Not Used: Flame Arrow

While I like the ability of this spell to strip spell mantles with a single cast (because each arrow gets counted as a separate 3rd level effect for absorption) it would probably be better for the server if the damage was calculated in a lump sum of 4d6 per 4 caster levels, and only one saving throw was rolled.

Keep in mind not everyone has evasion. As things are now, 15 fire resistance reduces max dmg from 240 to 90. With the system you proposed - to 225, making pretty much everyone without evasion(or fire shield AND 30 resistance AND high saves) screwed, even if they successfully make a saving throw.

Note, I think a reduction in the number of damage chunks would be good, just not to 1.

Lasombra wrote:Keep in mind not everyone has evasion. As things are now, 15 fire resistance reduces max dmg from 240 to 90. With the system you proposed - to 225, making pretty much everyone without evasion(or fire shield AND 30 resistance AND high saves) screwed, even if they successfully make a saving throw.

Note, I think a reduction in the number of damage chunks would be good, just not to 1.

I never implied everyone does have evasion, nor do I think thats particularly relevant

As for the max damage, you need to be a highly focused caster to be able to kick out that much damage with the spell. And remember that Aenea is not a PvP world, so what other PCs have or can take is irrelevant. The mechanics will not be geared towards PvP.

The enemies you face at level 40 wont be 'screwed' by 240 fire damage on a failed save.... in fact, most of them will shrug it off(if they even take any at all).... and on top of that, most of then will make the save, chopping that down to 120, and then further reducing it with resistance.

As for level 40 enemies that can cast flame arrow... I think there are 2 enemies in the palette with over 25 arcane caster levels, and neither of them have actual spawn points in game, they can only be spawned by a DM.

Worst case, If a level 40 PC fails the save, doesnt have improved evasion, and also has no fire resistance, then oh well... 240 damage.... it certainly wont kill them, and they can fully heal on their next action with a potion.

EDIT: also... current state of affairs... what is the maximum dmg of the Flame Arrow spell? 240 fire damage.
The only thing that my suggestion will change is that resistance wont be applied 10 separate times to the same spell, and the spell wont hit spell mantles 10 separate times.

daveyeisley wrote:The only thing that my suggestion will change is that resistance wont be applied 10 separate times to the same spell, and the spell wont hit spell mantles 10 separate times.

That's exactly the issue I see there. The main serious use flame arrow has for an epic caster is stripping mantles off. If we take that out, the spell will be just another damager with waaay too much damage for a 3rd level spell. Consider how firebrand's dmg would totally suck in comparison, even maxed out it wouldn't surpass arrow's average damage. That's 3rd lvl vs 8th we talk here. At default lvl it's[firebrand] usually what? 50dmg on failed save? Having a spell 2 lvls lower do about 2,5x the damage is just not right no matter how many enemies it affects.

daveyeisley wrote:Worst case, If a level 40 PC fails the save, doesnt have improved evasion, and also has no fire resistance, then oh well... 240 damage.... it certainly wont kill them

Let's assume we're talking about an average 40lvl caster. No evasion, 15 fire resistance, reflex save at about 20 and 300HP.
Now, let's say another character puts 3 flame arrows in a spell trigger. 225*3=675 dmg on a failed save, 337 on 3 successful saves(very unlikely), while before the changes he'd take at most 135-270dmg, meaning a difference between life and death.

Spell trigger will not cast the stored spells at full caster level. Much like a spell sequencer, the spell fire as if cast from an item, at the minimum level required. Also note that no enemies will ever use spell trigger, as the AI is not scripted to handle storing spells ahead of time, so the situation is flatly impossible.

Also, your main purpose for flame arrow may be to strip spell mantles, however that is not the main use of the spell. It is a damage spell, and the only default bioware arcane spell that scales the full 40 levels with its caster. The point of the spell was never to have a 3rd level spell strip 9th level spell protections. As far as it doing more damage to a target than firebrand... consider firebrand doing the afore mentioned 50 damage to 10 different targets.... and flame arrow doing 240 to a single target. Which spell caused more damage?

