Cloudkill vs. Incendiary Cloud [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cloudkill vs. Incendiary Cloud [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Jaxgaret
05-24-07, 05:59 PM I don't see why Cloudkill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm) is a 5th level spell, and Incendiary Cloud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/incendiaryCloud.htm) is an 8th level spell.

If anything, I would say Cloudkill gets the edge as the more powerful spell.

In any case IC should not be three whole spell levels higher than CK.

Am I missing something obvious here?
cwslyclgh
05-24-07, 06:05 PM incendiary cloud is a crappy spell... always has been, probably always will be. it would be better if you gave it the movement penalties associated with solid fog or acid fog, but as written I agree that it is probably less powerful the cloudkill in most situations.
Jaxgaret
05-24-07, 06:28 PM Yes, I see. It should be Incendiary Fog, and have the effects of Solid Fog. Looking at and comparing it to Acid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm), that makes sense.

But is it just an editing error?
Vharuck
05-24-07, 06:36 PM Two things in incendiary cloud's defense:

#1. You can outrun a cloudkill easily. Even if you're at the center of it when it comes into being, with a 30 ft. move you can spend one move action per turn and never be in it again. Incendiary cloud can be moved 60 ft. per turn, which also allows it to move in different directions than simply away from you.

#2. Cloudkill's vapors are heavier than air, and so must stay ground level. Incendiary cloud has no such rule in its description, which is further justified by its being described as smoke. Now flying creatures, common at this level, are not safe.
Whisper_Swiftblade
05-24-07, 07:04 PM the only original thing I can come up with, is that I Cloud can't hurt your guys if you buff them against fire damage (which realy gets fun if you send in the troops while your foes roast.)
Jaxgaret
05-24-07, 07:39 PM Two things in incendiary cloud's defense:

#1. You can outrun a cloudkill easily. Even if you're at the center of it when it comes into being, with a 30 ft. move you can spend one move action per turn and never be in it again. Incendiary cloud can be moved 60 ft. per turn, which also allows it to move in different directions than simply away from you.

#2. Cloudkill's vapors are heavier than air, and so must stay ground level. Incendiary cloud has no such rule in its description, which is further justified by its being described as smoke. Now flying creatures, common at this level, are not safe.

Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric?
Vharuck
05-24-07, 07:47 PM Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric?

Not really, I just like playing devil's advocate when everyone else only mentions the positives of one thing and negatives of another in comparisons.
Trundle
05-28-07, 07:58 PM Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric?

Well, *maybe* it would be enough to make up for those as a situation specific spell.

...but not as a situation specific spell that's 3 levels higher, for crying out loud.
ArcTan
05-28-07, 08:46 PM A lot of people grossly overvalue HP damage relative to other kinds of damage -- not only thinking that HP damage is *as good as* other things you can do to monsters (which is generally not true once you get to higher levels) but actually thinking HP damage is *better than* other kinds of damage, which is grossly false. This is why you see a lot of newbies relishing the role of being the "blaster" mage and avoiding the role of "utility" mage, even though the most efficient killers by far tend to take relatively few blasting spells.

The problem is that among these people are WotC designers, quite a few of them. All you have to do is read the "advice" section of Complete Mage to see that this is true.

Much of D&D's class balance problems, I think, stem from this very basic fact -- that D&D started as a game about chipping off HP from each other, and no one realized just how much better doing ability damage, using save-or-dies, disabling people, etc. could be than just adding dice of HP damage. Which is why no one noticed when the Wizard totally eclipsed the Fighter in not just usefulness (the Wizard was always more *useful* than a Fighter at high levels -- that is, a Magic-User more useful than a Fighting-Man) but in his ability to kill people.

