PDA

View Full Version : Need a level for a spell



Phosphate
2012-04-06, 10:21 AM
Volatile Interference
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz ?
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: 1 creature or object within range
Effect: Blue aura appears around the target, then becomes invisible
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: none
Spell Resistance: Yes

You apply a special layer of chaotic arcane energy to a nearby target, which will melt down when itself or other effects are removed. If, while Volatile Interference is in effect, the target has Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, or Break Enchantment cast on it, or enters an Anti-Magic Field, it will receive 1d6 untyped damage per caster level (uncapped), and Volatile Interference will end if it hadn't already.

This spell doesn't stack with itself and cannot be removed by the initial caster. Furthermore, the caster cannot use Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, or Break Enchantment on the target.



Basically a neat way to dispatch enemies that have buffers around to help them. So, what shall it be?

Yitzi
2012-04-06, 11:08 AM
What happens if the original caster casts Dispel Magic on the target?

I'd say probably level 6. It's untyped and allows no save or SR, which is pretty good, and is uncapped, but on the other hand it is single-target and requires other effects to do damage (i.e. debuffs to force a dispel or an actual dispel done by your party.)

Glimbur
2012-04-06, 11:10 AM
I'm confused. You go in to combat, cast this spell on the target, then have your spellcasting friend dispel it off of them? This seems needlessly complicated, and it only has some synergy with dispelling people you were going to dispel anyway. But it costs an action to set up for CLd6 damage. On that basis, I'm going to suggest level 2. This does make it kind of useless until you get Dispel Magic, but so be it.

What happens if I cast Volatile Interference on that dragon, then cast Dispel Magic on the dragon? The spell description states that it cannot be removed by the initial caster, but also that when it does damage it ends.

On the other hand, it's a no-save no-sr no attack roll damage spell. If you can target something (creature or object), you can damage it. I'm foreseeing this spell being Chained, and/or used to kill golems, people immune to magic, and other corner cases that are normally handled via Hail of Stones. Why does this not allow SR?

Madara
2012-04-06, 11:12 AM
I'll throw down 3-4. Because 1d6/level isn't as great as you'd think.

Phosphate
2012-04-06, 12:30 PM
What happens if the original caster casts Dispel Magic on the target?

Absolutely nothing.


I'm confused. You go in to combat, cast this spell on the target, then have your spellcasting friend dispel it off of them?

Nope. Let me break it up for you.

1. You cast Turn to Stone on an opponent.
2. You look at what opponents you have to see if any of them have break enchantment.
3. If they do, go to 4. If they don't, go to 5.
4. Cast Volatile Interference on the target. Go to 5.
5. Get rid of the rest of the enemies. If the opponent turned to stone is freed, he will pay a hefty price in hit points.



This seems needlessly complicated, and it only has some synergy with dispelling people you were going to dispel anyway. But it costs an action to set up for CLd6 damage. On that basis, I'm going to suggest level 2. This does make it kind of useless until you get Dispel Magic, but so be it.

Considering that this is a spell best used in an anti-mage build (or rather anti-cleric), of course it is useless until mid levels.


What happens if I cast Volatile Interference on that dragon, then cast Dispel Magic on the dragon? The spell description states that it cannot be removed by the initial caster, but also that when it does damage it ends.

Exactly. Since you can't remove it, it doesn't end. Since it doesn't end, you don't deal damage.


Why does this not allow SR?

It doesn't allow SR because it doesn't affect the target. The target is affected by Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, or Break Enchantment. Interference simply MAKES those spells deal damage.

Therefore, technically SR is a factor, because if the target rolls SR against Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, or Break Enchantment, and succeeds, Interference does not end and damage is not dealt.

Glimbur
2012-04-06, 01:42 PM
Dispel Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) and Break Enchantment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm) don't allow SR.

Break Enchantment also takes a minute to cast. Someone casting that in combat is either suffering from hubris or ignorance.

Have you looked at Reciprocal Gyre in Spell Compendium? It more directly punishes people for having a number of buffs on them, which was your stated purpose of the spell in the first post. Later conversation suggests that this spell is intended as more of a trap to discourage dispelling of debuffs, which makes it distinct from Reciprocal Gyre.

Phosphate
2012-04-06, 02:04 PM
Well....I define buffers both as people who give buffs and dispel debuffs.

