Everything is exactly the same as Acid Orb, except for damage type. You would roll 1d10 to determine damage type, using the wild magic damage type table.
So, you could get lucky (radiant damage v. undead) or you could get unlucky (fire damage. v a red dragon or something). And most of the time it really wouldn't matter at all.
I think it would be balanced and fun? Are there any glaring problems? Too powerful (drop damage die to 1d8)? Not powerful enough (increase damage die to 1d12)?
When you create your character, pick 4 damage types, and roll a d4 to see what this one uses.
Or perhaps you could simply base the damage on your resistance type for the day. Rolling a d10 every time might get a little old.
Or perhaps you could simply base the damage on your resistance type for the day. Rolling a d10 every time might get a little old.
This is how I'd do it, and I love the idea. Switchin' it over to this right now.
Or perhaps you could simply base the damage on your resistance type for the day. Rolling a d10 every time might get a little old.
I see this as actually being overpowered, because then you are guaranteed to pierce resistance if applicable - the spell becomes much more powerful.
I didn't think the extra roll would be that big a deal - you just roll 2 d10s instead of one. One of them tells you damage type, the other one tells you damage.
I see this as actually being overpowered, because then you are guaranteed to pierce resistance if applicable - the spell becomes much more powerful.
I didn't think the extra roll would be that big a deal - you just roll 2 d10s instead of one. One of them tells you damage type, the other one tells you damage.
It doesn't have to be the same damage type if you don't like that. It could be based on your resistance for the day, ie. roll your resistance; your Prismatic Orb spell does the same value +1 (a roll of 11 means it does acid). This makes it a bit weaker in that you never get the acid damage penetration benefit, but on the other hand you have access to a huge range of randomly determined damage types this way, which can be cool.
Or do it your way with the double roll and make sure the player has the table handy. I for one don't think it's too bad to have a resistance-penetrating at-will, though: the penetration isn't massive and the sorceror doesn't get to tailor his orb spell resistance to suit the monster-du-jour. After all, a dragon sorceror gets to tailor pick his/her damage resistance/penetration, an option wild sorcerors don't get. But YMMV.
If you're worried about the piercing effect being too much, you could always lower the damage to 1d8. Removing the "ranged basic attack" effect and shortening the range to "Ranged 10" could also work.
Actually, I really like this concept. I'll definitely be adding it to my games.
If you make the damage type based on your resistance type, these things happen:
1) You deal a different damage type than normal (let's say fire)
2) You now have an at-will fire spell. Which can pierce fire resistance.
3) How does this help you at all? Against creatures with no fire resistance, the change is irrelevant.
4) If you had chosen NOT to houserule this power, the damage type would have been acid, and against creatures with fire resistance the effect is still irrelevant.
5) The only time this houserule would be relevant is if you don't choose Acid Resistance, and you are fighting an acid resistant creature.
Either way, the result is probably the same. I'd just say tie it in to your resistance of the day, Dragon Magic user or not. Either way, it accomplishes the same thing.
In addition (don't feel like making another topic, if you feel I should, I will), I was thinking of reflavoring the other powers....mainly I dislike the idea of all arcane powers having one element or another, but also dislike having just fire, or just cold, etc.
I was thinking of changing all of my powers (other than acid orbs new change) and removing the elements (so the powers keywords would be implement and arcane only). This helps my toon's flavor of dealing with raw magical energy. Is there any way this would be too good/bad, or have another change to help get across that he is weilding raw magic that he can't always control...?
On a side note, I'm assuming 'toon' means character? Why would you call it that?
On a side note, I'm assuming 'toon' means character? Why would you call it that?
Something I've always wondered too... reminds me of a friend who used to say he was "rolling" a character in WoW. (There's no dice rolling or randomness involved in character creation in WoW...)
On topic, I as a DM would certainly allow at least one spell to be made non-elemental, so long as said change was permanent.
Would there be a better change then what I planned to do...? Like, I wish there was a 'non-elemental' keyword...but that's technically what I'm doing I guess. But like I said, I want to find a homebrew that gives off a more raw magic feel, and not be stuck with the default kewords...
Honestly, the resistance issue should be basically null.
Yeah, from a totally objective standpoint this is true.
You might do better, worse, or the same, and since you don't decide the damage type at point-of-casting, it doesn't grant any reliable advantage.
The only exception I guess would be if a particular campaign happens to deal a lot with elementally-similar enemies, at which point you're still better off selecting specific damage types than rolling.
I like the idea of this rule, I think I'll implement it. Even when reading through the sorcerer I thought Acid was too distinct; the randomness fits better with the flavor.
Cool thread
