| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the rules as written, there is no significant difference between energy types (fire, cold, etc.) and no reason to use one energy type over another unless you are fighting something with vulnerabilities or resistances. I wrote alternate mechanics for every energy type , giving every energy a unique effect. These alternate energy type can be swapped in for any existing direct damage spells (Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc.) with only minor modifications. The unique effect of each energy type is usually tied to the damage, so more powerful spells/abilities have more potent effects. I also made sure that every school of magic had at least one energy type, so that no specialists would be completely neglected.
I would love to hear any constructive ideas people have about my energy type effects.
Here is what I came up with for every energy type:
Fire (evocation): Deals damage and set subjects on fire. Reduce the damage dice by one step (d6->d4, etc.) and every 5 points of damage inflicted causes subjects to take 1 point of burn damage per round for 1 round per spell level. If desired, subjects can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a Reflex save against the DC of the spell. Rolling on the ground provides a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire. Resisted by Ref.
Cold (evocation): Deals damage and reduces Dexterity and movement. Reduce damage by one step, every 5 points of cold damage deals 1 point of dexterity damage, and every 10 point of damage reduces movement by 5 feet per. Dexterity and movement cannot be reduced by more than half from cold damage. As subjects warm up, dexterity recovers at 1 point per minute, and move recovers at 5 feet per 2 minutes. Resisted by Ref.
Acid (evocation): Deals damage and sickens subjects. Reduce damage by one step and every 10 point of damage imposes a -1 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, savings throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Every 10 minutes, subjects can make a savings throw against the DC of the spell to reduce penalties by 1 until they recover. Resisted by Ref.
Electric (evocation): Deals half lethal and half non-lethal damage. Increase damage by one step (d6->d8, etc.) and after any damage reductions (savings throws, energy resistance, etc.) any remaining damage is split evenly between lethal and non-lethal damage. Resisted by Ref.
Disintegration (transmutation): Deals damage and inflicts bleed but can always be reduced by a Fort check. Every 5 point of damage inflicts 1 point of bleed damage. Bleed can be ended with a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity and a DC (15+1 per point of bleed) Heal check or by healing any damage. In addition to any other saves, a Fort save is always allowed to reduce damage by half. Resisted by Ref and Fort.
Force (evocation): Deals damage and can push subjects or knock them over. Decrease damage by one step and deal damage as a magical bludgeoning attack (DR does apply). The caster makes a Bull Rush or Trip attempt against all subjects of the spell. For these maneuvers the casters rolls a d20 + 1/3 point of damage +1 for Spell Focus Evocation and +1 for Greater Spell Focus: Evocation against each subject’s CMB. Low-level (0-3) force spell affect subjects with either Bull Rush OR Trip; mid-level (4-6) force spells affect subjects with either Bull Rush OR Trip and if the subjects are successfully affected by the first maneuver then the second maneuver is also attempted against them; high-level (7+) force spells affect subjects with Bull Rush AND Trip. Resisted by Ref.
Light (illusion or evocation): Deals damage and impairs sight. Decrease damage by one step and every 5 points of damage imposes -1 on attack rolls, armor class, Ref saves, and skill and ability checks that involves sight or hand-eye coordination). Subjects with -5 or more to rolls must make a DC 10 Acrobatics check to faster than half speed without tripping and becoming prone, and all opponents are considered to have concealment against the subject. Every round, penalties are reduced by 1 until the subject recovers. Any effects that cure blindness removes all penalties. Resisted by Ref.
Sonic (illusion or evocation): Deals damage, impairs hearing, and disorients. Decrease damage by one step and every 5 points of damage imposes -1 on Initiative, CMD, and skill and ability checks that involve hearing or speaking, and +5% change of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components (+50% maximum). Every round, penalties are reduced by 1 until the subject recovers. Any effects that cure deafness removes all penalties. Sonic spells only have a verbal component, NOT a sematic component. Resisted by Ref.
Death (necromancy): Harms the living and heals the undead. Decrease damage by one step and every 5 point of damage deals 1 point of strength damage to creatures harmed by negative energy. Creatures healed by negative energy are healed by half the damage dealt. Resisted by Will.
Life (necromancy): Harms undead and heals the living. Decrease damage by one step and every 5 point of damage deals 1 point of strength damage (even to undead, which are normally immune to ability damage) to creatures harmed by positive energy. Creatures healed by positive energy are healed by half the damage dealt. Resisted by Will.
(I never understood why death magic was necromancy and life magic was conjuration since they are opposite side of the same coin, like how fire and cold are both evocation, and repairing and disintegration are both transmutation. So I am calling life and death part of the necromancy school.)
Kinetic (Conjuration): Summons and throws objects that deal bludgeoning, cutting, or piercing damage, and may overcome certain material based damage reduction. Damage type (bludgeoning, cutting, or piercing damage) and material type (silver, cold iron, or adamantine) are selected at the time of casting. Selecting a special material requires a weapon (not ammunition) made of that material spell focus. Resisted by Ref.
Poison (necromancy): Deals constitution damage over time. Decrease damage by two steps (d6->d3, etc.). Deals one dice of constitution damage per round for 1 round per number of dice (any static bonuses to damage only apply to the first round of damage). For example, a 10d3 poison spells would deal 1d3 Con damage per round for 10 rounds. Each round, subjects can make a Fort save to negate the constitution damage for that round. The damage dice can be increased by one step if the poison effect is hourly instead of every round. Resisted by Fort.
Disease (necromancy): Infects with chosen disease which may spread to others. The casters picks a mundane disease (not mummy rot, lycanthropy, or anything like that) with a DC equal to or less that the DC of the spell. Subjects become immediately infected with the chosen disease and must make a Fort save against the spell’s DC or immediately suffer the effects of the disease. Subjects must make a daily save against the DC of the spell or suffer the daily effects of the chosen disease for 1 day per spell level or until the required saving throws are make to end the disease, whichever is longer. Infected subject are contagious. Resisted by Fort.
Distraction (divination): Unsettling visions or hypersensitivity prevent subjects of being able to focus. Imposes -1 per spell level and -1 per 3 caster levels on attacks, saves, checks, and skills, for 1 minute per level. Resisted by Will instead. Will to resist.
Mind Blast (enchantment): Mental trauma deals non-lethal damage as well as dexterity and wisdom damage. Reduce damage by one steps and every 5 point of non-lethal damage also deals 1 point of dexterity and wisdom damage. Resisted by Will.
Curse (abjuration): Inflicts bad luck, making subjects more prone to fail at anything they attempt. Forces subjects to roll twice on attacks, saves, checks, and skills and take the lower roll for 1 check per spell level + 1 check per 3 caster levels. The curse ends after the required number of checks, or 1 minute per caster level, whichever comes first. Resisted by Will.
(To abjure is a rebuke or renunciation, therefore I placed curse (which I see as a magical rebuke) as an abjuration effect rather than necromancy.)
Phantasmal (illusion): Traumatize subjects with visions of their greatest fears. Reduce damage by two steps and split the damage evenly between dexterity and wisdom damage. Subjects receive a Will save to disbelieve followed by a Fort save to reduce damage by half.
