Question about a 3rd party spell

[Melcar]

Hi guys... I seem to have found a real undead killer spell, that almost seem to good to be true. I need some of the keen eys of tis place to deduct whether or not this spell works as written, or if the spell is breaking some of the rules within official D&D 3.X.

The spell in question is:

Disruption Wave
Evocation [Positive Energy]
Level: Clr 7, Sor/Wiz 7
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: Cone
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Spell Resistance: Yes
Disruption wave creates a cone of positive energy that originates from the caster’s hands and extends outward toward his opponents. The disruption wave harms only undead creatures as it fills them with positive energy, disrupting the negative energy that fuels them. An undead creature struck by the disruption wave must make a successful Fortitude save or be destroyed. If the save is successful, a disruption wave still deals 1d8 points of damage per level (maximum 15d8) to the undead creature struck.
Material Component: A small glass marble.

At first this spells seems really good, but I'm fearin that is actually does not affect undead at all in its current form.

[rockdeworld]

An undead creature struck by the disruption wave must make a successful Fortitude save or be destroyed.
Undead are immune to effects requiring fortitude saves, so this part doesn't work. Since the subsequent damage is only dealt on a successful save, and undead don't make a save, that doesn't work either.

In short, like you suspect, this spell doesn't do anything to undead.

Edit: Even if it did, a fortitude save and capped 15d8 damage on success isn't anywhere near what I'd call broken for a 7th level spell.

And I notice the spell has the notorious 'one action' casting time, without specifying what type of action.

[ngilop]

I know undead are immune to fort saves, but Im pretty sure specific trumps general, and this spels specifically states it harms only undead.

But I could be wrong about specific trumping general.

AS to whether it is too powerful or not. really 13d8 on a failed save is not that much, considering that by the time you doing this spell undead be having a lot of HP.


Now facot in that in all homestly this spell only and will only ever affect a very specific target (undead) so it is in my opinion weak for a 7th level spell.


the only things I would do would be to drop it to a 6th level spell and make the save be a ref, as I mean its a cone, a fort don't really make sense. After all the spell is basically disrupt undead in big cone form.

[Melcar]

Ok... yeah specific could be trumping general. And I'm pretty sure that RAI this spell was supposed to harm undead. If one were to add (harmless) at the end of the save line and changed 1 action to 1 standard action, would that not fix the "legal" aspect of the spell?

In terms of its power, would it be poserful that if an atropal failed it save it would be destroyed? I mean this spell has no HD limit to what it can destroy. So a HD 1000 undead beast could fail and be destroyed so could Szass Tam or Larloch(theoretically) and Aumvor... That to me seems pretty powerful... but there might be something I have yet to spot in the spell that makes that impossible.

[Necroticplague]

Ok... yeah specific could be trumping general. And I'm pretty sure that RAI this spell was supposed to harm undead. If one were to add (harmless) at the end of the save line and changed 1 action to 1 standard action, would that not fix the "legal" aspect of the spell?

In terms of its power, would it be poserful that if an atropal failed it save it would be destroyed? I mean this spell has no HD limit to what it can destroy. So a HD 1000 undead beast could fail and be destroyed so could Szass Tam or Larloch(theoretically) and Aumvor... That to me seems pretty powerful... but there might be something I have yet to spot in the spell that makes that impossible.

Well, there is the fact that the Except for the fact saves scale with HD, so those 100HD (minimum +33 to save) undead would have no problem passing the save, and an atropal would need a natural 1 to fail unless your INT is more than 22. And it requires you getting within charging distance of creatures known for having nasty rider effects on hit.

[rockdeworld]

I know undead are immune to fort saves, but Im pretty sure specific trumps general, and this spels specifically states it harms only undead.
This isn't an example of specific trumps general. The spell states that it harms only undead. That means only that it doesn't harm non-undead. Nowhere in the text does it override the undead immunity to effects requiring fort saves.

Yes, adding (harmless) would make it affect undead. It would be an abuse of the (harmless) tag though.

