Talk:Spew Acid (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	A reasonable alternative to burning hands.

	Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	As a remake of burning hands, this seems to have damage that scales at a similar rate as other High-balance characters. Numerically, I approve.

Comments

Increasing the damage by 1d6 at first level and the damage cap accordingly... You're trying to make spellcasters' damage dealing abilities actually viable at low level, are you? -HarrowedMind (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know if I went far enough. It's still less good than a greatsword hit at level 1, dealing damage of about 16 Str w/ longsword on average instead (on a failed save). Which is still mostly dead or hurting a bit on a save, and thus probably ok, but I'm still kicking around other ways for it to work that I might like better. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is really: "how good is a 15 foot cone as opposed to an extra 30-40 feet of charge distance?" --Foxwarrior (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find an answer to that question that I am happy with, so I'll just do something somewhat different instead. Bigger damage that doesn't scale and an AoE that does instead and see how that gets received. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

4d6 at level 1. Ew. No. I don't mind having larger-than-normal damage if that's the gimmick, but this is a save or die at low levels. Low levels are too squishy for more than 2 dice! -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It shifted up to VH in the process, and is now competing with other save or loses as sleep, color spray, etc. But it might be too much, given that those are save negates spells. I'll kick it around a bit more, along with some scaling concerns I still have. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO scale the damage, but to your credit I find the idea of a growing area novel. The fact its a cone seems excessive (and 30ft start is a big much) but I do like that part. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would probably have answered my question with "30 feet is probably enough to reliably hit two or more targets and is the same boost to range as a charge, so it's probably worth dealing less damage". 4d6 is equivalent to a greatsword and 20 Strength, so it's not beyond the normal level 1 damage values, but if you want the range to be the thing that scales, it should probably be more like 5' + 5'/level with that damage value. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is "very high" balance level should be better than average at all levels, not stupidly good at level one, good at level 2, average at level 3-4, below average at level 5-6, and useless thereafter.Fluffykittens (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that Fluffy, and am an admitted supporter of spell obsolescence (it's not a popular stance here, but whatever). Color spray and sleep have similar problems, and they are both prime examples of L1 VH. If you're level 7 and falling back on level 1 spells, it had better be for utility stuff, because it's an easy fight and you want to conserve resources, or because you're desperate IMO.

That said, I'm not happy with the range scaling, so back to damage scaling we go. And I'm not happy with the range of damage values, so reduced damage to start is in. And I guess we'll see how I feel about this version in a few more days. I think I hate level 1 spells. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, Tarkis, that 1st level attack spells become obsolete very quickly (sleep is useless after level four, burning hands is horriawful from the get-go), whereas 1st level buff spells either continue to be useful (a bonus to saving throws via conviction is useful at all levels, and so is a deflection bonus via mage armor) or get more useful at higher levels (once you can quicken true strike and apply it to an ally, it becomes much more useful). This cripples sorcerers but not wizards, as sorcerers can only repick nine spells in their entire career, whereas wizards can change their spell selection every day.Fluffykittens (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Yes, I understand the concerns. Were you going somewhere with that other than "poor sorcerer"? As far as I'm concerned, that's a sorc design problem not a spell design one, one that could be sorted by letting them reselect more of their lower level spells (and could be done in a thematic and fluffy way pretty easily, maybe I'll go write that variant in a sec). Large scale / uncapped spell effect scaling is not something I'm really happy with. I prefer the implications of a "my lower level stuff isn't useful for direct offensive stuff, so I prepare otherwise useful buffs and high opportunity cost / niche utility stuff in them" for long term power and options growth over the alternative of "every spell, always useful". I can point you at my rants on the subject if you want to talk about it on a page devoted to the concept instead of here. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My argument would be closer to every spell should be sometimes useful. But you did a decent job here, better than the WOTC devs.Fluffykittens (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)