# Scorching Ray- Overpowered?



## MacMathan (Dec 29, 2003)

IMC there has been some question about the balance of Scorching Ray as a 2nd level spell. I wanted to get opinions for and against from the EN Overmind.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 29, 2003)

I have said, and continue to believe, that Scorching Ray was always designed as a 3rd level spell and an errant typo early in the process made it 2nd.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 29, 2003)

Its almost too good later on when empowered, but since resistance applies to EACH ray, and with the Charge-O-Matic short range, it does have some drawbacks. It feels a bit strong for a 2nd level. 2 rays at most would be a good cap.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

The spell's description:



> Scorching Ray
> 
> Evocation [Fire]
> 
> ...



Compare to the archetypal 2nd-level damage spell, Acid Arrow:



> Acid Arrow
> 
> Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
> 
> ...





First, let's compare various features of the two:
*School*: Evocation vs. Conjuration. Both are high-damage schools, but evocation is the highest-damage school. This is a very minor disadvantage, since it's from a less-flexible school; a specialist in this school can't do as much as a conjuration specialist can do. Very minor advantage to Melf's.
*Descriptor*: More things are resistant to fire than to acid, I think; minor advantage to Melf's. OTOH, more things are especially vulnerable to fire than to acid (i.e., all cold creatures); minor advantage to Scorch. Equal out.
*Level:* same
*Components*: Scorch has no material or focus component, meaning it can be cast by prisoners or other casters stripped of their possessions. Minor advantage to Scorch.
*Casting Time*: Same
*Range*: Short for Scorch, Long for Melf's. Significant advantage for Melf's: can be used profitably in outdoor encounters or other encounters with large initial distances.
*Effect and Duration*: see below
*Save*: none for either
*SR: *Yes for Scorch, no for Melf's. Significant advantage for Melf's.

Setting aside what the spell actually does, Melf's has two big advantages over Scorch: it can shoot further, and it's not affected by SR.  Scorch has one big advantage:  it can be cast without any material components or foci.

As for what they do, they've each got their own advantages. Melf's does less damage at most levels, and can only affect one target; on the other hand, its constant damage can force concentration checks much more easily than Scorch can, especially when an opponent is under the effect of multiple Melf's. Let's look at damage for the spell at several levels. We'll assume that all attacks hit -- although Melf's is more likely to do no damage (since you roll to hit once only), it's also more likely to do full damage. In the end, I think that'll average out.

At third level, Scorch is the clear damage winner, at 4d6 points (avg 14) compared to Melf's 4d4 (avg 10). 
At sixth level, Melf's is ahead, at 6d4 (avg 15) compared to Scorch's 4d6 (avg 14). 
At seventh level, Scorch goes back into the lead, at 8d6 (avg 28) compared to Melf's 6d4 (avg 15). 
At ninth, Melf's comes back into the running but still can't quite catch up, doing only 8d4 (avg 20) to Scorch's 28. 
At eleventh level, Scorch goes even further ahead, doing 42 points on average, compared to Melf's 20. Scorch maxes out at this point.
Melf's, like a tortoise, plods on ahead. At twelfth, Melf's does 25 points of damage; at fifteenth, 30 points of damage; and at eighteenth, 35 points of damage. It never reaches the average damage of Scorch after sixth level.

So what've we got? We've got Scorch, from the archetypal blow-things-up school of magic, doing about 40%-80% more damage on average. It's most effective for up-close-and-personal wizards, and against SR creatures, it'll fail about half the time (I think; I think SR is designed to make appropriate CR creatures immune to about half of the SR-vulnerable spells cast at them), knocking its daamge in half. It's more flexible than Melf's and does its damage faster, but lacks the range and the ongoing damage benefits of the latter spell.

And IMC it's been cast only once so far, compared to the ubiquitous Melf's spells. Even then, it's cast nowhere near as often as Web or Glitterdust, the true powerhouses of second-level wizard spells.

Balance looks fine to me.

Daniel
[edit:  balance might look good, but the colors were awful; now they're just ugly, but hopefully readable  ]


----------



## Malakye (Dec 29, 2003)

Well said, Pielorinho.  I would add more but you pretty much covered it.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 29, 2003)

I would only add a comparison to 3rd level Fireball

At 5th level Fireball deals 5d6, has better range, does not require a successful ranged touch attack and has an area effect so can affect multiple targets, but allows a Reflex save for half.

