I got into Dungeons and Dragons with Planescape: Torment, and therefore Planescape. So the multiverse and the Elemental Planes have always been near and dear to my heart.
How do people feel about changing the elemental type of spells.
I've heard it argued that the type of element a spell deals should change it's spell level because some types resist/vulnerable more often.
I've always thought that there should be no difference between a Cryoball and a Fireball. I'm sure Fireballs are just more common, but why couldn't a Wizard or a Sorcerer keep using their preferred elemental type. Or the Necromancer throw a necroball or necrobolt.
I always hated in 3.5 that Arcane Admixture was a metamagic feat, unless of course it was do alter the type "on the fly" instead of the base.
I think making it a Feat would be a great idea. Like "choose an elemental type from this list... you may cast any spell with the chosen type instead of its listed type".
I was thinking more along the lines of when a Wizard researches her spell she can pick any energy type. Even have duplicates of the spell for different energy types.
Although the idea of having a Sorcerer's Metamagic ability to "twist" the spell to any energy type on the fly could be a very cool ability.
Or a feat to do it "on the fly". I generally think of feats have to be game changing cool as they are competing with +2 stats.
There is only one problem in switching the damage type of a spell.
Generally, fire and lightning spells are more common and more powerful because of some sort of balance. Statistically, there are more monsters with resistance or immunity to fire and/or lightning damage.
Another is the poison damage. At tier 3/4, almost all the monster are immune to poison.
So I would propose this ranking for the damage "rarity". One can scale the damage of a spell accordingly:
Also I'd argue Psychic and Force aren't "elemental" there is no Elemental plane of psychic (although I could joke Pandemonium might "count")
but is a Thuderball or Necroball 1 or 2 spell levels more powerful? Is a Poisonball 1 or 2 spell levels less powerful?
To argue a spell's elemental type could be more or less powerful to over all game balance because of the individual Immunities/Resistances/Vulnerabilities of specific monsters feels off to me. Because this "balance" comes down to what monsters happen to be in the setting.
In a heavy undead game Poison is the most useless damage type known to Palor. In a troll heavy game it's your best friend.
taking Fire as an example. in the SRD there are 8 monster that are vulernable to it (mummies, tree creatures, and mephits). 18 with resistance (undead/tanari/baatezu). 2 pages of immune (ALL the dragon types are a full page, and tanari and baatezu)
I wouldn't be too worried about the balance, because if you're allowing the players to change their magic types, whose to say the monsters aren't doing the same :-)
Not all damage types are equal, so just swapping one for another becomes game breaking in the right circumstance. Vitriolic Sphere is level 4, yet is an acid fireball once you break it down.
I personally like the idea of altering or changing spell energy type if it makes sense to the character and not at a whim.
In my campaign I have a PC playing a Shifter Druid. Essentially an Inuit from the arctic circle. Instead of Flaming Sphere he casts an Icy Sphere. Cold damage and effects otherwise identical to Flaming Sphere. Thematically it fits the character better than Flaming Sphere. He is more familiar and comfortable with the cold. The player hasn't asked yet but I'd allow a Frost Blade instead of a Flame Blade. If I treat it mechanically the same it will play the same (most of the time).
Yes there will be the rarer instances when having a blade made of frost will be highly advantageous, but that makes for great storytelling and memorable gameplay.
Also, go back and take a look at the Warlocks and Wizards UA that included Loremaster Tradition for Wizards. At 2nd level it allows for the Wizard to change damage type with impunity. Yes it is still UA and playtest material but it shows they are considering this same concept.
Now bear in mind I am not allowing the character to change his spell energy types at will. I am allowing him to use one type that thematically makes sense for him to be intimately familiar with.
If a player is specializing in a certain element, I'd work with the player on swapping elements for certain spells. Like Fireball dealing Cold. The change would be permanent, so its more along the lines of a refluff (with a small mechanical change).
If each element counted as a different spell. As mentioned earlier, if you want a Fireball, Iceball, and Acidball and you want to spend 3 known spells on those, then sure.
Certain classes could have the ability as a class feature. For example, if you're a Dragon/Storm Sorcerer or Tempest Cleric, I'd allow you to spend 1sp to change any spell into your aligned element. If you're a Wild Magic Sorc I'd give the option to randomize the element. Or you could be a toned down Lore Wizard and spend resources to alter the element by choice. Its similar to the refluffing idea, but with more class integration.
In any case, I'd only allow simple swaps between "equivalent" elements. Just looking at the Monster Manual, there are big differences between the number of enemies that resist each element. Poison, Fire, Cold, and Lightning are all pretty close together. Radiant, Necrotic, and Thunder pair next, and then Force and Psychic are resisted by almost nothing. As long as you're moving within tiers or down tiers on that non-comprehensive list, there's nothing wrong with just changing elements and calling it good. If you want to move up a tier, then I'd look at altering the damage dice slightly to accommodate.