Desiccation (transmutation): Deals non-lethal and inflicts dehydration. Reduce damage by one step and every 10 point of non-lethal damage inflicts 1 point strength and dexterity damage. Desiccation damage cannot be healed through magical or non-magical means (including fast healing and regeneration) until subject have been successfully treated for dehydration, requiring 24 hours of long term care, double the normal amount of water per day, and a DC 15 Heal check (48 hours and a DC 20 Heal check if the subject sustained lethal desiccation damage). Resisted by Fort.
(I don’t see why removing water from a subject would be necromancy since it doesn’t deal with the subject of life energy, so I treat it as transmutation.)
(I am not completely satisfied with what I have for distraction, curse, or phantasmal spells, and I would appreciate any ideas to improve these energy types.)
If anyone wants a copy of my unabridged file, PM me with your email address and I will email the complete file to you.
There is stuff for things like this already. They're called Metamagic feats.
You should apply the type-relevant ones for free on the appropriate spells, or any effects that function as the type-appropriate metamagic feat.
There is stuff for things like this already. They're called Metamagic feats.
You should apply the type-relevant ones for free on the appropriate spells, or any effects that function as the type-appropriate metamagic feat.
Metamagic Feats require a feat and they raise the spell level, making them rarely used. If you automatically applied the type-relevant metamagic feats to all spells, then the spells would becomes much stronger, unbalancing them. For example, if Burning Spell and Flaring Spell were applied to all fire spells, fire spells would effectively be 3 level better.
My solution is to give each energy type special abilities, and then adjust the damage that that energy type deals to compensate for the advantage/disadvantage of the special abilities, so spells done't get inherently stronger or need to be level adjusted and casters don't need to spend feats to make each energy type behave differently.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of different energy types having different secondary effects (something that exists in GURPS, where all fire damage, from spell or futuristic ray gun, or super-power, has a chance of setting someone on fire, and all electrical damage, regardless of source, bypasses uninsulated metal armor), although I'm not sure that reducing the damage die size would be necessary (since damaging spells are rarely the best option anyway).
That said, I'm not a fan of different energy types having set saving throw categories, like 'Fire - Ref' or 'Electricity - Ref', since there could situations where a Fire or Cold spell damages someone by overheating or supercooling them, or an Electricity spell staggers someone by messing with their nervous system, and logically would use a Fort save instead.
If you automatically applied the type-relevant metamagic feats to all spells, then the spells would becomes much stronger, unbalancing them.My solution is to give each energy type special abilities, and then adjust the damage that that energy type deals.
These effects are way stronger than any metamagic feat. They cost nothing to obtain, cost nothing to use and beef up the spells to ludicrous levels. For example: A 10th level wizard casts Cone of Cold. On average and unmodified it will do (3.5*10)=35 damage in an AoE. With your additions it jumps up to (2.5*10)=25 with 5 points of dexterity damage (-2 AC, -2 Reflex, -2 CMD) and a loss of 10 feet of movement in an AoE.
Concepts are super cool, just way too strong. At least at first glance. It's 4:40 am here so I have only analyzed fire and cold.
Fire seems a little weak compared to the others considering the possibility of easily putting it out.
I like the idea of different energy types having different secondary effects (something that exists in GURPS, where all fire damage, from spell or futuristic ray gun, or super-power, has a chance of setting someone on fire, and all electrical damage, regardless of source, bypasses uninsulated metal armor), although I'm not sure that reducing the damage die size would be necessary (since damaging spells are rarely the best option anyway).
That said, I'm not a fan of different energy types having set saving throw categories, like 'Fire - Ref' or 'Electricity - Ref', since there could situations where a Fire or Cold spell damages someone by overheating or supercooling them, or an Electricity spell staggers someone by messing with their nervous system, and logically would use a Fort save instead.
Ya, you are probably right. I guess I put the preferred save type assuming standard cone, sphere, and line shapes, but different saves would certainly be more appropriate for other uses.
I intended for the energies to be used for things other than just spells, but my post was huge already, so I didn't want to get into that topic.
These effects are way stronger than any metamagic feat. They cost nothing to obtain, cost nothing to use and beef up the spells to ludicrous levels. For example: A 10th level wizard casts Cone of Cold. On average and unmodified it will do (3.5*10)=35 damage in an AoE. With your additions it jumps up to (2.5*10)=25 with 5 points of dexterity damage (-2 AC, -2 Reflex, -2 CMD) and a loss of 10 feet of movement in an AoE.
Concepts are super cool, just way too strong. At least at first glance. It's 4:40 am here so I have only analyzed fire and cold.
Fire seems a little weak compared to the others considering the possibility of easily putting it out.
I thought that trading 10 damage for imposing (-2 AC, -2 Reflex, -2 CMD) and loss of 10 speed was a balanced trade, but it is admittedly hard to gauge since different people will put different values on damage compared to other stats. My strategy was to use a 10th level Fireball as a standard and then adjust the energy abilities until it was hard for me to decide if I would prefer casting the regular Fireball or the altered energy Fire(or whatever energy) Ball. So the numbers probably need tweaking, but I think the concept is still good.
I'm not a fan of it because it turns energy types into something out of a video game (simplest way I can describe it).
1) Attaching extra effects to ALL energy damage types doesn't make any sense because you're assuming the damage occurs uniformly. For example, not all fire damage actually involves fire. Fire damage covers anything damaged by heat. So it makes no sense that someone would burst into flame because they got burnt by heat metal or they entered a scorching hot room. The same goes for the other energy types. There's a lot of creatures where getting cold wouldn't hinder their movements.
2) I'm not a fan of turning the game into Pokemon with a damage type for every single effect in the game. Half of them don't actually deal hit point damage and others just don't make sense as a damage type (how the heck does light hurt me?). The game already has a list of effect types with rules for how each one works. You don't need to add more.
3) This would require rewriting a lot of rules and creatures in a really bad way that doesn't really add anything to the game. For example, reclassifying all weapon damage as energy damage screws up a lot of rules.
4) The effects are too powerful. Would be better as some kind of spellcasting option rather than an overhaul of how energy types work.
I'm not a fan of it because it turns energy types into something out of a video game (simplest way I can describe it).
1) Attaching extra effects to ALL energy damage types doesn't make any sense because you're assuming the damage occurs uniformly. For example, not all fire damage actually involves fire. Fire damage covers anything damaged by heat. So it makes no sense that someone would burst into flame because they got burnt by heat metal or they entered a scorching hot room. The same goes for the other energy types. There's a lot of creatures where getting cold wouldn't hinder their movements.
2) I'm not a fan of turning the game into Pokemon with a damage type for every single effect in the game. Half of them don't actually deal hit point damage and others just don't make sense as a damage type (how the heck does light hurt me?). The game already has a list of effect types with rules for how each one works. You don't need to add more.
3) This would require rewriting a lot of rules and creatures in a really bad way that doesn't really add anything to the game. For example, reclassifying all weapon damage as energy damage screws up a lot of rules.