I cannot remember where Fireball maxes out for damage (don't have my books or the SRD here), but at 11th level the longer range and lack of an attack roll make up for the somewhat higher damage.

Scorch seems like it might be a tiny bit strong for 2nd, but it would be weak as a 3rd level.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

Excellent point, *Thornir*.  Indeed, wasn't the effect ofScorch originally part of a 3rd-level spell called Flame Arrow that nobody ever, ever cast?  It's definitely suckalicious for a third-level spell.  To make it good at 3rd-level, you'd have to take away the touch attack, or up the damage.

Daniel


----------



## Vanye (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> And IMC it's been cast only once so far, compared to the ubiquitous Melf's spells. Even then, it's cast nowhere near as often as Web or Glitterdust, the true powerhouses of second-level wizard spells.




Completely anecdotal, but I'm seeing Scorching Ray cast far more often in the game I'm playing in than Melf's.  Admittedly, the wizard is an evoker, so his spell focuses kick in with it, but S.R. seems much more powerful.

However, I do think there is one thing that you're overlooking, and which is a major hindrance for Melf's: energy resistances.  While both of them are rendered pretty much useless by Resist Energy after 7th level, only Melf's can be easily defeated by a 2nd level spell cast by a 3rd level caster.

Vs Energy resistance, Melf's is definetly the loser.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

Good point, *Vanye*, and one I forgot to add in.  Resistances of 5 are pretty common amongst extraplanar creatures, rendering Melf's almost useless against them; Scorch can still poke some daamge through.

Technically, your evoker's spell focuses don't kick in with Scorch:  since it has no save, it doesn't benefit from spell focus.  It would benefit, however, from specialization in the same way that any spell benefits from being in a specialist's chosen school.

Out of curiosity, what level do y'all play at?  One of the main reasons Melf's gets cast so often in the game I'm running is that, at tenth level and beyond, spell resistance becomes very common.  The casters have taken to casting a lot of empowered or maximized Melf's as a way of doing some damage to such creatures.

Daniel


----------



## Agent.0.Fortune (Dec 29, 2003)

Another huge advantage of Scortch over Melfs is damage over time. Scortch does everything up front. If you are going to kill an oppenent you do it the first round, not on the 3rd or 4th round after they have been whacking on you the whole time.

When it comes to direct damage, quicker is better.

NOTE: just to be fair someone should compare magic missile to Melf's, I think Melf's is a pretty crumby spell at 2nd level.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Dec 29, 2003)

Frank, I agree with your comment about empowered (or even maximized) Scorches later on. Not looking at my books right now, but I believe a maximized Scorch tossed by an 11th-level caster does 72 points of damage if all three rays hit on a ranged touch attack. Granted, that's become a fifth-level spell. But if you are, say, a 5thSor/Ftr2/Disciple of Asmodeus 10, and you happen to call your scorching rays the Flames of Nessus (not that I'm thinking of any NPC in particular ), then you can easily get a +14 ranged touch attack and have a really nice chance of toasting the party's mages, rogues (no evasion or improved evasion allowed), and even cleric types real good. 

Is it too good? Well in my opinion not really, but it is pushing the top end of balance. I think it joins the ranks of magic missile and fireball as very powerful spells for their level.

Pie, I agree web and glitterdust are powerhouses for their level. Probably more so than scorching ray, because that one doesn't come into its own until higher levels. I don't think ray is in the same league as Melf's, though. Aside from the forced concentration checks, which will probably be made at higher levels anyway, I think scorch owns Melf's because of its ability to do damage now rather than an accumulated damage over time. Also, with regard to your question about level, our campaign is 15th/16th level. Spell resistance isn't a huge concern because most of the enemies are either human or have a pretty low SR that the characters can overcome. Also, most of the casters that have to choose between Scorch or Melf's are NPC villains - and thus they will be firing at the party, which no doubt colors my view of the relative usefulness of the two spells.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

*Agent*, that's part of my analysis:  I think that the all-at-once damage of Scorch is superior to the slow damage of Melf's, although the latter does have its place.  An empowered Melf's cast at a spellcaster can give them real headaches, as they're forced to make a concentration check every time they want to cast a spell.  If you hit them with an empowered Melf's for two rounds in a row, they'll be making concentration checks DC 17+spell level; this can make even mid-level casters flub their spells, and can convince them to go with lower-level spells or else spend a round dispelling melf's or protecting themselves from acid.