[NNescio]

This isn't an example of specific trumps general. The spell states that it harms only undead. That means only that it doesn't harm non-undead. Nowhere in the text does it override the undead immunity to effects requiring fort saves.

Yes, adding (harmless) would make it affect undead. It would be an abuse of the (harmless) tag though.

Or an (object) tag. Add another paragraph to the spell to insert an effect the spell has on objects (damage or destruction to objects with evil/necromantic magic auras) to semijustify the tag. There, done.

[Jeff the Green]

This isn't an example of specific trumps general. The spell states that it harms only undead. That means only that it doesn't harm non-undead. Nowhere in the text does it override the undead immunity to effects requiring fort saves.

:smallconfused:


An undead creature struck by the disruption wave must make a successful Fortitude save or be destroyed.

That pretty clearly overrides the normal immunity.

[j_spencer93]

Actually agree that this is specific overriding general.

[Melcar]

Thanks for the replies...

What I have gathered so far is that even though the spell, does not adhere to the standard rule of undead being immune to fortitude saves, this spell does infact affect undead. I have also gathered, that the spell might be "legal" if I add either (object) or (harmless) at the end of the saving throw line.

What I'm asking now is whether or not you guys would allow the spell? (not withstanding that this is 3rd party and therefore off the table by in and of itself)

[Psyren]

Cones should have a fixed range (e.g. 15ft, 30ft, 60ft), not "close."

[georgie_leech]

Cones should have a fixed range (e.g. 15ft, 30ft, 60ft), not "close."

Is there anything that says that must be the case? It would interact weirdly with things like Enlarge Spell, but I don't think it's inherently bad for an AoE to get slightly larger as you level. Provided you can figure out what a 55 foot cone is supposed to look like :smallconfused:

[ZamielVanWeber]

Cones should have a fixed range (e.g. 15ft, 30ft, 60ft), not "close."

The mental image of the casters arms extending out to cast the spell is priceless though. Issues aside the power level is not too strong; it is limited in scope and undead at CR 13 have a lot of HD to make that save (and the damage is pretty weak after). It is a mook clearing spell and delayed blast fireball is more generically useful for that.

[Psyren]

Is there anything that says that must be the case? It would interact weirdly with things like Enlarge Spell, but I don't think it's inherently bad for an AoE to get slightly larger as you level. Provided you can figure out what a 55 foot cone is supposed to look like :smallconfused:

"Must?" No, it's a third-party/homebrew spell, so it can pretty much do anything. But my rule of thumb for third-party or homebrew is that if it deviates from established design conventions, there needs to be a good reason why, and I'm not seeing one here. Every first-party cone has a fixed area and I see no reason to deviate from that for this one.

Meanwhile the reasons not to do so are obvious - you won't have a ready template for an oddly-shaped cone and figuring out who gets hit and who not can slow down the game for no real benefit. Also, even the smallest available range (close) results in a pretty big cone - most other spells consider a 30ft. cone to be equivalent to a 60ft. line.

[georgie_leech]

"Must?" No, it's a third-party/homebrew spell, so it can pretty much do anything. But my rule of thumb for third-party or homebrew is that if it deviates from established design conventions, there needs to be a good reason why, and I'm not seeing one here. Every first-party cone has a fixed area and I see no reason to deviate from that for this one.

Meanwhile the reasons not to do so are obvious - you won't have a ready template for an oddly-shaped cone and figuring out who gets hit and who not can slow down the game for no real benefit. Also, even the smallest available range (close) results in a pretty big cone - most other spells consider a 30ft. cone to be equivalent to a 60ft. line.

Agreed on all points, I was just wondering if there was a rule I'd missed rather than it just being a convention.

[j_spencer93]

I would allow it. IT isnt to strong, doesnt really do anything to weird or different (the range is a little weird). Basically it really wont change much but you added a decently interesting spell to the game. My player's would love it as they are always asking why it seems positive energy doesn't get supported.

