PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Lightning Surge (Spell): What level should this be?



Spectre9000
2017-01-23, 09:45 PM
Looking to create a thematic spell for my Wizard, and would really like the below. I was curious what everyone thought about what level this spell should be, and anything else in general about it.


Lightning Surge
?th-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (30 foot radius)
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

You strike the ground, causing lightning to erupt from you
arcing outward. Each creature you choose within 30 feet of
you must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take
8d8 Lightning damage and become paralyzed for 3 rounds.

A creature paralyzed by this spell makes another
Constitution saving throw at the end of each of its turns.
On a successful save, it is no longer paralyzed.

Additionally, creatures immune to lightning cannot
become paralyzed by this spell.

YouCanTry
2017-01-24, 01:07 AM
Looking to create a thematic spell for my Wizard, and would really like the below. I was curious what everyone thought about what level this spell should be, and anything else in general about it.


Lightning Surge
?th-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (30 foot radius)
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

You strike the ground, causing lightning to erupt from you arcing outward. Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 8d8 Lightning damage and become paralyzed for 1d4 rounds. A creature that succeeds on its saving throw takes half as much damage and doesn't become paralyzed. Additionally, creatures that are immune to lightning can't become paralyzed by this spell.

I would say 6th level IF you consider a few changes:
Considering the number of targets: Limiting it to a certain number of targets within the spells range (i.e. choose up to X targets within range and each target must be XX ft away from the first target) -OR- make it all targets [The first option limits the amount of damage you can deal to a group of enemies and is not as unlimited as how it is currently; however, the second option deals damage to everyone within range of the spells damage radius (if you choose this option I would suggest changing the range from "self" to XX ft and the spell would activate around whatever point you choose within range (to prevent taking damage yourself as the spell's caster if possible) i.e. You have two ranges. One range (the spell's overall range) is to determine where you can put the center of the second radius (The part that will actually be doing damage). Refer to spells like "Sunburst"]

Considering Paralysis: Add in something like "on a failed save the target may make another Con save at the start/end of each of his or her turns and if successful, paralysis is lifted" (At least change the amount of turns to a set amount i.e. 1 turn, 2 turns etc.) [Paralysis is a extremely (in my opinion) crippling effect, especially lasting possibly 4 turns without a save, and is one of the main reasons I would probably push this up to lvl 7 (probably even 8) if something is not changed to make it less formidable. Paralysis is the my main issue with the spell, and is what I think will make the biggest difference as far as slot level.]
Of course these are only suggestions, and I can not be certain that they will be to your liking. I am only trying to suggest some features that could make the spell less powerful, but able to utilize a lower spell slot. If you wish to keep everything as it is, I would suggest posting this spell at level 8. If play testing shows it to be less of a threat then I anticipated then I would bump it down to level 7. However, I feel as though paralysis to an unlimited number of people that you get to choose within 30ft of you will be a particularly powerful spell (with the added damage of course).

I would definitely add Somatic components (hand motions) and would suggest Material components (Whatever material you feel appropriate ... Not necessarily anything being consumed by the spell but just the material itself) for the spell as well.

Spectre9000
2017-01-24, 07:30 AM
I would say 6th level IF you consider a few changes:
Considering the number of targets: Limiting it to a certain number of targets within the spells range (i.e. choose up to X targets within range and each target must be XX ft away from the first target) -OR- make it all targets [The first option limits the amount of damage you can deal to a group of enemies and is not as unlimited as how it is currently; however, the second option deals damage to everyone within range of the spells damage radius (if you choose this option I would suggest changing the range from "self" to XX ft and the spell would activate around whatever point you choose within range (to prevent taking damage yourself as the spell's caster if possible) i.e. You have two ranges. One range (the spell's overall range) is to determine where you can put the center of the second radius (The part that will actually be doing damage). Refer to spells like "Sunburst"]

Considering Paralysis: Add in something like "on a failed save the target may make another Con save at the start/end of each of his or her turns and if successful, paralysis is lifted" (At least change the amount of turns to a set amount i.e. 1 turn, 2 turns etc.) [Paralysis is a extremely (in my opinion) crippling effect, especially lasting possibly 4 turns without a save, and is one of the main reasons I would probably push this up to lvl 7 (probably even 8) if something is not changed to make it less formidable. Paralysis is the my main issue with the spell, and is what I think will make the biggest difference as far as slot level.]
Of course these are only suggestions, and I can not be certain that they will be to your liking. I am only trying to suggest some features that could make the spell less powerful, but able to utilize a lower spell slot. If you wish to keep everything as it is, I would suggest posting this spell at level 8. If play testing shows it to be less of a threat then I anticipated then I would bump it down to level 7. However, I feel as though paralysis to an unlimited number of people that you get to choose within 30ft of you will be a particularly powerful spell (with the added damage of course).

I would definitely add Somatic components (hand motions) and would suggest Material components (Whatever material you feel appropriate ... Not necessarily anything being consumed by the spell but just the material itself) for the spell as well.

I appreciate the suggestions. I think I want to keep the targeting the same, and I'm fine with bumping up the level to compensate for that. I will add in saves at the end of the targets turns, and make it a set 3 turns.