Mike Mearls has noticed this and points out that, really, D&D would be a much more streamlined and easier-to-balance game if many things that now manifest as save-or-dies, negative levels, and ability damage instead simply did extra HP damage that could be resisted in various ways.
Shiikeras
05-28-07, 08:53 PM That, however, would make it extremely boring. If they made more creative uses for spells like fireball and other damage dealing spells, that would help. Like Otiluke's Freezing Sphere.
Ogre4Hire
05-28-07, 10:24 PM There are a lot more critters that have an immunity to poison than an immunity to fire. All Undead, Constructs, Plants, and Elementals can sit inside of a Cloudkill spell as long as they want with no effect. Plus Durgar, Baatizu, Tanar'ri, Yugoloths...
ArcTan
05-28-07, 10:26 PM Well, sure, but it's not like incendiary cloud is as good against Undead as cloudkill is against living creatures. Incendiary cloud is a "meh" spell when used against anything, even things fully vulnerable to fire.
Bopple
05-29-07, 10:58 AM There are a lot more critters that have an immunity to poison than an immunity to fire.
A LOT more critters have fire resistance which greatly reduces the damage of Incendiary Cloud.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jaxgaret 05-24-07, 05:59 PM	I don't see why Cloudkill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm) is a 5th level spell, and Incendiary Cloud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/incendiaryCloud.htm) is an 8th level spell. If anything, I would say Cloudkill gets the edge as the more powerful spell. In any case IC should not be three whole spell levels higher than CK. Am I missing something obvious here?
cwslyclgh 05-24-07, 06:05 PM	incendiary cloud is a crappy spell... always has been, probably always will be. it would be better if you gave it the movement penalties associated with solid fog or acid fog, but as written I agree that it is probably less powerful the cloudkill in most situations.
Jaxgaret 05-24-07, 06:28 PM	Yes, I see. It should be Incendiary Fog, and have the effects of Solid Fog. Looking at and comparing it to Acid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm), that makes sense. But is it just an editing error?
Vharuck 05-24-07, 06:36 PM	Two things in incendiary cloud's defense: #1. You can outrun a cloudkill easily. Even if you're at the center of it when it comes into being, with a 30 ft. move you can spend one move action per turn and never be in it again. Incendiary cloud can be moved 60 ft. per turn, which also allows it to move in different directions than simply away from you. #2. Cloudkill's vapors are heavier than air, and so must stay ground level. Incendiary cloud has no such rule in its description, which is further justified by its being described as smoke. Now flying creatures, common at this level, are not safe.
Whisper_Swiftblade 05-24-07, 07:04 PM	the only original thing I can come up with, is that I Cloud can't hurt your guys if you buff them against fire damage (which realy gets fun if you send in the troops while your foes roast.)
Jaxgaret 05-24-07, 07:39 PM	Two things in incendiary cloud's defense: #1. You can outrun a cloudkill easily. Even if you're at the center of it when it comes into being, with a 30 ft. move you can spend one move action per turn and never be in it again. Incendiary cloud can be moved 60 ft. per turn, which also allows it to move in different directions than simply away from you. #2. Cloudkill's vapors are heavier than air, and so must stay ground level. Incendiary cloud has no such rule in its description, which is further justified by its being described as smoke. Now flying creatures, common at this level, are not safe. Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric?
Vharuck 05-24-07, 07:47 PM	Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric? Not really, I just like playing devil's advocate when everyone else only mentions the positives of one thing and negatives of another in comparisons.
Trundle 05-28-07, 07:58 PM	Do you think that the combination of those two things are enough to make up for Cloudkill's longer duration and, on average, better damage metric? Well, maybe it would be enough to make up for those as a situation specific spell. ...but not as a situation specific spell that's 3 levels higher, for crying out loud.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 08:46 PM	A lot of people grossly overvalue HP damage relative to other kinds of damage -- not only thinking that HP damage is as good as other things you can do to monsters (which is generally not true once you get to higher levels) but actually thinking HP damage is better than other kinds of damage, which is grossly false. This is why you see a lot of newbies relishing the role of being the "blaster" mage and avoiding the role of "utility" mage, even though the most efficient killers by far tend to take relatively few blasting spells. The problem is that among these people are WotC designers, quite a few of them. All you have to do is read the "advice" section of Complete Mage to see that this is true. Much of D&D's class balance problems, I think, stem from this very basic fact -- that D&D started as a game about chipping off HP from each other, and no one realized just how much better doing ability damage, using save-or-dies, disabling people, etc. could be than just adding dice of HP damage. Which is why no one noticed when the Wizard totally eclipsed the Fighter in not just usefulness (the Wizard was always more useful than a Fighter at high levels -- that is, a Magic-User more useful than a Fighting-Man) but in his ability to kill people. Mike Mearls has noticed this and points out that, really, D&D would be a much more streamlined and easier-to-balance game if many things that now manifest as save-or-dies, negative levels, and ability damage instead simply did extra HP damage that could be resisted in various ways.
Shiikeras 05-28-07, 08:53 PM	That, however, would make it extremely boring. If they made more creative uses for spells like fireball and other damage dealing spells, that would help. Like Otiluke's Freezing Sphere.
Ogre4Hire 05-28-07, 10:24 PM	There are a lot more critters that have an immunity to poison than an immunity to fire. All Undead, Constructs, Plants, and Elementals can sit inside of a Cloudkill spell as long as they want with no effect. Plus Durgar, Baatizu, Tanar'ri, Yugoloths...
ArcTan 05-28-07, 10:26 PM	Well, sure, but it's not like incendiary cloud is as good against Undead as cloudkill is against living creatures. Incendiary cloud is a "meh" spell when used against anything, even things fully vulnerable to fire.
Bopple 05-29-07, 10:58 AM	There are a lot more critters that have an immunity to poison than an immunity to fire. A LOT more critters have fire resistance which greatly reduces the damage of Incendiary Cloud.