Talk:Atomic Bolt (5e Spell)

How much damage does the poisoned condition deal though?

It's the poisoned condition. Marasmusine (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me rephrase my question. I meant how much is the secondary damage recieved if the creature fails the saving throw after one week. Furthermore, I believe the blindness and poisoning should be two seperate saving throws, also, what's the DC of the saving throw, is it your Spellcasting DC or is it a standard number? Finally, if you are going to set a secondary damage for the poison let it be a considerable amount, most 9th level spells deal a ton of damage. I like the idea of atomic bolt but to be honest, 60 dmg(20d6) feels kinda weak compared to other 9th level spells ("Power Word: Kill" instantly kills a creature below 100 hp for example) and uranium isn't that easy or safe to find.

I agree with you somewhat. The material component can simply be emulated with a focus, so that's no issue. The damage though is very lacklustre, and maybe a swap to d8's would help. As for the conditions and damage types, 99.99% of enemies you'll be facing at 17th and up are immune to poison damage and both conditions this inflicts, so ditching the conditions and changing the poison damage to acid and add a half damage at the end of its next turn would work. I would also add a, if under 100 hp, con save or die clause as if this bolt emits enough radiation to melt stone and iron, it would most likely vaporize most flesh. If it didn't, the radiation burn received would be more of an issue than the poisoning, as something would most likely be dead from the burns before the symptoms of radiation poisoning set in (all assuming the giant dose hasn't just killed them instantly). --Lethalitycomplex (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2017 (MDT)

As with all spells, the default saving throw is the caster's spell DC. It doesn't need to be stated.

The spell doesn't say there is any secondary damage.

How was "99.99% of enemies you'll be facing at 17th and up are immune to poison damage" worked out? 5e is designed so that creatures of any CR can contribute towards an encounter; besides which dragons, empyreans, sphynxes, any number of NPCs with class levels, hoards of lower-CR creatures like storm giants are all susceptible to poison. Marasmusine (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2017 (MDT)

That is true about the poison damage... my bad on that one. I think the point I was trying to get across is that there's probably a better thing to use than poison damage and the poisoned/blinded conditions for the initial target, as that large a dose, as I said, would most likely sear away the flesh of anything it was aimed at if it's capable of melting metal and stone. The poison damage and the conditions might be great for some extra effect that could be added, such as a field of radiation centered on the target after the initial casting that lasts a period of time, or something similar. As it is though, flavorful as it is, I can't see too much appeal in the spell mechanically, especially for the sorcerer given their very small number of spells. It doesn't really seem to compare to other spells of its level, or even some in official content of the next level down. --Lethalitycomplex (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2017 (MDT)

If you think you can improve it, you are free to edit it! Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2017 (MDT)

The total damage on a single target is 20d6 and there's a high chance you're going to miss against a high armor enemy. The damage still feels lucklustre to me. (Compared to AOE spells like Meteor Swarm that damage multiple enemies for the exact same damage on a successful save). In the Spell Design guide the damage for a single target 9th level spell is ~16d12. You could of course keep the exact same damage values and put some damage on the poisoned condition saving throw, maybe making it repeat after several hours, for 10d6 poison damage on a failed throw or half as much on a successful one ending the condition (that solves the problem of a creature being blind for 1 week, in which he'll definitely find other way to get rid of the condition). It feels kinda weak for an "Atomic Bolt", i still really like the idea though. One other tweak I would recommend is replacing the fire damage with radiant; less creatures have resistance against it and it makes sense for a nuclear blast (after all, it's radiation, it doesn't get closer to radiant damage.) --Nekristus (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2018 (MDT)

That effect sounds better than just strictly vastly increasing the damage the spell would deal. I do want to say though that radiant damage isn't radiation, it is sorta a type of holy fire that sears flesh, see flame strike.--Blobby383b (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2018 (MDT)