The way I intended this to work is: you cast save or sucks on opponents, and make sure they are punished if they removed them. If they don't remove them, it doesn't matter if they are punished or not, because debuffs are overpowered anyway.

Gyre has kind of the opposite purpose of my spell. But of course someone can use them both to really screw the enemies :D.

bloodtide
2012-04-06, 08:57 PM
This spell does not make sense to me.

Ok, you wait for a chance to find a target that might have a dispel or other spell cast on them. Then you cast the spell. Then when and if the spell is cast on them they will take 1d6 damage/level? It does not look that useful.

On the spell itself, it's way unbalanced. The spell should have a save for the initial casting. You should get a save to negate when a spell is cast on you. And the damage should be save for half too.

And the no Spell Resistance is just silly. Saying that a spell creates ''um, non-magical pure chaos energy untyped damage'' is just beyond dumb and is out right cheating. And it's the classic slippery slope. Once you say a spell can do 'non-magical magic', why not say every single spell does non-magical magic and eliminate spell resistance for everything.

TuggyNE
2012-04-06, 11:06 PM
This spell should very definitely allow SR; it's layering a continuing magical energy onto a target. How much more overtly magical and prone to resistance can you reasonably get?

I'm personally unsure what level it should be; it's specialized, but still surprisingly powerful under the right conditions. However, with SR: Yes as it should be, it's probably not more than a 4th-level spell. Take that estimate with a grain of salt, however.

Phosphate
2012-04-07, 02:15 AM
It does not look that useful.


surprisingly powerful under the right conditions

God, ok, I'll allow SR, but can you make up your mind whether it's useful or not already? Because I already know exactly how I'm going to use it, and where (specifically, I have a character that is a cleric slayer)

Brennan1214
2012-04-07, 12:32 PM
This is just a guess, but I'd say 3rd level.

madock345
2012-04-07, 05:44 PM
Maybe it's because I DM, but the minute I saw this I thought "Loot Trap!", honestly, what decent Dark Wizard wouldn't have a spell to turn his giant hoard into mush the minute some thieving party of adventurers tries to clean up thier spoils. It helps that my parties cleric has gotten into the habit of casting remove curse on loot from anything even vaguely resembling a spellcaster.

Phosphate
2012-04-08, 07:53 AM
Maybe it's because I DM, but the minute I saw this I thought "Loot Trap!", honestly, what decent Dark Wizard wouldn't have a spell to turn his giant hoard into mush the minute some thieving party of adventurers tries to clean up thier spoils. It helps that my parties cleric has gotten into the habit of casting remove curse on loot from anything even vaguely resembling a spellcaster.

Interesting. Most people I play with spam Detect Magic though.

Ashtagon
2012-04-08, 08:15 AM
* Cast volatile interference on enemy.
* Cast anti-magic field.
* Walk up to enemy and trigger volatile interference.

Kind of convoluted, but this is a no-save no-attack-roll way to damage creature without (enough) SR.

Incidentally, casting the spell on an object doesn't make much sense, as they don't have hit points.

jiriku
2012-04-08, 10:07 AM
Objects have hit points (PH 165).

I'd go with 5, even with spell resistance included. The long duration, lack of a save, and lack of any viable method of fighting back against the effect other than counterspelling (which is hard to do and rarely attempted) or just waiting (which basically means running away and waiting a day) make the spell difficult to deal with, while the uncapped, untyped damage makes this potentially a very strong hit, especially if used as a metamagic seed. The need for an additional magical effect as a trigger is a limit, but not a very strong one since (a) creating a cost for removing a debuff is kind of the point of the spell and (b) higher-level parties (who are likely to debuff heavily or face heavily buffed opponents) are usually able to take multiple actions per character per round.

madock345
2012-04-08, 12:24 PM
Interesting. Most people I play with spam Detect Magic though.

Exactly, Detect Magic only tells you the school of the spell. In this case it's Abjuration, where almost all the trap spells are. they try and remove the trap, and trigger it.

Phosphate
2012-04-08, 01:52 PM
Objects have hit points (PH 165).