4) The effects are too powerful. Would be better as some kind of spellcasting option rather than an overhaul of how energy types work.
I wrote basic rules for energy types. The effects can just be modified appropriately for unusual sources (such as hot steam, boiling oil, napalm, hellfire, spontaneous human combustion, etc.). Also, hot metal definitely does catch things on fire, that is how electrical appliance fires start.
I don't play Pokemon or know much about it so I can't say how my effects compare to their effects. Could you post a link to the list of energy effects you mentioned that Paizo published?
I admit that 5 out of 18 energy types do not deal hit point damage, but there are many offensive spells and abilities in Pathfinder that don't deal hit point damage, so I don't see this as a problem.
I never mentioned reclassifying weapons, but you could make a Fireball type spell that deals kinetic damage rather than fire damage.
If the effects are too strong/weak then the numbers can be adjusted appropriately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of it because it turns energy types into something out of a video game (simplest way I can describe it).
1) Attaching extra effects to ALL energy damage types doesn't make any sense because you're assuming the damage occurs uniformly. For example, not all fire damage actually involves fire. Fire damage covers anything damaged by heat. So it makes no sense that someone would burst into flame because they got burnt by heat metal or they entered a scorching hot room. The same goes for the other energy types. There's a lot of creatures where getting cold wouldn't hinder their movements.
2) I'm not a fan of turning the game into Pokemon with a damage type for every single effect in the game. Half of them don't actually deal hit point damage and others just don't make sense as a damage type (how the heck does light hurt me?). The game already has a list of effect types with rules for how each one works. You don't need to add more.
3) This would require rewriting a lot of rules and creatures in a really bad way that doesn't really add anything to the game. For example, reclassifying all weapon damage as energy damage screws up a lot of rules.
4) The effects are too powerful. Would be better as some kind of spellcasting option rather than an overhaul of how energy types work.
1) I wrote basic rules for energy types. The effects can just be modified appropriately for unusual sources (such as hot steam, boiling oil, napalm, hellfire, spontaneous human combustion, etc.). Also, hot metal definitely does catch things on fire, that is how electrical appliance fires start.
2) I don't play Pokemon or know much about it so I can't say how my effects compare to their effects. Could you post a link to the list of energy effects you mentioned that Paizo published?
3) I admit that 5 out of 18 energy types do not deal hit point damage, but there are many offensive spells and abilities in Pathfinder that don't deal hit point damage, so I don't see this as a problem.
4) I never mentioned reclassifying weapons, but you could make a Fireball type spell that deals kinetic damage rather than fire damage.
5) If the effects are too strong/weak then the numbers can be adjusted appropriately.
Added bullet points for ease.
1) You missed my point. Your rules assume the energy damage occurs from a particular source in a particular way. With your rules, taking 1 point of fire damage from holding heated metal would immediately cause you to burst into flame. It's ludicrous. Whether or not an ability sets things on fire should depend on the ability itself, not a blanket rule.
2) Pokemon heavily abstracts combat by having a comprehensive list of "element types" that each have strengths and weaknesses. I brought this up because your rule suggestions divorces how an ability works lore-wise from its game mechanics by creating a blanket bonus effect that applies to all applicable abilities regardless of how those abilities work.
3) There's a difference between effect descriptors and energy types. Also, if it doesn't deal hit point damage, then it shouldn't be an energy type.
4) You redefined weapon damage under kinetic energy. By definition, slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning are all types of weapon damage. However, your "kinetic" defines its damage as slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Speaking of redefinition, you also totally redefine force damage as bludgeoning damage. The whole thing is a complicated mess.
5) Honestly, you can't adjust the numbers to balance this. No matter how you scale the numbers, it functions as a massive buff to all spells that can apply these effects.
Overall, I don't think these rules really add anything to the game. Like I said earlier, it might be better as some kind of spellcasting option or a class feature.
Going back to the idea of permanent metamagic, you could make it so that, once taken, elemental metamagics are automatically given to appropriate spells. That way, if somebody wants 3 effects riding on a fireball, it will cost them 3 feats, but no level adjustment.
That is one option and it would certainly let me make every element unique without new rules for element. I have mostly avoided that option so far because it would be hard to apply to energy wielding foes without rearranging their feats, and strictly speaking, metamagic feats aren't designed to work with dragon breath or things like that.
Added bullet points for ease.
1) You missed my point. Your rules assume the energy damage occurs from a particular source in a particular way. With your rules, taking 1 point of fire damage from holding heated metal would immediately cause you to burst into flame. It's ludicrous. Whether or not an ability sets things on fire should depend on the ability itself, not a blanket rule.
2) Pokemon heavily abstracts combat by having a comprehensive list of "element types" that each have strengths and weaknesses. I brought this up because your rule suggestions divorces how an ability works lore-wise from its game mechanics by creating a blanket bonus effect that applies to all applicable abilities regardless of how those abilities work.
3) There's a difference between effect descriptors and energy types. Also, if it doesn't deal hit point damage, then it shouldn't be an energy type.
4) You redefined weapon damage under kinetic energy. By definition, slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning are all types of weapon damage. However, your "kinetic" defines its damage as slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Speaking of redefinition, you also totally redefine force damage as bludgeoning damage. The whole thing is a complicated mess.
5) Honestly, you can't adjust the numbers to balance this. No matter how you scale the numbers, it functions as a massive buff to all spells that can apply these effects.
Overall, I don't think these rules really add anything to the game. Like I said earlier, it might be better as some kind of spellcasting option or a class feature.
The fire effect was inspired by alchemists fire and oil, which deal reoccurring damage, even if it the initial damage is 1.
The kinetic effect was inspired by Ice Storm, which deals bludgeoning damage and cold damage.
My effects are based on joining reality with rules. In reality heat does set things on fire, cold slows muscles, acids makes people sick, electricity can stun or kill, laser light (which is similar to Searing Light) can be used to cut metal or perform surgery and it can lead to temporary or permanent eye damage, loud sounds can lead to temporary and permanent ear damage, poisons and disease can cause sickness and death, dehydration leads to weakness and eventual death and does require significant medical treatment if it is severe.
For non-real world effect: life and death were inspired by Chill Touch and Cure/Inflict Light Wounds, curse was inspired by Misfortune, phantasmal was inspired by Phantasmal Assailants, distract was inspired by Bestow Curse. Force and Dissintigrations effect were the only ones I came up with on my own.
I actually think it would be awesome if people could come up with more ways to take spells or abilities they love and expand their effects over a wide range. If anyone has any effect they have already generalized or want generalize, let me know and I can add it to my list or at least start working on it. I know that things aren't all balanced yet, but will keep working on that.
Again, you're missing or dodging my points here.
The problem is that you're linking blanket effects to the type of damage when they should be linked to how a spell or ability delivers the damage. For example, there's plenty of ways to hurt someone by heat without setting them on fire and if light damages by burning, then it should be fire damage not a new type. This creates an additional disconnect between mechanics and game-world, which is the exact opposite of what you say you're trying to accomplish with these rules.