Slight correction - last I checked, sequencers cast spells at your current CHARACTER level. Therefore, multiclassing penalties don't apply.

This is only as far as I remember, so don't shoot me if I'm wrong.

evilkittenofdoom wrote:Slight correction - last I checked, sequencers cast spells at your current CHARACTER level. Therefore, multiclassing penalties don't apply.

This is only as far as I remember, so don't shoot me if I'm wrong.

Actually, we were both off. From NWNwikki:

Spells cast using a sequencer are cast with a caster
level of 10 and a DC (if applicable, e.g. war cry) as
the standard item DC (13 + innate
level of spell). This means that lower level casters can have
spells improved by sequencing them.

Another thing to note:

While my suggestion focuses on reducing server load and fixing broken mechanics of the spell as it relates to how fire resistance is applied and how spell mantles are affected... your main focus seems to be on the maximum damage potential of the spell.

I think we can all agree that the damage potential of the spell right now, 240, will be the same even if my suggestion were used. That being the case, it seems like your feedback is aimed at making a totally separate suggestion (ie. capping the damage of the spell).

Also of note is that right now, fire resistance of 30 is tantamount to immunity to the flame arrow spell. My suggestion will fix that.

daveyeisley wrote:consider firebrand doing the afore mentioned 50 damage to 10 different targets.... and flame arrow doing 240 to a single target. Which spell caused more damage?

And how often do you encounter enemies in said quantities? Besides, those 50 will only tickle most of them, not making a huge difference, while arrow has a potential to kill. It's usually more important to reduce the number of enemies quickly than do small damage to all of them. Plus, enemies with any fire resistance will be even less impressed by firebrand, while still having to fear flame arrow. The main point, however, is still valid: 2 levels is a huge diffrence.

And yes, it's all about resistance. The spell was designed to suck when facing highly fire-resistant enemies, making it almost useless as a damager at higher levels, not to own everything regardless of said resistance. It should damage fire-resistant guys less than firebrand, if only because it damages non-resistant foes a lot more.

IMO your suggestion would change the spell so much it could easily be given another vfx and sold as a new spell a few lvls higher. Or, while we're at it, remove it's vfx entirely to save server load

EDIT: I agree not many creatures/PCs should be totally immune to flame arrow, but that's a topic for another thread(regarding resistance and immunity values more than spells).

PS: 100th post!
...I had to do that.

What's wrong with 30 resistance blocking a level 3 spell?

And I'm not so sure the Spell Sequencers cast at level 10... as my Greater Spell Mantle lasts the amount of rounds it would as if I cast it myself, and I'm level 25, and my premonition in it absorbs 250 dmg as well....

Lasombra wrote:

daveyeisley wrote:consider firebrand doing the afore mentioned 50 damage to 10 different targets.... and flame arrow doing 240 to a single target. Which spell caused more damage?

And how often do you encounter enemies in said quantities? Besides, those 50 will only tickle most of them, not making a huge difference, while arrow has a potential to kill. It's usually more important to reduce the number of enemies quickly than do small damage to all of them. Plus, enemies with any fire resistance will be even less impressed by firebrand, while still having to fear flame arrow. The main point, however, is still valid: 2 levels is a huge diffrence.

And yes, it's all about resistance. The spell was designed to suck when facing highly fire-resistant enemies, making it almost useless as a damager at higher levels, not to own everything regardless of said resistance. It should damage fire-resistant guys less than firebrand, if only because it damages non-resistant foes a lot more.

IMO your suggestion would change the spell so much it could easily be given another vfx and sold as a new spell a few lvls higher. Or, while we're at it, remove it's vfx entirely to save server load

EDIT: I agree not many creatures/PCs should be totally immune to flame arrow, but that's a topic for another thread(regarding resistance and immunity values more than spells).

PS: 100th post!
...I had to do that.

Grats on 100 posts

In general, spawns include 8 enemies in most cases. So the situation is actually quite common. Also, if 240 damage will kill one target, then you are looking at 4 or 5 firebrands to kill the whole lot, as opposed to 8 flame arrows. On top of that, firebrand provides this damage output at level 15. You would need to be level 40 pure caster to kick out that 240 dmg with flame arrow. I dont see an issue with 25 additional caster levels making a single target spell 2 levels lower able to rock a single enemy much harder, when the AoE outputs more total damage at MUCH lower caster level.