It also occurs to me that we could compare Scorch to another second-level spell that does more damage:  at third level, a flaming sphere is doing 6d6 points of damage over three rounds, and the damage just keeps getting better.  With two of these spells up, a caster can do 4d6 points of damage each round, changing the victim every round.  It's got better range than Scorching Ray, but does its damage much more slowly and allows a reflex save.  

Again, I think it's reasonably balanced:  it does the most damage of any second-level spell and is the least reliable of any of them (since victims get both a save and SR).  Scorch does medium damage but does it all at once and allows for no save; Acid does the least damage but does it continuously (requiring concentration checks) and allows for neither save nor SR.

True, flaming sphere doesn't require an attack roll, but IME it's pretty rare for a midlevel caster to miss with a Melf's or for a midlevel monster to fail a 2nd-level saving throw:  touch attacks are pretty easy to make, and 2nd-level spells are pretty easy to save against.

Daniel


----------



## Jeph (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Excellent point, *Thornir*.  Indeed, wasn't the effect ofScorch originally part of a 3rd-level spell called Flame Arrow that nobody ever, ever cast?  It's definitely suckalicious for a third-level spell.  To make it good at 3rd-level, you'd have to take away the touch attack, or up the damage.
> 
> Daniel




Flame Arrow was conjuration. Corlon of these boards, who plays a Conjurer in my campaign without access to Evocation, casts it quite often.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

Not having access to evocation (and the superior-in-every-way fireball) is the only reason I can imagine casting flame arrow.  It was a lame spell in comparison to fireball or lightning bolt.

Daniel


----------



## Jeph (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Not having access to evocation (and the superior-in-every-way fireball) is the only reason I can imagine casting flame arrow.  It was a lame spell in comparison to fireball or lightning bolt.
> 
> Daniel




Indeed. Now that he's a conjurer and calls an extra creature whenever he casts a Summon Monster, he's become rather partial to herds of celestial bison.

1d4+2 bison per round. Quite excellent for flanking opportunities.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

Jeph said:
			
		

> Herds of celestial bison.
> 
> 1d4+2 bison per round.



 Holy cow!

Daniel


----------



## Justinian (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Not having access to evocation (and the superior-in-every-way fireball) is the only reason I can imagine casting flame arrow. It was a lame spell in comparison to fireball or lightning bolt.



Since we are talking about 3.0 here, I'll just say that Flame Arrow had one big advantages then: It had no caster level cap on damage. And it was low level, so you could stack a few empowers on it. With ioun stones, or archmage, and a triple empowered flame arrow, you were handing out a large amount of damage. It's true that evocation was often better, but anyone who banned evocation could really make flame arrow sting someone.


----------



## Altalazar (Dec 29, 2003)

Seems perfectly well balanced to me.  Sure, there is somewhat of an art to balancing spells, but I don't see this bringing the house down - it is similar to acid arrow in damage, but acts differently - and doesn't have cumulative damage where there is no to-hit roll required.


----------



## Vanye (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what level do y'all play at?  One of the main reasons Melf's gets cast so often in the game I'm running is that, at tenth level and beyond, spell resistance becomes very common.  The casters have taken to casting a lot of empowered or maximized Melf's as a way of doing some damage to such creatures.




We're at 12th level, going through the City of the Spider Queen module (modified, both for 3.5, and for the DM to help us level up, etc).  Mostly, since we've moved to 3.5, we haven't faced a lot of creatures with spell-based energy resistance, so we haven't really had those protections hammered into us (though as a cleric, I'm more familiar with the usefulness of Resist energy-is it just me, or is that spell now much better than Protection from Energy)=?), but I have a feeling that it's going to be pretty instrumental in slowing us down.  When the evoker is finding that he's doing no damage because the opponents saved AND had Resist Energy on them, we're going to have some issues....


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 29, 2003)

Vanye said:
			
		

> (though as a cleric, I'm more familiar with the usefulness of Resist energy-is it just me, or is that spell now much better than Protection from Energy)=?)



