Not an actual spell yet (maybe in the works of the Advanced Player's Guide, who knows), but liked it in PF1, so figured we'd give it a shot and see how it worked in the PF2 chassis.
---Spell 2---
Traits Fire, Attack, Evocation |Uncommon|
Traditions Arcane, Primal
Cast 2 Actions (Somatic, Verbal)
Range 30 feet; Target 1 to 3 creatures or objects
You conjure three tiny igneous spheres floating over top of you, each of which coalesce into a streak that shoots a flaming beam at your target. The target for each ray is chosen individually, though you may select the same target for each ray.
Make a spell attack roll for each ray; on a success, each ray deals 2D6 Fire damage. On a critical hit, double the damage and the target suffers 2 persistent fire damage per ray.
Each spell attack roll counts towards your multiple attack penalty, but does not apply until after the spell is cast. As the rays fire simultaneously, this counts as a single instance of damage for the purposes of resistances and weaknesses, as well as other abilities which trigger off of successful hits if multiple rays hit the same target.
Heightened (+2) Each ray deals an additional 1D6 Fire damage, and an additional point of persistent fire damage on a critical hit.
Something I whipped up quick off the top of my head. Considered making it be a single roll, but that makes the spell very swingy in play, and creates a weird tandem that didn't exist back in PF1. Also applied an Uncommon tag so that GMs can give players the veto if they come across this and want to pull some shenanigans the GM doesn't want to deal with.
Let me know what you guys think and if you decide to use it in your games! I might throw it in a game I'll be GMing soon, so we'll see if I do that based on your feedback!
Maybe make that you can add one more action (material) so you can fire an extra ray?
Considered it being a 3 action spell for the added flexibility, but it didn't seem in-line with how it was in PF1. The added component and damage would make it too strong for a 2nd level spell, even if it's a bit hit-or-miss.
As it stands, 6D6 possible with a 2nd level spell is pretty strong, stronger than even Hydraulic Push being heightened as such, especially if it's all on the same target, with the added flexibility of splitting targets for weakness exposition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about one ray per action?
Could do something like this:
Casting 1 to 3 actions
Range 30' Targets 1 to 3 creatures.
Each ray deals 2d6 fire damage when striking individually but if all are focused on a single target then they deal 2d6 +1d6 per extra ray that is focused on the single.
On a critical hit, double the damage and the target suffers 2 persistent fire damage per ray.
Heightened (+2) Each ray deals an additional 1D6 Fire damage, and an additional point of persistent fire damage on a critical hit.
So now you have a 2nd level spell that if all rays are focused on one target deals 4d6 (on a crit deals double damage and target suffers 6 persistent damage)
or focused 2 rays on one creature for 3d6 damage and 1 ray on 2nd creature and deal the 2d6. Or they can deal 2d6 to 3 different creatures.
So while you can hit a single target with all rays, it wouldn't make it over powering to do so but if your Critical hit with it, it would pump out some nice persistent fire damage.
After all Fireball is a 3rd level spell and it deals a base damage of 6d6.
|
I would keep it as a 2 action spell. Start with two rays at 2nd level - each at 2d6. Any number of targets - all of which have to be within 30' range. Keep the spell attack roll/ray (all at current MAP). Change spell to Heightened +1 to add an additional ray. Power level consistent with Fireball - difference being persistent damage and targets+roll vs area+Reflex save. Range is much shorter than Fireball. Much more effective in close quarters with multiple enemies mixed with allies.
I would keep it as a 2 action spell. Start with two rays at 2nd level - each at 2d6. Any number of targets - all of which have to be within 30' range. Keep the spell attack roll/ray (all at current MAP). Change spell to Heightened +1 to add an additional ray. Power level consistent with Fireball - difference being persistent damage and targets+roll vs area+Reflex save. Range is much shorter than Fireball. Much more effective in close quarters with multiple enemies mixed with allies.
If this was a whole new spell, I'd initially agree with a lot of these changes, but there's two things that are holding these notions back.
1. This is more of a legacy spell than trying to reinvent the wheel. While Magic Missiles can have that scaling and be just fine due to its niche in the spellcasting system, it was a spell that scaled with a number of missiles to begin with, which is why its heightening rules currently made sense. While it's true that PF1 Scorching Ray scaled from rays, it always capped at 3, with shaky and lackluster damage to begin with and falling off at a certain point. This segues into my next point.
2. Better consistency/power with heightening and original mechanics. While it's true that the heightening isn't the strongest, remember that lower level spells are originally intended not to heighten to outright match (or supersede) higher level spells (which may also be heightened similarly). In short, while it might seem okay to heighten this way, it doesn't make much sense when the game would intend you to select a different higher level spell with better base damage. I'm not saying it should be useless compared to other heightening spells, but that its use should be predicated on other things besides damage (such as dealing Fire plus possible persistent damage versus raw damage, or being able to split/combine targets compared to only picking one and doing all-or-nothing such as with Vampiric Touch or Flaming Sphere).