And we certainly disagree about resistance applying more than once per cast being important. Thats mechanically broken in my opinion. You get hit with a spell once, you get your resistance subracted from damage once. Not 10 times, or even 5 times, or 3 times... once. If the spell dealt multiple damage types, I could see different resistances applying separately.... but the spell does only one damage type. So only one resistance should apply per cast.

AoE damage spells are not designed to kill mobs of enemies in a single cast in any case. You are supposed to need to burn multiple casts to burn down groups of enemies at your level. Single target spells are supposed to put out higher damage on the victim compared to an AoE... simply due to the situational consideration that and AoE will crank out a buttload more total damage against a group. I think our views of balance just dont match up, in any case.

EDIT: Was just running some quick math to compare averages. Firebrand would be 15d6, so... 15-90 dmg.... averages to about 26 damage on successful save... minus 20 resist comes to 6 damage. Flame Arrow would be 40d6, so 40-240 damage.... about 70 damage on successful save, minus 20 resist comes to 50 dmg. As just about every level 40 enemy will be able to make the reflex against a level 3 spell with base 13 DC, those outputs are much closer than you might think... 8 targets would mean flame arrow is only shy 2 points of total output. Reduce the resistance, and it wins out overall. Then look at the situation that as a lower level spell, flame arrow is easier to counter (lesser dispel as opposed to greater dispel for firebrand) and can be blocked with a simple minor globe of invulnerability (firebrand cannot even be blocked by a normal globe)... I see a good case for firebrand still being superior overall. Flame arrow is only superior with many more caster levels, and only in a single target scenario.

daveyeisley wrote:And we certainly disagree about resistance applying more than once per cast being important. Thats mechanically broken in my opinion. You get hit with a spell once, you get your resistance subracted from damage once

How do you figure you get hit once with 10 arrows? That's an interesting pov but I just can't see any rational explanation behind it.

daveyeisley wrote:Single target spells are supposed to put out higher damage on the victim compared to an AoE... simply due to the situational consideration that and AoE will crank out a buttload more total damage against a group. I think our views of balance just dont match up, in any case.
[...]
I see a good case for firebrand still being superior overall. Flame arrow is only superior with many more caster levels, and only in a single target scenario.

It being much higher level that's no wonder. But let's compare to a similar case - 2-lvl diffrence, same effect, single target/AoE. Finger of Death and Wail. The only thing "the finger" has on wail is a 3d6+20dmg on a successful save. Yay. Following that logic, Flame Arrow should do only a tiny amount of dmg more than firebrand, not a few times more. And this is exactly where fire resistance comes to the rescue - seeing how popular it is on higher lvls, it greatly decreases its' potential. And you want to take it away, which is like giving FoD about +20d6 dmg and leaving wail as it is.

Lol. Finger and wail... Neither of which is actually a damage spell, both of which also kill outright on failed save. Forgive me, I can't justify using them in a comparison to straight up dmg spells.

How many spells Were cast to create 10 arrows, that strike a target in a swarm? How many checks for spell resistance? So then... One spell. One save. One application of fire resistance. One lump of dmg.

You said you agree on not having 10 lumps of damage. Your argument to not have just one is based around how you see the damage of the spell as being too high. Whether is one lump, 5 Lumps, or 10 lumps of dmg, the max stays the same. I don't cleave to the notion that a spells design assumes the target will have the appropriate resistance. It's not relevant to the damage scale, or balance thereof, and far too situational to justify it as a design assumption.

To each their own, I suppose. I would like to see the spell made more server friendly, not be totally nerfed by even 15 fire resistance, and not be better at stripping spell mantles than the dedicated Lesser Spell Breach one level higher.

Once again I will say this... -what's wrong with 30, or even 15, resistance killling a level 3 spell? The purpose of the spell is perfectly implemented as is. It does more scaled damage to things WITHOUT resistances, while any resistances easily mitigate or negate the spell. The spell taking out spell mantles is a biproduct, which, if it could be removed, that would be awesome, but that assumes it's removed without killing how it's implemented.