I'd go with 5, even with spell resistance included. The long duration, lack of a save, and lack of any viable method of fighting back against the effect other than counterspelling (which is hard to do and rarely attempted) or just waiting (which basically means running away and waiting a day) make the spell difficult to deal with, while the uncapped, untyped damage makes this potentially a very strong hit, especially if used as a metamagic seed. The need for an additional magical effect as a trigger is a limit, but not a very strong one since (a) creating a cost for removing a debuff is kind of the point of the spell and (b) higher-level parties (who are likely to debuff heavily or face heavily buffed opponents) are usually able to take multiple actions per character per round.

If I add a damage cap you think it would be lower level? Thing is, this is a spell that works best when quickened, and expending a level 9 slot is...not ideal.

Alternatively, I could make the spell level 7, and make it require a swift action anyway :D.


Exactly, Detect Magic only tells you the school of the spell. In this case it's Abjuration, where almost all the trap spells are. they try and remove the trap, and trigger it.

Fabulous!

Analytica
2012-04-08, 08:14 PM
I like this for curses. Do something nasty to someone, then put this in place, so even if they do find someone strong enough to undo their work, it will be much worse if they do.

Or dominations. Your foes can kill their dominated friend, but not remove the control without the victim dying.

I see why for balance reasons you want to disallow the caster to dispel it themselves, but I have a harder time seeing why, in-universe, that won't work. Can my cohort dispel the target for me to trigger the spell? Can I use a wand of dispel to trigger it?

Phosphate
2012-04-09, 12:28 AM
but I have a harder time seeing why, in-universe, that won't work

I flavor that as "a single spellcaster's own energy can't interact chaotically with itself, as it is of the same nature".


Can my cohort dispel the target for me to trigger the spell?

Yes, but you have much, much bigger issues to think about if you allow Leadership than if you allow this.


Can I use a wand of dispel to trigger it?

Still no.

Analytica
2012-04-09, 06:49 AM
I flavor that as "a single spellcaster's own energy can't interact chaotically with itself, as it is of the same nature".


The thing is, in general you _can_ dispel your own spells, and it is even stated IIRC that it is easier (you automatically succees). Perhaps you could dispel this yourself, but if you did, it ends the effect without causing damage?

ericgrau
2012-04-09, 07:25 AM
Couldn't an ally trigger it? I'd say level 2-3 because it's unlikely that the enemy will ever trigger it and even if you do cheese it out with an ally that takes 2 actions and a lot of coordination. Since the damage is untyped I suppose it's level 3 but even that's iffy. If you somehow prevent coordination (I wouldn't know how) then it could be level 2.

Sure you could cast this and then tag the enemy with a debuff, but most foes can be killed in 2-3 rounds anyway. And dispelling only a single debuff is usually inefficient anyway b/c it's a 50:50 shot of wasting your turn. Normally you need to go after multiple debuffs; at least 2 to simply break even. So it's an unreliable combo with minimal returns that depends on the enemy doing something that he shouldn't usually be doing anyway.

Yitzi
2012-04-09, 09:16 AM
Couldn't an ally trigger it? I'd say level 2-3 because it's unlikely that the enemy will ever trigger it and even if you do cheese it out with an ally that takes 2 actions and a lot of coordination.

Untyped damage with no save or SR is pretty impressive; I'd say that 3 is too low.

Phosphate
2012-04-09, 12:29 PM
Untyped damage with no save or SR is pretty impressive; I'd say that 3 is too low.

I change it so it allows SR.

Anyway, how much should I increase the level if I wanted it to be a swift action?

Yitzi
2012-04-09, 12:35 PM
I change it so it allows SR.

That cuts it down substantially...I'd say now it's probably level 4 or 5 (untyped damage with no save is still pretty nice.) Allow Remove Curse to remove it safely with a successful level check, and I'd call it a solid 4.


Anyway, how much should I increase the level if I wanted it to be a swift action?

Probably by 4. Maybe 3.

Ashtagon
2012-04-09, 03:45 PM
I change it so it allows SR.

Anyway, how much should I increase the level if I wanted it to be a swift action?

The general pattern in Spell Compendium is that changing casting time to a swift action and reducing duration to one round will increase spell level by one. Since there is no duration change involved here, a two-level increase from what was previously agreed as balanced (3rd?) would be justified.

Yitzi
2012-04-09, 03:59 PM
The general pattern in Spell Compendium is that changing casting time to a swift action and reducing duration to one round will increase spell level by one. Since there is no duration change involved here, a two-level increase from what was previously agreed as balanced (3rd?) would be justified.