In addition, as I pointed out earlier, there's a plethora of major mechanical problems with your rules.
Dot.
I am leery but intrigued. As a superhero game fan, special effects are not scary to me. Worse, I like most of what you have here. I think applying this would be an 'all or nothing' rule. My have to put this to my players.
Have you looked at the various Zelda/d20 websites? They have differing elemental effects, if I remember correctly.
I like your ideas, and I'd be curious to see how these rules fare in actual gameplay. Have they been playtested yet?
As far as balance goes, I'd have to try these out myself to say for sure whether they're there's any issues with it, but looking over it I can't see that it's likely to be a problem. Also, thank you for saying what some of the effects are based on; that gives me a basis for comparison.
I haven't play tested them yet, but that is a good idea. I could build a standard party of four characters using the iconic characters since they should be pretty balanced. One group can use regular versions of spells and the other can use my modified versions. Then I can run the fight many times and keep track of which team wins and how many hit point they have left when they win. If one group is winning statistically significantly more, then I can adjust my spell effects to re-balance the fight and run another set of simulations. This will take a long time to do, but I will get working on it as soon as I have the time.
Thanks for the idea.
Dot.
I am leery but intrigued. As a superhero game fan, special effects are not scary to me. Worse, I like most of what you have here. I think applying this would be an 'all or nothing' rule. My have to put this to my players.
Have you looked at the various Zelda/d20 websites? They have differing elemental effects, if I remember correctly.
I was unaware of Zelda/d20, but I will look it over and see how they handle elemental damage. Thanks for the suggestion.
If you really want to try my effects I can send you an unabridged copy of my material.
Again, you're missing or dodging my points here.
The problem is that you're linking blanket effects to the type of damage when they should be linked to how a spell or ability delivers the damage. For example, there's plenty of ways to hurt someone by heat without setting them on fire and if light damages by burning, then it should be fire damage not a new type. This creates an additional disconnect between mechanics and game-world, which is the exact opposite of what you say you're trying to accomplish with these rules.
In addition, as I pointed out earlier, there's a plethora of major mechanical problems with your rules.
I answered your question in my first response to your post. I realize that heat can come from different sources, but I have chosen to assume that most heat comes from sources that can set a person on fire. If other heat sources are used, the effects can be modified appropriately. If steam was the source of the heat, such as from Dragon Turtle breath, I agree that it would be inappropriate to set targets on fire.
In 2nd edition D&D the quasielemenatl plane of radiance (light) had the fire dominant trait (3d10 fire damage/round). Later in 3rd edition it was considered to have extreme heat that fire resistance could protect against. Since Paizo hasn't made a plane of light, I assume the D&D precedent is still valid and protection from fire also protects against light. Anyways, yes I agree with you that light could be considered a special case of fire damage. Similar effects could be written for other subcategories of damage sources.
I appreciate your concern that there may be major mechanical problems with my effects. I will look for these and try to rectify any that I find when I do my play simulations.
In all honesty, I find that this:
In the rules as written, there is no significant difference between energy types (fire, cold, etc.) and no reason to use one energy type over another unless you are fighting something with vulnerabilities or resistances.
.. is far more damaging to my sense of reality in the game than a couple corner cases (like heat might not ignite someone on fire).
Having every damage type be functionally the same in 95% of cases, makes for poor immersion (doesn't feel right), and poor gameplay (feels boring).
If you have a problem with the OP's ideas for the fire category, maybe just change it to "lingering", and denote that it can mean caught on fire, or it can mean burnt flesh (which, in my own personal experience, feels like ongoing damage, long after the initial effect). The body responds to the pain and in severe cases can shut down from it, it's effectively continued damage.
The overall idea in this thread is a good one. It makes the energy types mean something, and getting a Firetongue sword vs an Aciddrip sword mean something more than "it hurts more on cold targets".
.
Regarding the balance and gameplay elements..
It feels like a lot of conditions being made up for these energy types. Even the ones that use the conditions in the game (such as acid using sicken), you then have it scaling and then have unique rules for how long it lasts, curing it, etc.
This is getting incredibly fiddly. It will be prime for forgetting the rule, for misapplying it, and for misinterpreting it.
What might work better would be to fix the conditions along with the energy types, creating a conditions chart that scales, and that other abilities can reference easily.
If you want a headstart on this (and maybe see what I mean), here's some basics I started typing up a while ago:
AFFLICTIONS
Afflictions are debilitating effects that apply worsening conditions in stages of severity. Typically afflictions will scale in severity, such that if an affliction of the same severity is applied more than once it will increase the severity to the next level. Some afflictions have additional or more specific rules in how they scale.
Control
Severity: 1 - confused or fascinated, 2 - compelled, 3 - controlled
The control affliction typically denotes an effect that scrambles the mental control of an individual, up to the point of allowing control by the afflicting entity.
Death
Severity: 1 - disabled or staggered, 2 - dying or stable, 3 - dead
The death affliction is used to denote different stages of dying.
Typically this occurs when hitpoints are reduced to 0, and usually through damage. If an effect causes the death affliction directly (not through hitpoint damage), it will indicate if further hitpoint damage causes scaling in severity or not.
Fear
Severity: 1 - shaken or frightened, 2 - cowering or panicked, 3 - helpless (unaware)
The fear affliction causes effects that impact the individual's morale.
Typically, it results in one of two reactions: impairment in the individual's ability to act, or causes the individual to flee the source of the fear effect. Final severity for either is the individual losing mental faculty, shutting down and becoming unaware of anything occurring around them.
The type of condition will be indicated by the effect causing the fear.
Hinder
Severity: 1 - grappled or hampered, 2 - entangled or pinned, 3 - helpless (bound)
The hinder affliction limits the individual's ability to move and act properly, up to the point of becoming helpless.
The grapple combat maneuver will often trigger the first stage of severity on the one controlling the grapple as well, however it never progresses beyond that point.
Senses
Severity: 1 - stricken, 2 - deadened, 3 - loss
The senses affliction has a wide range of applications, as it varies based on the sense or senses being affected. The effect causing the condition will indicate what senses are affected along with the severity: auditory, gustatory, olfactory, tactile, or vision.
Sicken
Severity: 1 - sickened, 2 - nauseated, 3 - helpless (unaware)
The sick affliction causes highly distracting sensations in an individual's body, typically targeting their vomit response. While this is often associated with gastrointestinal causes, it can also be effects that cause this kind of symptom; such as vertigo, poisons, smells, thoughts, etc.
Sleep
Severity: 1 - fatigued, 2 - exhausted, 3 - helpless (asleep)
The sleep affliction drives the individual towards unconsciousness, draining the body and mind of capability until they drop unconscious and asleep.
Stun
Severity: 1 - dazed or staggered, 2 - stunned, 3 - helpless (paralyzed) or helpless (unconscious)
The stun affliction disrupts the body or mind of an individual, making them unable to respond properly, and ultimately causing physical paralysis or unconsciousness. The stunning effect will indicate the type of condition that will apply.