[Melcar]

Thanks for your replies.

Im liking the spell myself, so I will try to bring it to the table as a player. My wizard would very much like to have this agains all the nasty liches out there.

[holywhippet]

Personally I wouldn't allow the spell as is for a couple of reasons. The first being, it only harms undead. Unless you have undead allies in battle you have a spell that has no danger of friendly fire. The second problem is that it does 1d8 damage per level if a save is successful. Most AoE direct damage spells only do 1d8 damage per level. The only limiting factor is that you can't use it on non-undead but that is unlikely to be a problem if you have a good idea what you will be facing in advance.

[jedipotter]

I would tweak it too:

Disruption Wave
Necromancy [Positive Energy]
Level: Clr 6, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Area: Cone shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
Disruption wave creates a wave of positive energy that originates from the caster’s hands and extends outward toward his opponents. You must roll a ranged attack roll for each effected undead creature in the wave. An undead creature struck by the disruption wave deals 1d8 points of damage per level (maximum 15d8) to the undead creature struck.
Material Component: A small glass cone.

Basically, I made it Advanced Disrupt Undead.

I dropped the save or die right away. And got rid of the save. And made it necromancy. And dropped it two levels...

[georgie_leech]

It strikes me as odd to have a continuous AoE that requires an attack roll rather than a saving throw. It's also odd that Clerics, traditionally the class that is both effective against Undead and works with Positive Energy gets delayed access to it.

EDIT: Incidentally, the base spell becomes quite a bit less dysfunctional if you change it to a Will Saving Throw instead of Fortitude, like most of the Positive/Negative Energy spells have.

[jedipotter]

It strikes me as odd to have a continuous AoE that requires an attack roll rather than a saving throw. It's also odd that Clerics, traditionally the class that is both effective against Undead and works with Positive Energy gets delayed access to it.



Mine is just Disrupt Undead, at a higher level. So no clerics, no save.

And how do you get it's continuous? It's a ''wave''...

[georgie_leech]

Mine is just Disrupt Undead, at a higher level. So no clerics, no save.

And how do you get it's continuous? It's a ''wave''...

As in, rather than a discrete burst of energy that requires a ranged touch attack roll to aim, you have a wave of energy. It's pretty hard to miss something in front of you when you hit everything in front of you. Contrast Scorching Ray with Cone of Cold: Scorching Ray fires what amounts to Flame lasers, so gets a ranged touch attack roll; Cone of cold affects an entire area, so gets a saving throw.

[Melcar]

I would tweak it too:

Disruption Wave
Necromancy [Positive Energy]
Level: Clr 6, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Area: Cone shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
Disruption wave creates a wave of positive energy that originates from the caster’s hands and extends outward toward his opponents. You must roll a ranged attack roll for each effected undead creature in the wave. An undead creature struck by the disruption wave deals 1d8 points of damage per level (maximum 15d8) to the undead creature struck.
Material Component: A small glass cone.

Basically, I made it Advanced Disrupt Undead.

I dropped the save or die right away. And got rid of the save. And made it necromancy. And dropped it two levels...

I think you have done a decent job on this one, but the most important thing was the fortitude save or die effect. Especially after they nerfed my favorite spell Undeath to Death. And since this one (the original I posted) is fortitude and has no HD limit, it becomes in my eyes so good.

[Psyren]

Personally I wouldn't allow the spell as is for a couple of reasons. The first being, it only harms undead. Unless you have undead allies in battle you have a spell that has no danger of friendly fire. The second problem is that it does 1d8 damage per level if a save is successful. Most AoE direct damage spells only do 1d8 damage per level. The only limiting factor is that you can't use it on non-undead but that is unlikely to be a problem if you have a good idea what you will be facing in advance.

There are other spells without friendly fire or that target a single characteristic. Bane for example only affects enemies, and spells like Consecrate and Undeath to Death only affect undead too. If your allies are good-aligned then Holy Word will not harm them either. And finally, Hallow can make lots of other things unilateral.