Wahayyyy better.  Used to be that at first level, you got minor but worthwhile protection; at second, you got some decent protection; at third, you got great protection.  Now, at first, you get no protection, at second, you get incredible protection, and at third, you get great protection.

We've mostly switched to 3.5.  This is one of the cases where we switched right back to 3.0.

Daniel


----------



## Unseelie (Dec 29, 2003)

Jeph said:
			
		

> Indeed. Now that he's a conjurer and calls an extra creature whenever he casts a Summon Monster, he's become rather partial to herds of celestial bison.
> 
> 1d4+2 bison per round. Quite excellent for flanking opportunities.




Otherwise known in my roommate's old D&D game as 'Wall of Beef'.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Not having access to evocation (and the superior-in-every-way fireball) is the only reason I can imagine casting flame arrow.  It was a lame spell in comparison to fireball or lightning bolt.
> 
> Daniel




Except that the old flame arrow evaded damage caps... you got one bolt per 4 levels, each doing 4d6... so at 20th level you could get 5 bolts for a potential of 20d6 damage, more if one of them got a critical. Maximised or empowered quite nicely too. Especially if you got a critical on one of your ranged touch attacks.

Back in 3e energy resistances were per round rather than per attack, so the low damage per bolt wasn't a problem; the only big downer on it was that it allowed a reflex ST to targets that you'd hit, allowing rogues and monks to avoid all the damage after you'd hit them. I always thought that was a bad thing. The only other ranged touch attack with a ST was Disintegrate, and that was a Fort ST!

I had a villaness in my campaign use flame arrow to huge effect; it was much better for her than fireball would have been.

Cheers


----------



## psionotic (Dec 29, 2003)

*Energy Resistance*

While I agree that Scorching Ray is more adept at breaking through energy resistance than Melf's is, I would say that this is more than made up for by the fact that many more creatures have fire resistance than have acid.  Of those that cast resistance spells, it is more likely that they will have fire resistance up to cope with bigger spells such as fireball, and to counteract the much more common environmental damage due to high heat. 

I would say that this factor ends up pretty even for the two spells.  Scorching Ray can burn through resistances more easily than Melf's, but its also much more likely to already be defended against than acid damage is.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 30, 2003)

bah, scorching ray has nothing on Shocking Missile!  Or Stone Missiles for that matter.


----------



## Perun (Dec 30, 2003)

Jeph said:
			
		

> Indeed. Now that he's a conjurer and calls an extra creature whenever he casts a Summon Monster, he's become rather partial to herds of celestial bison.
> 
> 1d4+2 bison per round. Quite excellent for flanking opportunities.




Is this a house rule or an actual rule from the core books? I don't remember ever reading the abit about conjurers summoning extra critters. Is thins one of the changes in v. 3.5? I don't have my PH with me, so I can't check it out for myself-

If it's in the core books, then I'm certainly happy about it, since it makes the specialist wizards a bit more different form each other. Lovely! 

Regards.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 30, 2003)

Perun said:
			
		

> Is this a house rule or an actual rule from the core books? I don't remember ever reading the abit about conjurers summoning extra critters. Is thins one of the changes in v. 3.5? I don't have my PH with me, so I can't check it out for myself-
> 
> If it's in the core books, then I'm certainly happy about it, since it makes the specialist wizards a bit more different form each other. Lovely!
> 
> Regards.




House rule. It's not in the 3.5 books.


----------



## The Forsaken One (Dec 30, 2003)

Use your

TWIN SPELL metamagic feat on it

Use your

ENERGY ADMIXTURE metamagic feat on it

Use your

ENERGY SUBSTITUTION metamagic feat on it,

This is a 9th level spell iirc... BUT it does when the energy is involved and all rays (6) hit. 48d6 Sonic damage no save. (Now use that rod of maximize on it...)


----------



## Darklone (Dec 30, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> House rule. It's not in the 3.5 books.



Can´t you use higher level Summon Monster spells anymore to summon more of the lower level Summon Monster monster lists?


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 30, 2003)

Darklone, that trick gets you 1d4+1, not 1d4+2.  The extra critter is where the houserule presumably comes into play.

Daniel


----------