.
CONDITIONS
The above lists a few conditions that are not defined in Pathfinder.
Compelled: A compelled creature is being directed by an outside force, but is still fighting against it; the creature is limited to free actions and a single standard action per turn, both of these determined by the controlling force.
Controlled: A controlled creature has no free will at all; all its actions are determined by the controlling force.
Deadened: A creature whose senses have been deadened have suffered major damage or scrambling of the sense. A deadened sense suffers a -5 penalty to their Perception checks with that sense.
Hampered: A lesser form of entanglement, it causes a creature to move slower than it normally would. A hampered creature moves at half speed, can only run at x3 speed, and suffers a -2 penalty to Dexterity.
Helpless: <Amendment/Addition> The specific type of helpless condition is noted in brackets: asleep, bound, paralyzed, unaware or unconscious.
Unique factors from each type are as follows.
Asleep - The creature is unconscious as is normal for their species when sleeping. They can dream, gaining any benefits or vulnerabilities of such a state. A sleeping creature may be aware of its surroundings, although it has a very large penalty to its senses (+10 to the DC). The effect will determine if something sensed can cause the creature to awaken and lose the helpless condition.
Bound - The creature is aware of its surroundings and can still make completely mental acts. Unless the effect causing this status mentions it, they can speak.
Paralyzed - The creature is aware of its surroundings and can make completely mental acts. Unlike being bound, it cannot speak or respond physically in any way, other than automatic functions (such as breathing), and blinking.
Unaware - The creature is so distracted by the source of its condition, that it is utterly unaware of its surroundings. This typically occurs from an automatic physical reaction, or due to catatonic mental response.
Unconscious - The creature is force into an unconscious state. Unlike sleeping, they do not dream and are utterly unaware of their surroundings.
Stricken: A creature whose senses have been stricken are suffering from a minor scrambling of the sense organ; typically through overloading the sense, or a slight deadening.
A stricken sense suffers a -2 penalty to their Perception checks with that sense.
Loss: A creature whose senses have been totally destroyed or negated in some fashion lose the ability to use that sense in any way.
..
I wrote this a while back when trying to figure out a better way to have stages of effects when applying save or suck (or even save or die) spells and effects.
Gives a chance to respond quicker, and the scaling element allows some "in-between" levels (such as the control vs compelled effects).
In my investigations on how to do this, I basically found (and thus stole for use in Pathfinder) the Afflictions idea from Mutants and Masterminds 3e. That game system is *heavy* on the idea of abilities with effects (it's a great super hero/villain game system), so it's natural that they more heavily hashed out this side of the game.
Once you have a nice scaling list like this, you can make the game use it to apply conditions in a simpler, and more balanced way.
For example, cold damage could cause Hinder affliction effects, and Acid could cause Sicken affliction effects.
Makes it easier to run in play, once it's written into the rest of the game and used across the system (into things like the Stunning Fist feat, etc).
In all honesty, I find that this:
In the rules as written, there is no significant difference between energy types (fire, cold, etc.) and no reason to use one energy type over another unless you are fighting something with vulnerabilities or resistances... is far more damaging to my sense of reality in the game than a couple corner cases (like heat might not ignite someone on fire).
Having every damage type be functionally the same in 95% of cases, makes for poor immersion (doesn't feel right), and poor gameplay (feels boring).
That's precisely why having a blanket effect that applies to all abilities that deal certain types of damage actually goes against the design goal of changing up the abilities. If they all work the same, then you haven't accomplished anything. It should be up to the fire spell itself whether or not it sets people on fire. It should be up to the force effect whether or not it bull rushes or trips someone (fun fact: With these rules, mage armor now causes you to bull rush or trip yourself!).
Again, this could be kind of cool as a class feature for some kind of magic class that prefers to combo general magic effects instead of casting spells with preset effects. Like a Spheres of Power type of mage. But for adding bonus effects to existing spells, it's a giant mess of game mechanics, balance, and fluff.
If they all work the same, then you haven't accomplished anything.
..
But for adding bonus effects to existing spells, it's a giant mess of game mechanics, balance, and fluff.
While I don't think it's as bad as you say (mage armor isn't a damage spell, it won't do anything), I agree that it's a lot of fiddly rules. It could stand to be streamlined and fit more into existing rules.
While I don't think it's as bad as you say (mage armor isn't a damage spell, it won't do anything), I agree that it's a lot of fiddly rules. It could stand to be streamlined and fit more into existing rules.If they all work the same, then you haven't accomplished anything.
..
But for adding bonus effects to existing spells, it's a giant mess of game mechanics, balance, and fluff.
The OP suggests that the spells don't have to deal damage for these effects apply. Otherwise, the disease and curse bonus effects would likely never apply because spells with those descriptors rarely deal hit point damage.
Thanks for your suggestions, Kaisoku. My intent was to make effects that scale up as offensive abilities becomes more potent, and you seem to have put some thought into that already. I am going to copy down your affliction ideas and see if I can to use them (or at least inspiration from them) to retain the immersion of my effects while streamlining them (reducing fiddliness).
The conditional modifiers from Arrius also sound like good ideas and could help explain why hot areas have a lot of fire magic, even though many things in hot areas are resistant to fire, and cold area have a lot of cold magic ever though many things in cold areas are resistant to cold. I have written some rules for modifying spell ranges and areas based on dramatic environments (electricity under water, fire under water, etc.) but writing effects for more subtle conditions could also be interesting.
These are too strong. I might favor lesser versions of the for kineticists alone, but wouldn't permit this broadly. The energy types should remain as they are for all other spellcasting classes. There are many assumptions already built it. I wouldn't hate minor changes on a broader lever. For instance, keep damage the same but cause, for cold -2 to DEX to AC for one round, fire -2 to FORT saves for a round, electricity already has its bonus to DCs for armor, acid can destroy armor, I'd also be okay with it doing a round of penalty to natural armor as well. As the caster levels perhaps the effects can have longer duration or stronger effect. But anything stronger I would reserve to the kineticists and the types of power you describe would be high level.
I will do some simulations to compare my effects to regular versions of spells to see how my effects will need to be adjusted. Smaller effects, like what you suggested will be easier to apply and remember, so I will try them if my effects need to be toned down. I considered having acid deal damage to armor, but I chose to go with sickness instead since players hate having their equipment damaged (I played with that is 2nd edition and it was BAD). Also, could you post a link to where you read that electricity has bonuses against metal armored targets? I only recall seeing that for specific spells/abilities. Thanks.
I do have some rules written up for applying different elements to different spell shapes (cones, rays, etc.) and adjusting the damage/effects based on the shape since a single target spell should be more potent than an area of effect spell, which will help to balance out the non-damaging spells. But my spell shapes documents is just as big as my elements document, of which I have only posted as small abridgment, so I will clean up the elements first and then some time in the distant future post my spell shapes. Eventually I would like to set up mechanics so that a person can pick one element, one shape, and one spell level, and get out an immersive, balanced, and streamlined spell.
