Damage Substitution

[BootStrapTommy]

5e, to my knowledge, lacks damage substitution. But as per versions before it, it provides guidelines for new Spell creation. So if someone wished to capitalize on a relatively uncommon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) damage type, would restating existing spells with a different damage type as a new spell be balanced (think a fireball that does radiant damage or an ice dagger which does force damage)? A legit option?

[Strill]

Some damage types are better than others. Poison is the worst, followed by Fire. Radiant and Force are the best. Force especially because it can damage Ethereal creatures. I would adjust the damage a bit if you gave it an especially good damage type.

Otherwise, yes. It's fine to create new spells that have the same effect as an existing spell, but with a different damage type.

[JellyPooga]

Some damage types are better than others. Poison is the worst, followed by Fire. Radiant and Force are the best. Force especially because it can damage Ethereal creatures. I would adjust the damage a bit if you gave it an especially good damage type.

Otherwise, yes. It's fine to create new spells that have the same effect as an existing spell, but with a different damage type.

Pretty much this. As a GM, I'd be wary of a player that came to me with a "cool idea" for a spell like Fireball, except it does Force damage. I might suggest it uses less dice or a lower die type, perhaps also suggesting a knockback effect in recompense for lower damage if the reduction in damage seems a little too much but without another middle ground.

I like to encourage players to think outside the box and create new spells or options for their characters. The trick is just to keep a wary eye out for abuse of such leniency.

As a rule, elemental damages (Fire, Cold, Acid and Lightning) are pretty interchangeable. Poison is resisted by many things and should have an appropriate delivery mechanism (inhaled, ingested, etc.), so can be bumped up a bit. Radiant, Necrotic, Force and Thunder all have interesting utility and/or drawbacks, so on the whole should be judged carefully; be over-cautious if necessary.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this. If a caster cares that much about things resisting their Fireballs, they should get the Elemental Adept feat.

Expanding the spell list with a dozen Fireball clones (or whatever) is boring and wasteful. Creating new spells with interesting and unique effects is fine, but duplicating existing ones seems like a poor choice to me.

[Strill]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this. If a caster cares that much about things resisting their Fireballs, they should get the Elemental Adept feat.

Expanding the spell list with a dozen Fireball clones (or whatever) is boring and wasteful. Creating new spells with interesting and unique effects is fine, but duplicating existing ones seems like a poor choice to me.

Generally when players in my group ask for substitutions, it's so their spells can fit their character's aesthetic and theme, not so they can collect five versions of the same spell to bypass resistances.

For example, my game has a Sorcerer with a homebrew adaptation of pathfinder's Starsoul Bloodline (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/starsoul-bloodline). We allowed him to have a weaker version of fireball that instead of shooting a ball of fire, opens up a rift into space, dealing cold damage and pulling creatures 5ft towards the center.

But even if it didn't have the pull effect, I'd still be fine with a player taking a differently-typed version of Fireball, if they wanted. There's an especially strong case to be made for the rarer damage types, like acid. If you're a Copper Dragon sorcerer, you're just screwed because there's barely any acid spells, and most of the ones that do exist just plain suck. I'd be perfectly fine letting them take acid-based versions of other spells.

[mephnick]

Generally when players in my group ask for substitutions, it's so their spells can fit their character's aesthetic and theme, not so they can collect five versions of the same spell to bypass resistances.

Basically. My players are allowed to make their spells match their characters. (All magic is drawn from the different planes in my setting, kind of like Malazan)

So if a sorcerer want his connection to be to the Plane of Water, his scorching rays are now freezing rays. I have evil wizard NPCs with necrotic fireballs, etc.

It hasn't changed anything enough for me to care about balance.

[BootStrapTommy]

Generally when players in my group ask for substitutions, it's so their spells can fit their character's aesthetic and theme, not so they can collect five versions of the same spell to bypass resistances. Really where I was going with this.

Full disclosure: Favored Soul of the God of Thunder... and Rock n' Roll!

But Thunder has a pretty bum selection of spells, especially early game (serious why no Thunder cantrip?). So I was testing the waters of how the idea of damage substituting with new spells would go over.


Personally, I'm not a big fan of this. If a caster cares that much about things resisting their Fireballs, they should get the Elemental Adept feat.

Expanding the spell list with a dozen Fireball clones (or whatever) is boring and wasteful. Creating new spells with interesting and unique effects is fine, but duplicating existing ones seems like a poor choice to me. But I want a Dex save or 8d6 area effect Thunder Spell at 3rd!

And I don't want to sit through the DM and my fellow players' discussion of if some Thunder spell I dream up is balance at Xth level...

[Mjolnirbear]

Substitution:
Gain +1 to Int, Wis or Cha.
Special: you may choose this feat only once.
Choose a damage type when you get this feat: Fire, Cold, thunder, Acid, Lightning, Psychic, Poison, Radiant, or Necrotic.

