be a static value rather than scaling with level what should that value be?
Or is the argument that since the spell follows the solo target rather than being a static placement large area field mean that is roughly equal in power to an area effect spell?
Or something different?
You have adequately explained your opposition to the spell as it currently stands. How would you fix it or do you think it is not an appropriate 4th level spell?
Would this be a better write up?
Fire Shackles
Level: sorcerer/wizard 4, summoner 3, unchained summoner 4, witch 4;
School: conjuration (creation), Fire
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, M (fragment of lava rock)
Range: medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One Creature
Duration: 1 round/2 level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: NoThis spell conjures chains and shackles of searing elemental fire that follow a target and attempt to hold it in place by attempting to connect to the targets limbs and neck.
The creature is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round at the beginning of the casters turn, including the round that Fire Shackles is cast.
The shackles CMB is equal to your caster level + 5. The CMD of Fire Shackles, for the purposes of escaping the grapple, is equal to your caster level + 15.
If the shackles succeed in grappling a foe, that foe takes 3d6 points of fire damage and gains the grappled condition. The Fire Shackles spell receives a +5 bonus on grapple checks made against opponents it is already grappling, but cannot move foes or pin foes.
The shackles conjured by this spell cannot be damaged, but they can be dispelled as normal.
So no double dipping with damage increasing AND duration increasing. The original spell did an average of 7.5 damage a round in an area of effect for caster level in rounds.
This would do an average of 12 fire damage to one target for half caster level in rounds but the effect follows the target.I also removed the legacy line of difficult terrain since I realized it would be a following affect and that essentially stuck the target at half move with no recourse, which I had not initially perceived.
Is that balanced?
I didn't include a solution because I didn't have one. I was just pointing out a potential problem in the hope that someone else might have a solution. Which if I'm reading the write up right, you have. It looks fine.
Still looking for more feedback on this if I can get it. Is it balanced for a 4th level spell?
Is the fact that it follows the target automatically too much?
It's ok. Kind of like flaming orb.