Cryad;
1) You missed my point. Your rules assume the energy damage occurs from a particular source in a particular way. With your rules, taking 1 point of fire damage from holding heated metal would immediately cause you to burst into flame. It's ludicrous. Whether or not an ability sets things on fire should depend on the ability itself, not a blanket rule.
Heat Metal + Burning Spell does, in fact, set you on fire. And other energy types do attack your body in various ways. Thats why they are dealing damage.
I like the idea of adding a minor effect to spells that require a savings throw. I feel like damaging spells that use saving throws are generally underpowered. Even in Ultimate Magic, under spell creation rules, they list Cone of Cold as too weak, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone bother with lightning bolt since 3.5 (not a single time that I can recall). Thats why you hear so often on these boards Conjurer, Diviner, or GTFO.
I would like to see a simplified version of this, perhaps something that causes sickened, shaken, or fatigued for a round, in addition to it normal effects. Perhaps at the cost of a feat, but not at the cost of boosting the spells level. A spell version of Dirty Trick sounds really cool. Maybe even if it boosts the casting time by one unit (standard action to full round action, swift action to move action, etc.) to prevent quickened spell abuse.
Heat Metal + Burning Spell does, in fact, set you on fire.
Saying a spell can set you on fire if-and-only-if you modify it with a Metamagic feat is not evidence that the spell sets you on fire without any modification. Nor does it bolster any argument that the spell in question should always set you on fire without modification.
And other energy types do attack your body in various ways. Thats why they are dealing damage.
So? My point is that not all fire damage actually uses fire. Not all of it has a chance to set you on fire because there's tons of ways to get seriously injured through heat.
I feel like damaging spells that use saving throws are generally underpowered. .. Thats why you hear so often on these boards Conjurer, Diviner, or GTFO.
Blasting isn't the optimal choice, but it's still a good choice. And it's fun. Plus, several Metamagics can make blasting have crowd control effects, too.
Even in Ultimate Magic, under spell creation rules, they list Cone of Cold as too weak, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone bother with lightning bolt since 3.5 (not a single time that I can recall).
Can you explain to me how this is evidence? You're making the argument that blasting spells are underpowered. Your evidence is an entry under spell design in Ultimate Magic where cone of cold is described as an underpowered spell. However, the entry itself does not say cone of cold is underpowered because it's a blast spell. It says that cone of cold is underpowered compared to other blasting spells.
@ 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.
@ 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.
Again, I never said a hot metal causing a fire cannot happen. I just said that the hot metal spell or any other effect that causes fire damage shouldn't always risk setting someone or something on fire.
Your claim that light cannot inflict damage is contradicted by the existence of high powered lasers.
I never said light cannot hurt. It's just ridiculous that, with these rules, all light effects can hurt you.
Also, lasers cause damage by inflicting burns through transmission of electromagnetic radiation. As a result, it's more fitting to classify damaged caused by lasers and other intense emissions of light as fire damage. Which is actually the type of damage caused by laser weapons in Pathfinder. Electricity is also a good alternative since it causes electromagnetic radiation.
@ Cyrad
You might be interested to know that in the real world collisions between ordinary objects is also the province of the same electromagnetic force. So if you were going to classify lasers as fire damage you should also classify sword blows as fire damage to maintain consistency.
As for arguments on heat metal and hot rooms, you are now contradicting your initial position and I cannot be bothered discussing this further.
The 'light rays' from lantern archons do not inflict fire damage.
Archon lantern light ray attacks are not lasers.
@ Cyrad
You might be interested to know that in the real world collisions between ordinary objects is also the province of the same electromagnetic force. So if you were going to classify lasers as fire damage you should also classify sword blows as fire damage to maintain consistency.
Sword attacks don't cause damage by burning. Electromagnetic radiation (which isn't the same as electromagnetic force) tends to cause damage through burns.
As for arguments on heat metal and hot rooms, you are now contradicting your initial position and I cannot be bothered discussing this further.
It might seem like that because you're taking my heat metal comment out of the context of my main argument against the OP's rules. There's a big difference between:
A) Things catching fire from hot metal and heated air never happen in real life.
B) This rule is ridiculous because you don't always have a ~50% of immediately bursting into flames every time you sustain an injury through burning.
A) Things catching fire from hot metal and heated air never happen in real life.I light my grill with a metal fork-thing that runs on electricity. It heats up the coal untill it starts burning. It take several minutes, while the heat metal spell has a duration of 42 seconds (and only during 30 seconds is it actually hot enough to cause damage).
@Boomerang: Don't be ridiculous.
Where is the fun in that? No deal.
The quick answer is that lasers often vaporize/ablate material rather than burn it. That's how Lasik works for eye correction. It literally destroys the molecular bonds of the tissue and blasts little pieces of material off your cornea.
No burning involved.
Correct.
Interesting that the spells searing light and burst of radiance don't inflict fire damage either.
|
relativemass,
Count me in as liking the general idea here, but not liking the maths as presented, nor that the upgrades come for free.
I think somewhere between tying each energy type to a single condition or status effect, and having the caster buy into these with feats (even incorporating already-existing feats!), would be the best execution. DMs are free then to give the feats out for free to their casters, at their option.
Also, at the expense of total completeness, consider not giving each school or spell an energy type if doing so would be too much a stretch (You mentioned distraction, curse, phantasm, for example).
By the way, the reason why cure and inflict spells are conjuration has to do with the positive and negative planes. That said, there is a strong case for house-ruling these spells as Necromancy spells - but not without the corollary question of "how come Necromancer Wizards can't heal?"
Lastly, have you seen the Unchained rules for Poison and Disease? That might be a better solution than "DX and WIS damage" and whatnot in some cases. Cheers!
Well, let me say that things catching fire from pure heat certainly does happen in real life. When you were a kid, didn't you ever catch leaves on fire with a magnifying glass? Thats science buddy, not a magic wand. I've also got an oven that melts low melting temperature metals as well as cleanly incinerating wood, waxes, etc. with pure heat. Let me tell you, if you were wearing plate mail that suddenly became red hot, you shirt would probably ignite.
But I do agree that burning isn't always the best secondary effect for heat damage, like with steam (might cause fatigue). Thats why I suggested that there be several possible effects.
Can you explain to me how this is evidence? You're making the argument that blasting spells are underpowered. Your evidence is an entry under spell design in Ultimate Magic where cone of cold is described as an underpowered spell. However, the entry itself does not say cone of cold is underpowered because it's a blast spell. It says that cone of cold is underpowered compared to other blasting spells.
1) You don't count my substantial personal experience, that not even my noob players willingly use lightning bolt (I don't think I've ever seen cold of cold used by a player,either, now that I think about it).
2) You don't count community consensus that blast spells are underpowered and generally a waste of a wizard's time.
3) You don't count Ultimate Magic's weakest 5th level spell award as legit.