When you cast a spell that has one of these damage types, you may instead choose to have it deal the chosen damage type.

Variant/alternative:
The substitute energy type has the following effects on your spell, as seen below. Spells that do not do damage are not eligible for substitution.
Cold: creatures that fail their save move at half their speed until the end of their next turn.
Fire: any flammable objects in the spell's area begin to burn.
Lightning: creatures who fail a save against this spell lose their reaction until the beginning of their next turn.
Poison: Creatures who fail a save against this spell take an additional die of damage at the beginning of their next turn.
Thunder: creatures that fail their save are knocked prone until their next turn. This spell makes a loud noise than can be heard for 300 ft in an open area.
Radiant: Undead creatures have disadvantage on their save against this spell.
Necrotic: when living creatures are struck with this spell, you gain temporary hitpoints equal to the spell level plus your Int, Wis, or Cha bonus (whichever is your casting stat)
Acid: objects in this spell's area that are not worn or held take double damage. Magic items gain a save against this damage.
Psychic: the damage die or dice are reduced to the next lower die. Creatures that fail their save gain disadvantage on Mental saves until the end of their next turn.


Note: i deliberately did not include Force damage. I did not change the damage in most cases because the player would have spent a feat on this, and they can only take it once. Psychic and Thunder have the potential to be quite powerful which is why i attached the riders that i did (which may or may not be sufficient to balance this)

[BootStrapTommy]

Pyschic, yes. But Radiant way outclasses Thunder. It's nearly as broken as Force and you buff it!

[Mjolnirbear]

A) i said it may not be balanced. It's throwing an idea out there, not writing the commandments
B) buffing it? It depends on how many undead you see in your campaigns. In my mind it's like Turn Undead, nice to have when it's useful but otherwise of no value.
C) what would be your suggestion?

[Mjolnirbear]

Also, you've spent a feat that could have been anything else such as Warcaster or Resilient (Con). For a change that is useful when: your spell is targeting something that resists the original damage type and/or is an undead. That can only be taken once. That is why i did not change the damage.

Perhaps each use of the feat requires your reaction while casting the spell?

[FightStyles]

Thunder: creatures that fail their CON save are Deafeneduntil their next turn. This spell makes a loud noise than can be heard for 100 ft in an open area.


I bolded what I would change to Thunder. I believe the deafened condition << prone condition so I reduced how far it could be heard.



Fire: any flammable objects in the spell's area begin to burn.


I don't think anyone would take this feat for fire. So I would recommend

Fire: anything hit with this spell must make a DEX save or a small flame remains on them causing no additional damage but a 10 ft radius around the creature becomes dim light in dark or bright light in dim light.

[Mjolnirbear]

I figured since most damage spells are Fire, taking the feat for Fire would be a trap choice. By making the bonus essentially meaningless i hoped to make that obvious.

Though i suppose for thematic reasons someone might want a fire Magic Missile of Fire Thunderclap.

Thanks for the input :)

[Mjolnirbear]

For Thunder substitution: i had originally had deafened. But since most of my side effects are based on available cantrips or spells, i thought to base it on Thunderwave.

Upon reflection i didn't do this with necrotic (chill touch), radiant (sacred flame) or acid (acid splash) and only loosely with psychic, so there's no major need to stick so closely to existing examples. And your version prevents shenanigans with Silence.

[BootStrapTommy]

I'd rather just permasub thunder damage into a fireball that have to work with some complex feat for damage substitution...

Just wanted to gauge how many DMs would buy the argument...

[Drackolus]

Watch sorcerers. Their whole limitation is poor spell selection. I disagree with that, but that's intentional. Especially draconic sorcerers. They're not supposed to have a spell for each slot of their element. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the intent.

[Starsinger]

5e, to my knowledge, lacks damage substitution. But as per versions before it, it provides guidelines for new Spell creation. So if someone wished to capitalize on a relatively uncommon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) damage type, would restating existing spells with a different damage type as a new spell be balanced (think a fireball that does radiant damage or an ice dagger which does force damage)? A legit option?

Honestly, I would allow it. Especially if it's for a thematic reason, "I want to play a Psion but don't like the Mystic class." or "I'm a White Dragon Sorcerer and there aren't a lot of Cold spells", because honestly, nothing stops me as a DM from also tweaking the resistances an enemy has. So, "Well fire is a common resist so it's okay to have a lot of fire damage spells" is a crappy argument. I can make cold just as common resistance wise as fire if I choose.

[BootStrapTommy]

Haha, yeah. Technically force resistance is just a brooch of shielding away. Adjusting enemies resistances and immunities is not unreasonable. A player who assumes monster come straight out of Monster Manual is metagaming anyway...