Overall, not too far off from what's already been posted.
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos." Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds." Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED) (All PbP)
I have a character playing an elemental sorcerer who wanted more Ice themed spells. I have always gone with the understanding that the spells in the players handbook are only the most commonly known spells. Meaning more potentially exist. So, when he is choosing spells he asks me if he can learn spells but with the damaged type changed. (Fire blast Becomes Ice blast, Scorching Ray becomes Freezing ray and so forth). I haven't run into any problems with this system as the player only knows the frost damage versions of the spells. This in its own way is my homage to the lore master.
Its not a huge deal, You might considering stepping down the damage die size when shifting a spell to a more rare damage type. There's a reason there is not a 3rd level Forceball equivalent to fireball. Lots of things resist fire, not many resist force.
Also to adjust the earlier rarity list, necrotic resistance is going to be more common among typical enemies than radiant. In fact checking on the DND Beyond monster list, there are 7 monsters immune to necrotic, 6 with resistance. Majority of both being undead. Where radiant only has 4 with resist (All good aligned) and 0 with immunity. As most adventurers are not going to fight angels or benevolent spirits, radiant damage is almost always going to deal full damage.
I find it weird the "balancing factor" consists of counting up the number of monsters which have resistance/immunity/vulnerability to a particular element and that is somehow WotC determines if a spell's damage is "ok" at a spell level. It just feels so very pedantic, when it could never matter in a campaign. Especially given this method "changes" with every splat book.
Let's take the number of Wizard 1st - 3rd level spells with Elemental Types are as follows (from the SRD:
Acid: 2
Cold: 1
Fire: 4
Lighting: 1
Necrotic: 1
Poison: 0
Radiant: 0
Thunder: 2
The whole point of my question was asking if I'm alone in feeling this lack of diversity negatively impacts creativity in play. If you're playing a The Seeker Warlock why not make that fireball a radiantball? You're supposed to be closely aligned with the Positive Energy Plane. If you're making a necromancer and every wizard in the world has Melf's Acid Arrow, why not have Bob's Necrotic Arrow. If you want to be from Forgotten Realm's version of Siberia and bring with you the magic of Mother Winter you're armed with Ice Daggers (Melf's Acid Arrow with Cold).
If we're going to rank spells by "effectiveness" based on the type of energy they do.
I'd have to ask: is the point of "balance" to make a spell level useless? If you're running a game with a lot of Baatezu and Tanar'ri is it "balanced" to make 36% of all elemental 1-3rd levels spells useless because every monster is immune to it? Or would a Demon/Devil hunting mage expand her spells to deal with the problem at hand? They can't do that? What is the gain?
Para Elemental Planes: Ice, Ooze, Magma, and Smoke
Quasi Elemental Planes: Lighting, Steam, Mineral, Radiance, Vacuum, Salt, Dust, and Ash.
The old Planscape books talk about how it's just a matter of pulling energy from any elemental plane, the one in the book were just the most common, but any of them could be pulled from.
If you're running a game there is nearly infinite ways to keep players on their toes: There is always the "Clay Golem & Gelatinous Cube" combo.
If a player is a Geomancer and they have Acid everything... the occasional Black Pudding, Clay Golem, and Mimic will keep them on their toes. (weirdly enough the Gelatinous Cube isn't immune or even resistant to acid!?!)
If someone wants a Norse wizard who reverses Thor and specializes in Thunderballs (and no I didn't start this thread just to write that sentence!) then any old caster with a 2nd level Silence spell is completely immune to all that damage.
If you have a Pryomancer and you mostly fight trolls, then she'll be as happy as a big in slop, but there are quite a few things that giggle at fire.
Or bring back some Salt Mephits? They are like the Spanish Inquisition of monsters!
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos." Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds." Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED) (All PbP)
Ok, so while I still think the monster's resistance/immunity/vulnerability is a poor way to approach "balancing" spells in the game, as I think it damage types should be agnostic.
That is an awesome amount of work and rather interesting from a GM's perspective for of how much variety of monster have what damage/resistance/immunity/vulnerability. I'll have to assume that for Immunity there are 8 types of Dragons for all the primary elemental types.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I got into Dungeons and Dragons with Planescape: Torment, and therefore Planescape.
So the multiverse and the Elemental Planes have always been near and dear to my heart.
How do people feel about changing the elemental type of spells.
I've heard it argued that the type of element a spell deals should change it's spell level because some types resist/vulnerable more often.