OK, fine here is a 4th. From Treantmonk's guide to being a wizard (the gold standard of guides);
"The first point is that in 3.0, blast spells became in inefficient way to do damage. Look at a fireball for example. Cast by a 5th level wizard it does 5d6 damage...but not really, saving throws can reduce that by half, evasion can eliminate it entirely, and improved evasion will at least cut it in half. Then you take into account fire resistance (AFTER the save), which will very commonly reduce it further by 5, 10, 20, or even offer full immunity...and fire resistance and immunity is common. In the end, that Fireball will do 20 points of damage if you are lucky, more likely, anywhere from 5 to 10 damage. So how many creatures that you fight at level 5 can take that? Yep...all of them, while laughing at you."
He also rates Lightning Bolt as "Warning. This is a poor option and should be avoided". His most favored blast spell is rated "This is an OK option, but I'm not recommending it".
I like blasts myself, but lets be real here; they aren't good. Slow is way better than lightning bolt, black tentacles or confusion is way better than ice storm, and we already know cold of cold sucks.
That why a think a dirty trick like bump would be good. It adds a lot of flavor, a little bit more kick, and seems like it would be hard to abuse. You could give each energy type several options to select from, such as fire inflicting deafness (from a loud boom), burning, dazzled, or fatigue.
Can you explain to me how this is evidence? You're making the argument that blasting spells are underpowered. Your evidence is an entry under spell design in Ultimate Magic where cone of cold is described as an underpowered spell. However, the entry itself does not say cone of cold is underpowered because it's a blast spell. It says that cone of cold is underpowered compared to other blasting spells.1) You don't count my substantial personal experience, that not even my noob players willingly use lightning bolt (I don't think I've ever seen cold of cold used by a player,either, now that I think about it).
This doesn't support your claim for two reasons. First off, player experiences and preferences vary wildly from game to game. I'm currently running a campaign that has gone for 4 years with a variety of character types and blasting is the party's favorite spell type. Even the martials found ways to blast because they love blasting. Secondly, just because your players believe lightning bolt or cone of cold is weak doesn't mean they think that all blast spells are weak. Maybe they just don't like lightning bolt because it's an awkward area effect that's not as convenient as fireball? Your players not liking lightning bolt is no evidence that all blast spells aren't worth using.
2) You don't count community consensus that blast spells are underpowered and generally a waste of a wizard's time.
My perception of the community consensus differs from yours where many consider blasting a good though non-optimal playstyle. And even that isn't necessarily a consensus -- it's not a consensus if it's heavily debated. Even if I agree with your version of the community consensus, it still provides very little evidence because what most players consider "underpowered" tends to vary wildly. Some believe that any strategy that isn't as powerful as the optimal strategy is underpowered despite the fact that's not how game balance works.
3) You don't count Ultimate Magic's weakest 5th level spell award as legit.
Because the text you reference in Ultimate Magic completely fails to support your argument. You're suggesting Ultimate Magic says blasting is underpowered because cone of cold is underpowered. However, Ultimate Magic explains that cone of cold is underpowered because it's weaker than other blasting spells and emphasizes this point by comparing it with fireball. Using this text to support your argument is a total non sequitur.
OK, fine here is a 4th. From Treantmonk's guide to being a wizard (the gold standard of guides);
Treatmonk's guide is a good guide, but it's also heavily flawed. It's not only outdated, but also so infamous for insisting God Wizard as the only viable way to play a wizard that other guides became popular for mocking it.
Even if I ignore these flaws and find a 7-year-old player-made guide as perfectly acceptable evidence, Treatmonk's guide still does little to support your argument because it's a guide that teaches you how to play a specific playstyle of wizard. Obviously, it will rate spells that don't fit that playstyle lower than normal.
Even the text you reference feels really off. You will rarely fight creatures with evasion or significant amounts of fire resistance at 5th level. Most creatures you fight at 5th level will have about 20-30 hit points, so even a weak 10 damage fireball is not an insignificant contribution.
Finally, the debate whether blast spells are too weak feels rather pointless because the OP's spell effect houserules would buff all spells that apply, not just spells that primarily deal damage.
** spoiler omitted **...
Your condition tracks lump too much. For example, [fear] effects follow a progression: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering.
More importantly, "fascinated" is massively more debilitating than "shaken."FWIW, a lot of the condition track stuff you're spitballing has been done already: Click on "Introduction" and then go to Combat\Conditions. for a somewhat out-of-date draft.
** spoiler omitted **...Your condition tracks lump too much. For example, [fear] effects follow a progression: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering.
More importantly, "fascinated" is massively more debilitating than "shaken."FWIW, a lot of the condition track stuff you're spitballing has been done already: Click on "Introduction" and then go to Combat\Conditions. for a somewhat out-of-date draft.
Frightened was the one affliction I had trouble trying to reconcile with the rest (since most had a 3 level effect, which is easier to track in game).
It really felt like shaken/frightened was the difference between whether you wanted the creature running away or not. And then panicked almost turns into cowering when they are cornered.I've read over your conditions idea there, and it does seem to fit better as a 4 stage system. I may rethink it in that manner, it may give a greater range in effects that fit better across character levels (1st + every 5 levels lines it up with iteratives, like you noted).
Gives more room to fit the Fear affliction, and can a finer gradient for the rest of them too.
I've always liked the concept of damage sources inflicting effect in addition to (or in place of) damage; however, Pathfinder is a right mess about damage type and spell descriptors, and because of that, your current proposition may result in many "wait what ?" moments. It's why I wouldn't use your current implementation : I prefer to have damage system that is a a little dull, to a system that can create too many absurd situations.
This is the third time I am saying that I agree that fire damage shouldn’t always set targets on fire; I think we all agree that steam isn’t likely to set people on fire. Most sources of “fire” type damage in Pathfinder do come from fire, and reasonable exceptions can be made for other sources for “fire” type damage. Pathfinder usually writes enough information about spells for them to be used on a typical battlefield under ordinary conditions which is the example that I have tried to follow. For example, Fireball doesn’t explain how it works differently underwater, in vacuum, in high oxygen environments, through Wind Wall, when cast blindly, if targets are soaked in water, etc. GMs deals with these rare circumstances, when they arise, in ways that hopefully seem sensible, without faulting Paizo for not writing rules for every conceivable circumstance.
Next topic.
Light spells/abilities have never been generally defined by Paizo. So Light Ray, Searing Light, Sunburst, etc. leave GMs and players to assume some damage type or make no assumptions at all. I have never likely the idea of the undefinable damage type, so I added light as a damage type, and I assume that protection from fire also protects against light since heat is transferred by light.
Count me in as liking the general idea here, but not liking the maths as presented, nor that the upgrades come for free.
I think somewhere between tying each energy type to a single condition or status effect, and having the caster buy into these with feats (even incorporating already-existing feats!), would be the best execution. DMs are free then to give the feats out for free to their casters, at their option.
Also, at the expense of total completeness, consider not giving each school or spell an energy type if doing so would be too much a stretch (You mentioned distraction, curse, phantasm, for example).
By the way, the reason why cure and inflict spells are conjuration has to do with the positive and negative planes. That said, there is a strong case for house-ruling these spells as Necromancy spells - but not without the corollary question of "how come Necromancer Wizards can't heal?"