Increasing duration from 1 round to 1 hour/level is way more than 1 level's worth.

A better comparison would be to Quicken Spell, which changes casting time to a swift action and increases spell level by 4. Of course, metamagic is better in one way (you get two spells for the price of 1), and worse in other ways (it requires a feat, and it functions as a lower-level spell for things like saves and spell turning.)

Malachei
2012-04-09, 04:39 PM
I think this spell gets interesting when chained.

Also, untyped damage is an issue, always, especially if uncapped and no save allowed.

Yitzi
2012-04-10, 12:17 PM
Also, untyped damage is an issue, always

Not necessarily. It's strong, but I don't think Horrid Wilting is considered that unbalanced, and that's not only untyped, but multiple-target as well. (Of course, it is level 8.) I'd say remove 4 for this being only single-target, and the lack of a save is compensated for by the fact that it's a somewhat difficult setup and is close range.

zegram 33
2012-04-10, 02:03 PM
might be overcomplicated but what about allowing it to be dispelled as normal if it is the only effect on the target that would be effected by dispel, but if there are othere effects on them it interacts with those effects to cause the damage?
that way it only works as a trap, not as a weapon with dispelling, the level can thus be reduced for quickening, and it can be safely dispelled (provided you know the spell and how it works).
other than that, how about making it a metamagic feat? give it say a +3(?) level adjustment and your good to go without worrying about casting time increases?

Yitzi
2012-04-10, 04:10 PM
might be overcomplicated but what about allowing it to be dispelled as normal if it is the only effect on the target that would be effected by dispel, but if there are othere effects on them it interacts with those effects to cause the damage?

If there are no other effects on the target, then 2 spells for 1d6/level isn't that impressive anyway.

jiriku
2012-04-11, 10:39 PM
If I add a damage cap you think it would be lower level? Thing is, this is a spell that works best when quickened, and expending a level 9 slot is...not ideal.

Alternatively, I could make the spell level 7, and make it require a swift action anyway :D.

Anyway, how much should I increase the level if I wanted it to be a swift action?

With a reasonable damage cap (say 15 dice at CL 15th), I could see 4th level. Swift cast with no other limiters is probably worth +3 or +4 spell levels.

Malachei
2012-04-12, 01:11 PM
Not necessarily. It's strong, but I don't think Horrid Wilting is considered that unbalanced, and that's not only untyped, but multiple-target as well. (Of course, it is level 8.) I'd say remove 4 for this being only single-target, and the lack of a save is compensated for by the fact that it's a somewhat difficult setup and is close range.

I'd say this looks like a cherry-picking approach.

Yitzi
2012-04-15, 11:53 AM
I'd say this looks like a cherry-picking approach.

It is somewhat on-the-fly, but setting spell levels often is. I could see it being one level more or less depending on how no-save compares to difficult-setup, but single-target Horrid Wilting seems level 4 (as mass spells are usually +4 levels, and Horrid Wilting is 8), so this shouldn't be too far off. But I think that they pretty much cancel out, so you get 4 if it's a standard action, 8 if it's a swift action.

Of course, other arguments and standards of comparison might be better, so I'm happy to hear them.

Malachei
2012-04-16, 02:43 PM
It is somewhat on-the-fly, but setting spell levels often is. I could see it being one level more or less depending on how no-save compares to difficult-setup, but single-target Horrid Wilting seems level 4 (as mass spells are usually +4 levels, and Horrid Wilting is 8), so this shouldn't be too far off. But I think that they pretty much cancel out, so you get 4 if it's a standard action, 8 if it's a swift action.

Of course, other arguments and standards of comparison might be better, so I'm happy to hear them.

As I said, this approach seems somewhat cherry-picking to me.

Mainly because IMO, the only way to benchmark a spell is to compare it with strong and weak examples of the target spell level and then adjusting the target spell level until there is fit.

The rules of thumb (mass +4) are problematic, IMO. Other factors weigh heavy, such as untyped (very hard to defend against). A 4th-level single-target Horrid Wilting... Fortitude save, untyped CL d6 damage? Sign me up for this mage- and rogue-killer.

You're still proposing a no-save version? An enemy caster will have a very hard time surviving this.