As to adding S and M components, I based this off Destructive Wave, which had only V. I initially thought I'd add a M(Weapon) component to simulate you strike the earth with your weapon, but decided I'd leave it open ended as to how you strike the ground like Destructive Wave does. Also, I'd imagine the act of striking the ground would be a S component, but again, Destructive Wave doesn't have it. So, I'm not really sure what I want to do with regards to adding S and M. Destructive Wave doesn't have them, which is why I've chosen to leave them off so far.

Spectre9000
2017-01-24, 08:27 AM
Another thought I just had is to add in a secondary aspect to this. As part of the casting and choosing targets of this spell, add a concentration saving throw, that on failing causes 1d4 of your allies to also be hit by this spell. What would you think of this?

SilverStud
2017-01-24, 10:55 AM
In answer to your last question, I'd say that in general less rolls is better rolls.

Also, I'd say that it should be 7th level, not 8th. The damage is pretty low for those levels anyway(the only reason I say 7 is because 3 rounds of paralyze is nasty), but the real reason I say not to go 8 is because of that range.

30 feet! Sure you can pick and choose your targets, but that still means that your artillery has to get disturbingly close to the front line. Any arguments people make about it being able to hit X very large number of creatures are somewhat shaky at best, since a lot of spells can break the game in a white room where the DM lets it all just happen. If you find yourself in a situation where you can hit the optimal number of enemies, then either the DM is trying to kill you (in which case you deserve this spell), or you were incredibly stupid and poked the bear and the beehive.

On a different note, and I know you said you're keeping the choose-your-targets thing, but it just seems weird that you can choose your targets. It kinda takes the wind out of the Evocation wizard's sails, you know? They get that awesome ability to exclude zones of their spells so they can do things like cast fireball with reckless abandon! But here is an Evocation spell that literally any school of wizard can use with ultimate precision.

YouCanTry
2017-01-24, 11:05 AM
Another thought I just had is to add in a secondary aspect to this. As part of the casting and choosing targets of this spell, add a concentration saving throw, that on failing causes 1d4 of your allies to also be hit by this spell. What would you think of this?
This goes back to my suggestion upon changing the number of targets and possibly changing the range. If you do as you have suggested and add in a possibility that your allies are affected by the spell, how would they be targeted? (Would it be the closest ally/allies to you?) If you have to target (lets say you roll a 2 on your d4 roll) 2 allies, what if the only ally within range of the spell (assuming it is still being centered around you) is you? How would that work? Would the affect go to the closest ally even if they are not in the spells range? (Just some questions to think about)

If you want to add a hampering ability to yourself and allies within range I would suggest something more along the lines of this: "Upon casting this spell, the caster must first make a DC XX Constitution (Or whatever you feel is most appropriate i.e. dex, str, int, etc.) Saving Throw. On a Successful save the caster may choose XX (if you want to limit it, or you could just make this unlimited, your choice) individuals within the range of the spell to be affected by the spell. Else, on a failed save all individuals, including the caster, within the spells range are affected." (loosely worded but you can change it up a much or little as you see fit/ or don't use it at all)

YouCanTry
2017-01-24, 11:18 AM
In answer to your last question, I'd say that in general less rolls is better rolls.

Also, I'd say that it should be 7th level, not 8th. The damage is pretty low for those levels anyway(the only reason I say 7 is because 3 rounds of paralyze is nasty), but the real reason I say not to go 8 is because of that range.

30 feet! Sure you can pick and choose your targets, but that still means that your artillery has to get disturbingly close to the front line. Any arguments people make about it being able to hit X very large number of creatures are somewhat shaky at best, since a lot of spells can break the game in a white room where the DM lets it all just happen. If you find yourself in a situation where you can hit the optimal number of enemies, then either the DM is trying to kill you (in which case you deserve this spell), or you were incredibly stupid and poked the bear and the beehive.

On a different note, and I know you said you're keeping the choose-your-targets thing, but it just seems weird that you can choose your targets. It kinda takes the wind out of the Evocation wizard's sails, you know? They get that awesome ability to exclude zones of their spells so they can do things like cast fireball with reckless abandon! But here is an Evocation spell that literally any school of wizard can use with ultimate precision.
Less rolls are almost always better. (in my experience)

I agree with the lvl 7 change based on range. Its a good point, if the range was 60+ feet it would be much more effective and could encapsulate more enemies :smallsmile: (but also more allies :smallfrown:)

Flashy
2017-01-24, 11:26 AM
if the range was 60+ feet it would be much more effective and could encapsulate more enemies :smallsmile: (but also more allies :smallfrown:)

Friendly fire isn't a risk since it only targets creatures you choose.

Regardless 7th seems about right with the added saving throws.

Arkhios
2017-01-25, 07:04 AM
So, a successful initial saving throw negates both the damage and paralysis?

Judging from the damage alone, looking at the DMG guidelines, I'd say this falls squarely in between 5th and 6th level, but with the paralysis I'd personally bump it at least to 6th level. 7th level might be more appropriate considering the length and rider effects of being paralyzed.