Lastly, have you seen the Unchained rules for Poison and Disease? That might be a better solution than "DX and WIS damage" and whatnot in some cases. Cheers!
Thanks for the encouraging words. Ya, I will work on simplifying the math.
An opt-in option sounds like a good idea. I could have enemies use the special effect versions of appropriate spells most of the time, and let players decided if they want their fire spells (or whatever) to act normally or have reduced damaged and set targets on fire. I will also look into treating the special effects as metamagic feats that everyone can use.You may be right that it may be best for me to give up some of the weird elements.
It has been hard for me to try to balance the weird elements against a standard Fireball. I will focus mostly on developing the most common energy types.
According to the rules-as-written Cure spells are Conjuration and Inflict spells are Necromancy. If you want to keep them as different school or make them both Conjuration that is fine, but I think they should be part of the same school and I think that Necromancy makes more sense than Conjuration. Back before 3rd edition D&D, Cure and Inflict spells were both necromancy. To my knowledge, the reason that Cure spells are Conjuration has nothing to do with mechanics or game logic; it has to with NOT wanting to call healers necromancers. Parents who are distrustful of RPGs may consent to letting their child play a healers, but not a necromancer, which carries a very bad connotation. If clerics were using necromancy all the time, people may get the impression that Pathfinder was glorifying evil/unholy magic.
I have not looked into the Unchained rules for Diseases/Poisons, but I will put that on my to-do list. Thanks for the suggestion.
Finally, the debate whether blast spells are too weak feels rather pointless because the OP's spell effect house rules would buff all spells that apply, not just spells that primarily deal damage.
I wrote alternate mechanics for every energy type, giving every energy a unique effect. These alternate energy type can be swapped in for any existing [b]direct damage spells[b] (Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc.) with only minor modifications. The unique effect of each energy type is [b]usually tied to the damage[b], so more powerful spells/abilities have more potent effects. I also made sure that every school of magic had at least one energy type, so that no specialists would be completely neglected.
My house rules are clearly written to apply to offensive/damage dealing spells/abilities. Even the non-damage-dealing energy types are intended for substitution into offensive spells/abilities, such as a Fireball that inflicts a curse instead of fire damage.
My problem is that cold, acid, light (are there light spells that deal damage besides Searing Light?), Sonic, Death, and Life effects are all way too powerful.
Those penalties, and especially how much they can scale up are simply way to powerful.
Edit: Didn't realize there were more types after Life and Death, some of those seem bad too.
Basically anything that is going to affect stats is a big no from me.
One maximized acid spray will deal 90 points of damage that will cause a -9 to attack, damage, and saving throws (on a failed save) and -4 on a successful save. Even if you didn't kill them they're removed from doing anything meaningful in the fight because of the penalties. Not to mention the reoccurring damage that will happen on subsequent rounds.
Your effects are just way to damn powerful.
You know, technically, I don't think Searing Light is actually a Light spell... at least, it doesn't have that descriptor in the CRB, and I don't think that's been changed. XD
Sunbeam's a light spell that deals (untyped) damage, though.
Those penalties, and especially how much they can scale up are simply way to powerful.
Basically anything that is going to affect stats is a big no from me.
One maximized acid spray will deal 90 points of damage that will cause a -9 to attack, damage, and saving throws (on a failed save) and -4 on a successful save. Even if you didn't kill them they're removed from doing anything meaningful in the fight because of the penalties. Not to mention the reoccurring damage that will happen on subsequent rounds.
Your effects are just way to damn powerful.
I included stat effects that scale because there are already stat affecting spells that scale, such as Ray of Enfeeblement at 1st level, which will deal 6-11 strength damage from a 5th level caster (save for half), imposing -3 to -5.5 on attack/damage (save for half).
Maximized Acid Spay would deal 90 damage (save for half), take an 8th level spell slot, have 5th level spell saves, and require at least a 15th level caster. If we assume the caster has 20 in their prime attribute then the save DC should be 20. And if we assume a typical 15 CR combatant target, as defined by Pathfinder Unchained, with +16 Ref, then on average the regular Maximized Acid Spay will deal 16/20*90/2 + (20-16)/20*90 = 54 damage.
My modified acid deals less damage (d6 -> d4) and imposes -1 on attacks, damage, and saves for every 10 damage. Acid does NOT imposing recurring damage, that was from fire. On average my modified Maximized Acid Spay would deal 16/20*60/2 + (20-16)/20*60 = 36 damage and impose -3.6 to attacks/damage/saves. A CR 15 combatant's attack/damage/saves would changes as follows: Attack: 18 to 24 -> 14.4 to 20.4, damage: 31 to 41 -> 27.4 to 36.4, and saves 16/16/13 -> 12.4/12.4/9.4. Obviously an actual creature won't have fractional scores, but I kept fractions since I an dealing with averages. These penalties doesn't seem excessive to me, considering the reduced spell damage and the already high stats of a CR 15 creature.
You know, technically, I don't think Searing Light is actually a Light spell... at least, it doesn't have that descriptor in the CRB, and I don't think that's been changed. XD
Sunbeam's a light spell that deals (untyped) damage, though.
My mistake. Perhaps I was remembering Searing Light from some previous edition. Well I can just use Sunbeam and Sunburst as examples of damage dealing light spells.
You don't use spell slots on those metamagics. You use spell perfection or a rod.
The reoccurring damage is from the spell itself. It deals acid damage over multiple rounds, which by your rules would impose further penalties.
The effects are too powerful.
You don't use spell slots on those metamagics. You use spell perfection or a rod.
The reoccurring damage is from the spell itself. It deals acid damage over multiple rounds, which by your rules would impose further penalties.
The effects are too powerful.
Metamagic feats are a legitimate means of using metamagic. You need to be level 15 to get Spell Perfection, so that wouldn't change anything. If you prefer rods, that is fine, but you will need to come up with some new assumptions about the CR of the target.
Sorry, I forgot to account for the reoccurring damage built into the Acid Spay spell, and I thought that you were talking about the reoccuring damage form my fire modifications. That should increase damage and penalties for creatures that FAIL their save by about 45%. So the regular version would deal 16/20*(15*6)/2 + (20-16)/20*(15*6+7*6) = 62.4 damage, and the modified version would deal 16/20*(15*4)/2 + (20-16)/20*(15*4+7*4) = 41.6 damage and -4.16 to attack/damage/saves.
I'm not trying to argue with you, but I don't see -4 to attack/damage/saves on a CR 15 target as being an unreasonable debuff since a 1st level spell could give -3 to -5.5 on attacks/damage (save for half), and Maximized Acid Spray is the equivalent to an 8th level spell (even if it isn't using an 8th level spell slot). Trading about 20 damage to apply debuffs that are only a little stronger than a 1st level spell onto an 8th level spell seems reasonable to me.
Using numbers to show why you feel that my modifications have unreasonable debuffs would help me to re-balance my modifications. Anyways, I appreciate your feedback and as I adjust my modifications in the future I will try to tone down the debuffs some.