Straybow
2012-04-17, 12:50 AM
3rd level spells typically cap at 10d6
5th level spells typically cap at 15d6
At least 6th level for no cap
Bump to 7th level for untyped damage
The expiration with no effect keeps the long duration from bumping it higher
No save should bump it up to 8th
The odd triggering mechanism keeps it at 7th
The fact that it can be triggered by an anti-magic field (making it essentially anti-anti-magic) could bump it up to 8th

Yitzi
2012-04-17, 08:36 AM
As I said, this approach seems somewhat cherry-picking to me.

Mainly because IMO, the only way to benchmark a spell is to compare it with strong and weak examples of the target spell level and then adjusting the target spell level until there is fit.

I prefer the "look at existing similar spells, and modify accordingly." approach


The rules of thumb (mass +4) are problematic, IMO. Other factors weigh heavy, such as untyped (very hard to defend against).

That's factored in by basic it off Horrid Wilting.


A 4th-level single-target Horrid Wilting... Fortitude save, untyped CL d6 damage? Sign me up for this mage- and rogue-killer.

With a good CON score, a mage or rogue can survive 1d6/level, if not easily. Keep in mind that it's only another level or two after that that you get death effects.


You're still proposing a no-save version? An enemy caster will have a very hard time surviving this.

With +2 CON, he should have enough hit points to survive it. Or he can simply avoid being dispelled until it wears off.


3rd level spells typically cap at 10d6
5th level spells typically cap at 15d6
At least 6th level for no cap
Bump to 7th level for untyped damage
The expiration with no effect keeps the long duration from bumping it higher
No save should bump it up to 8th
The odd triggering mechanism keeps it at 7th
The fact that it can be triggered by an anti-magic field (making it essentially anti-anti-magic) could bump it up to 8th

You forgot to remove a substantial amount for it being single-target damage (most higher-level spells are either multitarget or save-or-lose.)

DracoDei
2012-04-17, 10:50 AM
Haven't read all the comments, but after I read what you want the uses of this spell to be, I think I have a less kludgy feeling mechanic for it.

Have it hit the person doing the dispelling for an equal amount of damage to what the target takes, BUT that person (not the original target just the person doing the dispelling) is allowed a fortitude save for half damage.

Then remove the restrictions on dispelling it yourself, and keep it to the arcane casting lists (which their smaller HD and poor fortitude saves).

Malachei
2012-04-17, 11:26 AM
That's factored in by basic it off Horrid Wilting.

That's exactly the example why it doesn't work. 1d6 per level untyped on a multi-target spell with a save at level 8 is, IMO, not a good guidance to have a single-target 1d6 per level untyped no-save spell at level 4.

I hate to point this out, but it is exactly this procedure which leads to the problems we've been talking about.


With a good CON score, a mage or rogue can survive 1d6/level, if not easily. Keep in mind that it's only another level or two after that that you get death effects.

You can protect against death effects much easier than against untyped damage.


You forgot to remove a substantial amount for it being single-target damage (most higher-level spells are either multitarget or save-or-lose.)

If the objective is to kill one target (i.e. the enemy caster), then a single-target spell does the job as well as a multi-target spell. While multi-target spells have additional uses, IMO, you can't simply apply rule-of-thumb.

I think this spell is designed as a mage-killer, and as it offers no save and is untyped, it is very hard to defend against.

Which spell of 4th level do you want to compare this with? Preferably a direct-damage, single-target spell. Orbs might be a good comparison.

Let's take Orb of Fire as an example: 1d6, no-save (save against secondary effect), capped at 15, requires ranged touch. But fire is very easy to defend against and there are many resistances. Another, non-energy version would be Orb of Force. But this capped at 10 and has no secondary effect. Sonic damage is also hard to defend against. Orb of Sound has a secondary effect, but is 1d4 (capped at 15).

DracoDei
2012-04-17, 02:11 PM
Incidentally, if you go with my idea, I would recommend making this an exception to the ability removing the ability to auto-succeed in dispelling your own stuff.

Straybow
2012-04-17, 07:52 PM
"You forgot to remove a substantial amount for it being single-target damage (most higher-level spells are either multitarget or save-or-lose.)"

It is "no save, you lose" if triggered, since untyped energy can't be resisted or immuned, so to speak.

Oh, Malachei said that already...