[Melcar]

There are other spells without friendly fire or that target a single characteristic. Bane for example only affects enemies, and spells like Consecrate and Undeath to Death only affect undead too. If your allies are good-aligned then Holy Word will not harm them either. And finally, Hallow can make lots of other things unilateral.

Indeed... Friendly fire can also be done with be Mastery of Shaping archmage ability of a meta-magic feat. This I would not at all deem too powerful myself, but I appreciate your all coments here.

[theUnearther]

Do note: "1 action" almost certainly means "One standard action". Apparently they used to skip the "standard" bit back in 3.0.

Also, am I the only one that finds it odd to have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor? Is there anything else with that? It's not in the list of descriptors in the SRD. Doesn't really matter, I guess, but it does make the spell sort of weird.

[jedipotter]

I think you have done a decent job on this one, but the most important thing was the fortitude save or die effect. Especially after they nerfed my favorite spell Undeath to Death. And since this one (the original I posted) is fortitude and has no HD limit, it becomes in my eyes so good.

Well, and instant death with ''no save'' or HD limit and effecting multiple targets.....is a bit much. You should not be able to take out five lich kings with a single spell.

Compare to Disintegrate.


Also, am I the only one that finds it odd to have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor? Is there anything else with that? It's not in the list of descriptors in the SRD. Doesn't really matter, I guess, but it does make the spell sort of weird.

Oh, that is a bit of Homebrew. I have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor in my game.

[theUnearther]

Oh, that is a bit of Homebrew. I have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor in my game.
Wait, are you saying the spell is yours? Because if so your opinion on the people's opinions and editions would potentially be important.

I had simply assumed it was just old and/or third party, mostly on account of the "1 action" thing, but on second thought the first post doesn't say either way.

And I agree, positive (and negative) energy should have more/better rules support.
You might want to put an hyphen there though, descriptors are one word. They're also a comma-separated list, so again, it hardly matters, it's just odd.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Also, am I the only one that finds it odd to have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor? Is there anything else with that? It's not in the list of descriptors in the SRD. Doesn't really matter, I guess, but it does make the spell sort of weird.

Nope. I was rereading the spell and noticed the descriptor and it occurred to me I had never seen it before. Given the quality of the spell as written a unique descriptor is not surprising.

[Melcar]

Well, and instant death with ''no save'' or HD limit and effecting multiple targets.....is a bit much. You should not be able to take out five lich kings with a single spell.

Compare to Disintegrate.



Oh, that is a bit of Homebrew. I have [Positive Energy] as a descriptor in my game.

Firstly I found and find this spell to be pretty powerful, albeit only against a very narrow segment of evilness. I do also agree that the spell is strangly formattet, and not sticking to the strict D&D 3.5 makup of a spell.

It comes from Legends and Lairs - Spells and Spellcraft. If you like 3rd party for the flawer that it might provide, and have become tired of the same old spells, I actually think that it provides some cool stuff, albeit strangely formatted.

[jedipotter]

Wait, are you saying the spell is yours? Because if so your opinion on the people's opinions and editions would potentially be important.

It's my modification of a spell. See post #1

[theUnearther]

It's my modification of a spell. See post #1
Ah, so it is. Your post I quoted implied "[Positive Energy]" had been your choice, though, so I didn't even check who exactly had posted a modification. Apologies.

[Max Caysey]

It's my modification of a spell. See post #1

Are you saying that the spell, which comes from Legends and Lairs, is your make? Im not getting what your are trying to say? Sorry.

[jedipotter]

I took the oddly written spell, made by someone else, and re-wrote it my way.

[Banjoman42]

I find it odd that it is a evocation spell. It makes sense in my eyes, but it doesn't follow the typical conventions for 3.5. Seeing as how I frequently ban necromancy for specialization, this spell would be extremely useful for taking out undead. I wouldn't hesitate to prepare it, but I don't think it is too good for its level.