PDA

View Full Version : Alternate element for Shocking Grasp?



DaltonTrigger
2009-05-17, 02:31 AM
My DM allowed one of my fellow players to turn a bunch of their spell-like powers that deal fire damage into electrical damage instead. Just a change of element for flavor purposes.

I am playing a Duskblade/Rogue and was going to use Shocking Grasp as my primary channeling power, but since this other guy is just reeking of electrical powers I wanted to trade out my electrical damage for another element, and decided on cold. So now my character uses Freezing Grasp.

The thing I am wondering is, since Shocking Grasp typically gives a +3 bonus to the attack roll (a huge bonus!) against metal armor, what is a good equivalent for the cold version of the spell? for lack of anything better my DM told me to just leave the bonus in place and just deal an alternate form of damage, to keep it simple. I won't pressure her. But if there's something truly worthwhile I can suggest (rather than asking her to come up with something FOR me) I'd be willing to re-open the discussion again.

Obviously any kind of debuff on the enemy (even as simple as a -1 to attack rolls) would be probably overpowered, so I don't know what else to do in that regard.

Edit: Also, while we're at it since I couldn't find this information with a cursory search on Google, how does one go about freezing things in D&D? Say I wanted to freeze a pool of water and walk across it (or trap somebody inside and watch them drown). Are there rules regarding it? If not, how much "damage" would you say translates into a certain thickness of ice on the water's surface?

Stormageddon
2009-05-17, 02:46 AM
I don't get it... Is your DM allowing you to take the +3 even if the enemy doesn't have metal armor?

While the plus +3 is nice. It's not all that great. I've been doing the Duskblade thing for awhile now and I can tell you that I have only been able to use the bonus maybe twice. You would be surprised at how many creatures out there don't use metal armor.

I would say +3 to hit for fire creatures who are weak against cold.

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-17, 02:54 AM
I don't get it... Is your DM allowing you to take the +3 even if the enemy doesn't have metal armor?

No, she meant to leave the +3 vs metal armor in place.


While the plus +3 is nice. It's not all that great. I've been doing the Duskblade thing for awhile now and I can tell you that I have only been able to use the bonus maybe twice. You would be surprised at how many creatures out there don't use metal armor.

I would say +3 to hit for fire creatures who are weak against cold.

You really think so? I'd have figured that almost any humanoid enemy by 10th level would be wearing metal. Your +3 vs fire has merit and I considered the idea too, but I'm not that familiar with D&D monsters. Are weak-to-cold foes more common than metal-wearing foes?

Salt_Crow
2009-05-17, 03:19 AM
How about Energy Substitution [Cold] feat?

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-17, 03:31 AM
How about Energy Substitution [Cold] feat?

Nope, I'm already behind on feats.

My DM is allowing me to take Freezing Grasp as a spell without feats or anything. All it is, is Shocking Grasp but cold. And at the other person's suggestion, +3 to attack bonus against fire instead of metal.

Dhavaer
2009-05-17, 03:34 AM
How about Energy Substitution [Cold] feat?

That wouldn't help with this issue; he's allowed to change it to cold, but wants something more appropriate for a cold spell that a bonus against metal enemies. Although you could justify the bonus by saying that the metal freezes even if your hand only gets close to it.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-17, 04:13 AM
I agree with Dhavaer to be honest. I was also thinking it could lower the target's touch AC by 1 for a round or 2 if it hit, but I think it would be better if you kpet it as it is.

DragoonWraith
2009-05-17, 04:16 AM
Metal transmits heat (and therefore cold) very well, so you could perhaps get a damage bonus instead of an attack bonus (which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense)? Although you'd think you'd also get than bonus against bare skin...

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-17, 04:21 AM
I'm going to bed so I'll read this when I wake up. Thanks for the suggestions so far. I agree most with it being +3 vs cold-weak creatures rather than against metal armor. Pretty much any argument you can make to why cold would do good against humans, armored or not, applies far more to Hellhounds and Fire Elementals.

SadisticFishing
2009-05-17, 04:23 AM
I'll stick with +3 against metal. Don't change the balance of the spell at all.

Remember that metal gets cold FAST. and VERY, VERY cold. So meh. Works for me.

Bayar
2009-05-17, 05:12 AM
Sonic grasp would have been better...

Zhalath
2009-05-17, 11:44 AM
I'd go with +3 attack on creatures unprotected against cold.

Kornaki
2009-05-17, 11:57 AM
I'd go with +3 attack on creatures unprotected against cold.

This is far more powerful though... what creatures are
1) protected against the cold
2) vulnerable to cold damage?

Zhalath
2009-05-17, 06:39 PM
This is far more powerful though... what creatures are
1) protected against the cold
2) vulnerable to cold damage?

I'd say light or no clothing and with a natural armor bonus under a certain value (like +3).

Human Paragon 3
2009-05-17, 06:44 PM
You could increase the die size to d10s vs. creatures with the fire subtype.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-17, 06:55 PM
Are weak-to-cold foes more common than metal-wearing foes?Yes, because it's built-in to Fire Immunity:


FIRE IMMUNITY

A creature with fire immunity never takes fire damage. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.
Immunity to Fire is one of the more common things among monsters.

Stormageddon
2009-05-18, 03:03 AM
You really think so? I'd have figured that almost any humanoid enemy by 10th level would be wearing metal. Your +3 vs fire has merit and I considered the idea too, but I'm not that familiar with D&D monsters. Are weak-to-cold foes more common than metal-wearing foes?[/QUOTE]

Ah but the problem is that if you consider all the thousands of monsters in MM 1 through whatever. A very small percent wear any armor at all, let alone humaniod. I mean it could depend on the DM but I have used it very little, which is sad.

That being said, I have heard that the most common element monsters are resistant to is fire, a the monsters I've seen resistant to cold sometimes are weak to cold.

Rapidwhirl
2009-05-18, 07:45 AM
Perhaps having the metal act like Chill Metal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillMetal.htm) has been cast on it would suffice?


Sonic grasp would have been better...When is the last time someone picked up a touch spell and said "Oh, this could use more sonic"?

Zhalath
2009-05-18, 04:50 PM
When is the last time someone picked up a touch spell and said "Oh, this could use more sonic"?

Everyday. In fact, I find myself saying it about any damage spells.