I fail to see any reason to change the spell.

Let's take Melf's Acid Arrow, Silverflame's Searing Strike and Dark Bolt for a comparison here... (Yes, it's not a perfect comparison, but it will do for the purpose)

Melf's is a 2nd level spell that does 3d6 damage on initial, and 1d6 acid on every round thereafter. 10 resistance blocks the entire spell short of 8 damage at the most. No saving throw applies. Spell mantles take 2 levels and it's blocked by Lesser Globe and Globe of Invulnerability as well as by Ethereal Visage.

Flame Arrow is a 3rd level, single target, spell that does 4d6 per 4 caster levels of fire damage, broken up into sets of 4d6. Each arrow triggers resistances and saving throws separately. Therefore, 20resistance is enough to nearly negate the spell straight out, and 30 resistance IS enough to negate the spell. It counts as 3 spell levels per arrow for mantles, and is blocked by both Lesser and Normal Globe of Invulnerability.

Dark Bolt does 16d6 damage, broken up into 2, 8d6 damage types, Negative and Electric. Both 8d6 allow a reflex save for half. It's a level 4 spell. It counts as 4 spell levels for mantles and is guarded by only Globe of Invulnerability by similar spells.

Silverflame's Searing Strike does 15d6 damage, one lump, as a level 4 spell on a ranged touch attack with no saving throw. A critical *(roll a 20 on the touch attack) does 30d6. Therefore, 30 resistance is minimal in the grand scheme of things, reducing the maximum damage from 90 to 60 on a regular hit. 150 on a critical. It's absorbed as 4 levels in a spell mantle and is protected ONLY by the regular Globe of Invulnerability in relations to globes.

What's the major difference? Flame Arrow scales completely to level 40, while Melf's doesnt except through duration (which isn't much). Flame arrow slaughters spell mantles, melf's doesn't. Dark bolt scales to 16d6 damage, as two types, one semi-exotic and Silverblade's Searing Strike does 15d6 damage as one lump sum. Each of them have different ways of dealing damage, and each of them are good for their own reasons.

What's my point, you ask? My point is simple and something that any caster should know. Every spell has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's how the spells are used that makes the difference. Flame Arrow is no exception to the rule. It's strengths are that it scales completely to your level and slaughters spell mantles. It's major drawback is that it gives multiple saves and only does it's damage in sets of 4d6, making resistances highly effecting against it.

Simply put, there is no reason to change Flame Arrow to make it a super-damage spell. There is NO one-size-fits-all spell, and there NEVER should be. Each spell has it's good uses, and that's what being a spellcaster, especially a wizard, is about.

Well, to say my suggestion would make Flame Arrow one-size-fits all is a stretch at best. Also it is a damage spell, not a dispel... no reason for it to strip mantles better than a dedicated breaching spell. And 30 resistance is not enough to completely stop Fireball, which is a level 3 AoE. Being that Flame arrow is single target, one should expect better damage against that same single target.

Instead, what we have is an uber-mantle breaching, with up to 10 saving throws on a single target per cast, 10 separate damage calculations per cast spell, that is so poorly implemented that a fire resistance of 15 is enough to negate the average damage on a failed save of this spell that can put out 40d6.

You dont see a reason to change it. Okies

EDIT: also, I could do without statements like "all casters should know", and "part of being a wizard". Sort of condescending. In case you werent aware, I have been at the spellcasting thing for a while now

Not going to change this one. The splitting of the damage into multiple arrows leads to, at most, 10 saving throws (for a 40th level pure caster)...fewer than might happen with a multi-target spell like fireball.

Yes, there are advantages to lumping it together (powering through fire resistance), and there are disadvantages to lumping it together (a single successful save/evasion roll could render the spell severely weakened/useless).

Plus, I just like the idea of a spellcaster sometimes launching a barrage of weaker projectiles at a single target that, not counting fire resistance (which not every creature has), adds up to a pile of damage at higher levels.