I've always thought that there should be no difference between a Cryoball and a Fireball. I'm sure Fireballs are just more common, but why couldn't a Wizard or a Sorcerer keep using their preferred elemental type. Or the Necromancer throw a necroball or necrobolt.
I always hated in 3.5 that Arcane Admixture was a metamagic feat, unless of course it was do alter the type "on the fly" instead of the base.
I think making it a Feat would be a great idea. Like "choose an elemental type from this list... you may cast any spell with the chosen type instead of its listed type".
I was thinking more along the lines of when a Wizard researches her spell she can pick any energy type. Even have duplicates of the spell for different energy types.
Although the idea of having a Sorcerer's Metamagic ability to "twist" the spell to any energy type on the fly could be a very cool ability.
Or a feat to do it "on the fly". I generally think of feats have to be game changing cool as they are competing with +2 stats.
There is only one problem in switching the damage type of a spell.
Generally, fire and lightning spells are more common and more powerful because of some sort of balance. Statistically, there are more monsters with resistance or immunity to fire and/or lightning damage.
Another is the poison damage. At tier 3/4, almost all the monster are immune to poison.
So I would propose this ranking for the damage "rarity". One can scale the damage of a spell accordingly:
Poison
Fire, Lightning
Cold
Acid, Thunder
Radiant, Necrotic
Force, Psychic
But how do you balance the idea of rarity?
Also I'd argue Psychic and Force aren't "elemental" there is no Elemental plane of psychic (although I could joke Pandemonium might "count")
but is a Thuderball or Necroball 1 or 2 spell levels more powerful? Is a Poisonball 1 or 2 spell levels less powerful?
To argue a spell's elemental type could be more or less powerful to over all game balance because of the individual Immunities/Resistances/Vulnerabilities of specific monsters feels off to me. Because this "balance" comes down to what monsters happen to be in the setting.
In a heavy undead game Poison is the most useless damage type known to Palor. In a troll heavy game it's your best friend.
taking Fire as an example. in the SRD there are 8 monster that are vulernable to it (mummies, tree creatures, and mephits). 18 with resistance (undead/tanari/baatezu). 2 pages of immune (ALL the dragon types are a full page, and tanari and baatezu)
I wouldn't be too worried about the balance, because if you're allowing the players to change their magic types, whose to say the monsters aren't doing the same :-)
You are both right. It is highly situational. the DM must use his/her best judgement when allowing such changes.
No I would say, if you want to change the damage type, and it seems too convenient for the campaign, take 1 or 2 dice to the damage rolls.
I mentioned a bit about changing damage type over here: http://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/971-creating-a-spell (sometimes changing other factors like, range, size, die type helps to balance).
Not all damage types are equal, so just swapping one for another becomes game breaking in the right circumstance. Vitriolic Sphere is level 4, yet is an acid fireball once you break it down.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I personally like the idea of altering or changing spell energy type if it makes sense to the character and not at a whim.
In my campaign I have a PC playing a Shifter Druid. Essentially an Inuit from the arctic circle. Instead of Flaming Sphere he casts an Icy Sphere. Cold damage and effects otherwise identical to Flaming Sphere. Thematically it fits the character better than Flaming Sphere. He is more familiar and comfortable with the cold. The player hasn't asked yet but I'd allow a Frost Blade instead of a Flame Blade. If I treat it mechanically the same it will play the same (most of the time).
Yes there will be the rarer instances when having a blade made of frost will be highly advantageous, but that makes for great storytelling and memorable gameplay.
Also, go back and take a look at the Warlocks and Wizards UA that included Loremaster Tradition for Wizards. At 2nd level it allows for the Wizard to change damage type with impunity. Yes it is still UA and playtest material but it shows they are considering this same concept.
Now bear in mind I am not allowing the character to change his spell energy types at will. I am allowing him to use one type that thematically makes sense for him to be intimately familiar with.
One idea could be that you may allow changing the damage type after a period of study.
I'd certainly allow it under a few circumstances:
In any case, I'd only allow simple swaps between "equivalent" elements. Just looking at the Monster Manual, there are big differences between the number of enemies that resist each element. Poison, Fire, Cold, and Lightning are all pretty close together. Radiant, Necrotic, and Thunder pair next, and then Force and Psychic are resisted by almost nothing. As long as you're moving within tiers or down tiers on that non-comprehensive list, there's nothing wrong with just changing elements and calling it good. If you want to move up a tier, then I'd look at altering the damage dice slightly to accommodate.
Overall, not too far off from what's already been posted.
Uhm let me see... ... ...
LORE MASTERY WIZARD UNEARTHED ARCANA.
