I’ve created this spell for my Sunspear of Sol class and wanted to check my workings:
Pilum of Fire Range: 60’ Divine 2 Duration: 1 round per level
With this spell, the Chosen of Sol summons into existence a number of javelins of pure solar flame equal to 1 + 1 for every 5 levels of experience. When thrown, using the casters Attack Throw, each Pilum of Fire will cause 1d8 Fire damage to a target, including to creatures only affected by magical weapons (but not to creatures immune to fire). Range increments apply as for any ranged weapon. Unused javelins will remain in existence for 1 round per caster level before dissipating.
Workings:
Blast Spell
Effects: 1d8 damage per level (35), Maximum 1d damage (x0.1), Blast is Fire Based (x1)
Targeting: 1 creature + 1 per 5 additional levels (x2), Attack Throw required (x0.35)
Duration: 1 round per level (x4)
Range: 60’ (x0.7)
Saving Throw: None (x1)
Source: Divine (x2.25)
= 15.435
Have I missed anything out? Should I be doing anything else?
Does the fact it hits magic creatures add anything?
Does the fact that creatures immune to fire are unaffected remove anything?
Does the fact that it takes range modifiers into account change anything? (Could I get away with removing that element without changing the cost?)
I could, in theory, boost the damage up to 1d10 or 2d4 and it’s still a 2nd level spell if I’m doing the maths right.
For reference, this will probably replace Enthrall on the Bladedancer spell list, as I don’t feel it’s appropriate for my version of the class.
Have I missed anything out? Should I be doing anything else?
APM: The intent of "duration" for blast spells is that it be the duration of damage, e.g. damage over time. From your description of the spell, it seems like you just want the cleric to be able to hurl the pilums of fire at any time within the duration. I'd rate that as a x2 multiplier, not a x4 multiplier.
Does the fact it hits magic creatures add anything?
APM: No, magic harms magical creatures by default.
Does the fact that creatures immune to fire are unaffected remove anything?
APM: No, that's reflected in the cost multiplier for being a fire effect. Creatures that are vulnerable to fire would take more damage, for example, and the fire might have special effects on the environment.
Does the fact that it takes range modifiers into account change anything? (Could I get away with removing that element without changing the cost?)
APM: Yes, that would be a cost modifier. I'd go with x0.85, so that a range of 60' with range penalties costs as much as a range of 30' without range penalties.
Thank you for this. You’re correct in that the intent is for the cleric to be able to hurl the pilums of fire ay any time during the duration.
With the cost modifier for taking range penalties into account, I just want to check my understanding. You’re saying that ‘Attack throw uses range penalties’ should have a separate modifier of x0.85 so the usual 0.7 multiplier for range 60 would be 0.595 rounded to 0.6, which is the multiplier for range 30?
Seems good to me if that’s the case.
In either case (ranged penalties or no ranged penalties) but an attack throw is required, how would you adjudicate casting a blast spell like this at an opponent engaged in melee? Allow it? Disallow it? Only allow if the cleric has precise shooting, at -4?
I’m minded to only allow it if the cleric has precise shooting, as per the standard rules for ranged combat. I’d be interested to read if anyone has a different perspective.
APM: The intent of “duration” for blast spells is that it be the duration of damage, e.g. damage over time. From your description of the spell, it seems like you just want the cleric to be able to hurl the pilums of fire at any time within the duration. I’d rate that as a x2 multiplier, not a x4 multiplier.
That’s interesting. How much of that decision may have been weighted by the fact he’s dealing with a limited number of missiles in that duration?
I’m specifically thinking of something like d20’s Produce Flame, where the caster is ‘holding’ a flame in her hand for a duration that she happens to be able to throw at targets (which then regenerates in her hand) - the missiles in this case are not limited.
Alternatively, am I perhaps not being as strict as I should with “Number of Creatures”? I operated under the presumption that “1 Creature”, in the case of Produce Flame, would be “1 Creature Per Attack Over The Duration”, as opposed to some sort of multi-shot Chain Lightning which may have multiple targets per attack. James went from the side of “Targets Per Cast of Spell”, which could very well be the correct interpretation.
Yeah, conceptually I based the spell on Magic Missile to some extent in terms of ‘targets affected’ because it generates X missiles rather than affects X creatures directly.
The extension to that idea, and why I think being able to ‘hold’ the spell is important is that it’s treating each missile as a ranged weapon - so ranged modifiers and the firing into melee issue both apply. Therefore it becomes a more tactical decision to deploy the spell as you need to have an opponent not in melee - or maneuvered in such a way as to be tactically disengaged for a moment.
It also adds to their very limited options for ranged combat (Thrown Spear and Spiritual Weapon at L4). The idea is that they’ll have a single spear which is their primary melee weapon, and Pilum of Fire gives them a capacity for ranged combat in the ‘Throwing a spear of fire at the badguy’ variety.
The consideration of Produce Flame is interesting. Reading the Pathfinder version of that spell, it’s clear that it’s 1 Creature Per Attack - but there’s a big tradeoff to the spells duration.
Making Pilum of Fire an Attack Throw targeted instant ‘Zap!’ spell actually makes it a L1 spell I think… Even with multiple targets as you level up.
Right. I'd suggest that the effect modifier be called "attack throw is treated as missile fire". That would impose range penalties and an inability to fire into melee without penalty.
I wonder if what we really both want here is a modifier:
“Requires an attack roll each round”
which should do the work of abstracting both our needs to be able to “not attack” on a given round, but hold the spell, and my want to be able to change targets.
The consideration of Produce Flame is interesting. Reading the Pathfinder version of that
spell, it’s clear that it’s 1 Creature Per Attack - but there’s a big tradeoff to the spells duration.
Yea, didn’t get around to figuring out how to model that. I went with 1 round/level for now.
I’d looked into doing it as a Transmogrification effect - there’s an opening in there for doing it as a limited Polymorph that just gives you the attack forms of a specific creature - in which case the lazy DM just pretends there’s some extraplanar creature who can throw fire javelins or little balls of flame and calls it a day.
Gain Form’s Special Abilities: 20
Form Limited to Particular Type: 0.75
Range: Self: 0.5
1 turn/level: 0.8
I wager I’m misusing “Gain Form’s Special Abilitiess”, but just with the modifier’s I’ve stated (coming up to 0.3 combined) whatever we’re looking for can be costed as high as 33 and still be 1st level. I can’t imagine I’m not trampling over more than a few assumptions about How Things Should Be though, and I really should be costing that at 55 for “Transform to form of living creatures: 30” plus “Gain Special Abilities: 20”.
[quote="James S"]
I'm looking at Protection spells, and I'm wondering what 'Resistance to melee weapons' actually means. Is it, as with the elemental equivalents simply -1 to the damage inflicted (per dice of damage)? So a sword blow would do 1 less point of damage? Or is it something more like Damage Resistance in Pathfinder where you get, say, DR5 vs normal weapons?
[/quote]
Resistance to normal melee weapons provides a +2 bonus to AC against normal melee weapons and reduces damage from attacks by normal melee weapons by 1 point per die, to a minimum of 1 point per die.
Explanation: Under Protection Enhancements, you'll note that a +2 bonus to AC or +2 bonus to saving throws both cost 10 points - they have equivalent cost. Using similar reason, since for saving-throw based spells, Resistance provides a +2 saving throw bonus, therefore for AC-based attacks, Resistance must provide a +2 AC bonus.