In addition, each Heighten scaling increases the total damage by 3D6 with the current math, distributed into 1D6 per ray, which is slightly than the +1 ray per +1 spell level, but remains consistent with other stronger single-target spells. It also remains a bit of parity between Fireball since it's still doing decent damage with the benefits of avoiding nuking ally creatures.
Folowing your example, if I added another Ray for 2D6, you're now adding additional amounts of dice rolls with potential attempts at success/failure or criticals, on both sides of the spectrum. If I decided to heighten this at, say, 8th level, while it may sound cool that I can fire 9 rays at once, the additional attack rolls and damage dice calculations/allocations, plus the possibility of splitting attacks between multiple creatures, counting for screening/cover, circumstances, etc., causes the spell to really bog down the game this way.
People can say that the same can be said for Magic Missiles, but allocating one type of things between multiple targets (especially when it's automatic and you just parse the numbers between the targets) is much simpler than allocating conjoined types of things between multiple targets, especially when their results are predicated on differing circumstances. Some creatures may have screening. Others may have cover. Some might have a flat check just to affect them, plus resistances/weaknesses, etc. 3 rays seems fair for not only a balance point, as well as a game flow point, but it also fits the original legacy of it maximizing at 3 rays as well.
@Krugus: This was my initial approach to the mechanics, but it seemed wishy-washy, and while it supports the concept of splitting into different targets, the single-target damage of the proposed 3-action spell is actually worse than spells like Hydraulic Push or Magic Missiles in the long run, and those are supposed to be lower level damaging spells! On top of that, a spell like Magic Missile permits multiple targets, and can be cast at a level earlier than Scorching Ray theoretically could. The only real bonus is that the persistent fire damage could add up, but since that is a newer mechanic, I don't think it would be intended by the game to allow that, since effects like Produce Flame currently do not.
@Ediwir/Kyrone: The 3-action variable casting might seem to fit here because of certain other spells and the fact that the number of actions spent match the number of rays, but I don't think it would be something worthwhile for the spell. Honestly, the 3 rays as 2 actions ratio is pretty good, and if you decide to Quicken it, 6 rays as 3 actions is a better deal.
How about this:
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You make a Spell Attack roll and if you hit, the target takes 1d8 in fire damage if struck by a single ray. For each additional action you use when Casting the Spell, increase the number Scorching Ray's you fire off by one, to a maximum of three Rays for 3 actions. You choose the target for each ray individually. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously. If you shoot more than one ray at the same target, combine the damage before applying bonuses or penalties to damage, resistances, weaknesses and so forth.
*Critical Hit* Target takes double damage and suffers 2 persistent fire damage per ray that hit them.
*Success* Target takes full damage.
*Failure* Target is singed by the ray nearly hitting them and only takes 1 point per ray that nearly hit them.
*Critical Faulure* Target takes no damage as the Ray flames out before it reaches the target.
-
*Heightened* **(+2)** Each ray deals an additional 1D8 Fire damage, and an additional point of persistent fire damage on a critical hit and an additional point on a failure.
If you hit someone with all 3 rays, it can deal the same damage as Fireball but your only hitting one person with it or you can spread the damage around with 3 rays.
3D8 (minimum 3, average 13.5, maximum 24) does not deal the same amount of damage as 6D6 (minimum 6, average 21, maximum 36), and it doesn't make sense to deal D8s with this spell since A. the original spell scaled off of D6's, and B. Fire spells are consistently dealing D6 damage dice in PF2, whereas Cold and Acid spells are more consistently D8s, and Lightning spells being D12s. (Strangely, very few D10s if at all.)
It's more comparable to 6D4 (since both have the same maximum, but the latter having a higher minimum and a more consistent average curve), but even 6D4 has a better average, and Magic Missile at 3rd level heightening does 6D4+6, with no attack rolls, screening/cover, and the ability to divvy up the damage with a greater range between even more targets.
True that at 2nd level it does not compare to the 3rd level fireball but once you heighten it to 4th level it deals 6d8 where as fireball heightened to 4th deals 8d6.
Every time you heightened Scorching Ray it would have the same maximums as a fireball vs a single target.
Anyways I have ideas. Never said they were good ideas but they are ideas :p
Its weak for a 2nd level blast spell.
Make it first level. Keep it at d6 per ray. 1 ray per action. Heighten by 1d6 per ray per level. Its comparable to magic missile but needs a roll to hit and is fire damage.
On a crit do 1d6 persistant fire damage per spell level. Initial damage is not doubled on crit.
Keeps it balanced. Gives it a unique niche. Fire is the most resisted damage in pf2e. Potential for massive crit persistant burn damage keeps it exciting.