I'm that cat guy, and i do stuff. Youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGyrtkNMBOOCxyH4Eueno3w
Tabaxi Bard Level 15
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos."
Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds."
Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED)
(All PbP)
I have a character playing an elemental sorcerer who wanted more Ice themed spells. I have always gone with the understanding that the spells in the players handbook are only the most commonly known spells. Meaning more potentially exist. So, when he is choosing spells he asks me if he can learn spells but with the damaged type changed. (Fire blast Becomes Ice blast, Scorching Ray becomes Freezing ray and so forth). I haven't run into any problems with this system as the player only knows the frost damage versions of the spells. This in its own way is my homage to the lore master.
Its not a huge deal, You might considering stepping down the damage die size when shifting a spell to a more rare damage type. There's a reason there is not a 3rd level Forceball equivalent to fireball. Lots of things resist fire, not many resist force.
Also to adjust the earlier rarity list, necrotic resistance is going to be more common among typical enemies than radiant. In fact checking on the DND Beyond monster list, there are 7 monsters immune to necrotic, 6 with resistance. Majority of both being undead. Where radiant only has 4 with resist (All good aligned) and 0 with immunity. As most adventurers are not going to fight angels or benevolent spirits, radiant damage is almost always going to deal full damage.
@FullMetalBunny what about making a poll in which every one of us vote the rarity of each damage type? this way we make a community list!
@Thain yes you are right about the necrotic damage. I update the list
Poison
Fire, Lightning, Cold
Necrotic, Acid
Thunder, Radiant
Force, Psychic
Not sure about the acid damage. oozes have resistance/immunity, cannot find more monster categories.
Black/copper dragon varietys, black pudding, clay golem have immunity (11 total, tho 8 of those are dragon varieties)
I find it weird the "balancing factor" consists of counting up the number of monsters which have resistance/immunity/vulnerability to a particular element and that is somehow WotC determines if a spell's damage is "ok" at a spell level. It just feels so very pedantic, when it could never matter in a campaign. Especially given this method "changes" with every splat book.
Let's take the number of Wizard 1st - 3rd level spells with Elemental Types are as follows (from the SRD:
The whole point of my question was asking if I'm alone in feeling this lack of diversity negatively impacts creativity in play. If you're playing a The Seeker Warlock why not make that fireball a radiantball? You're supposed to be closely aligned with the Positive Energy Plane. If you're making a necromancer and every wizard in the world has Melf's Acid Arrow, why not have Bob's Necrotic Arrow. If you want to be from Forgotten Realm's version of Siberia and bring with you the magic of Mother Winter you're armed with Ice Daggers (Melf's Acid Arrow with Cold).
If we're going to rank spells by "effectiveness" based on the type of energy they do.
I'd have to ask: is the point of "balance" to make a spell level useless? If you're running a game with a lot of Baatezu and Tanar'ri is it "balanced" to make 36% of all elemental 1-3rd levels spells useless because every monster is immune to it? Or would a Demon/Devil hunting mage expand her spells to deal with the problem at hand? They can't do that? What is the gain?
The history of D&D lore has the:
The old Planscape books talk about how it's just a matter of pulling energy from any elemental plane, the one in the book were just the most common, but any of them could be pulled from.
If you're running a game there is nearly infinite ways to keep players on their toes: There is always the "Clay Golem & Gelatinous Cube" combo.
If a player is a Geomancer and they have Acid everything... the occasional Black Pudding, Clay Golem, and Mimic will keep them on their toes. (weirdly enough the Gelatinous Cube isn't immune or even resistant to acid!?!)
If someone wants a Norse wizard who reverses Thor and specializes in Thunderballs (and no I didn't start this thread just to write that sentence!) then any old caster with a 2nd level Silence spell is completely immune to all that damage.
If you have a Pryomancer and you mostly fight trolls, then she'll be as happy as a big in slop, but there are quite a few things that giggle at fire.
Or bring back some Salt Mephits? They are like the Spanish Inquisition of monsters!
And if you just think the wizards are overpowered, send in a rakshasa.
I'm that cat guy, and i do stuff. Youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGyrtkNMBOOCxyH4Eueno3w
Tabaxi Bard Level 15
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos."
Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds."
Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED)
(All PbP)
Summary of resistances/immunities - taken from here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Ok, so while I still think the monster's resistance/immunity/vulnerability is a poor way to approach "balancing" spells in the game, as I think it damage types should be agnostic.
That is an awesome amount of work and rather interesting from a GM's perspective for of how much variety of monster have what damage/resistance/immunity/vulnerability. I'll have to assume that for Immunity there are 8 types of Dragons for all the primary elemental types.