Magical Backlash Bypasses SR

[DM Indolence]

Name: Magical Backlash Bypasses SR

Where: N/A

When: Casting Magical Backlash on PC with Spell Resistance (spell) applied.

What: Magical Backlash is bypassing all spell resistance as if it didn't apply. Casting was done by a PC to another PC with extended Spell Resistance in place. Casting was then done by a DM against a PC with natural spell resistance. Neither instance prompted SR checks. Expected behavior: Feedback in Combat Window along the lines of [PC Name] attempts to resist spell: (failure or success).

Recreate: Apply spell resistance via spell "Spell Resistance" or another source. Cast Magical Backlash.

Ideas: Fresh out.

[EO]

Thanks, will fix it.

[HM01]

This spell is obscenely powerful in it's current iteration and has the option to do more damage than 9th level maximized slots (from a scroll even) depending on your target. I'll wait until the other known fixes are rolled out to provide more comprehensive feedback if needed. It is almost like a power word as a second level spell.

(edit: I also think its great, waiting to see it fit)

[Rakiov]

Yes, I think the damage is way to high for this spell. A fully warded wizard hit by this spell can almost one shot them if they fail their save.

[JustMonika]

Yes, I think the damage is way to high for this spell. A fully warded wizard hit by this spell can almost one shot them if they fail their save.

Isn't that the whole point?

To encourage people not to be fully warded, for wards to have a downside and a risk element?

[Rakiov]

I guess, but the damage feels to much for a 2nd level spell at least. It should be higher for the amount of damage it does.

It would mean a 3rd level wizard can shut down a 18th level.

[JustMonika]

Only if the 18th level has an excessive number of wards. If they just have empowered spell mantal, the 3rd level is toast.

[HM01]

To an extent I agree, I think the spell would sit better if the person casting Magical Backlash took the other half of the damage from the successful save - as it is possible to do well over 100 damage even on a succeeded save. It would not only fit the spirit of the spell, but add to the risk/reward.

[Crowl]

There's an element of truth to what JustMonika says. This spell is only dangerous if you've casted every single spell on the book on yourself. The difference is, before, with all that kind of magic on your character you were virtually untouchable by any means. All your detection stats through the roof, empowered attributes, premonition, spell resistance, every stackable spell on top of each other. Now you are vulnerable to one thing that can counter that, if you decide to go over the top. So you have to be more selective with what you cast, and balance things out. Or take the risk.

[DM Indolence]

I tested this pretty extensively with a fully self-buffed cleric and wizard both (both higher level). Neither had particularly good Constitution, and the damage wasn't extraordinary. Definitely something to think about when buffed, but it's not in my Top 10 Greatest Ganks list. This is a bug report, however. I'd suggest making a feedback post for it, if further discussion is required.

[Rakiov]

Maybe I will feel different when the bugs are ironned out, cause right now there is no way to stop the spell.

[JustMonika]

To an extent I agree, I think the spell would sit better if the person casting Magical Backlash took the other half of the damage from the successful save - as it is possible to do well over 100 damage even on a succeeded save. It would not only fit the spirit of the spell, but add to the risk/reward.

I quite like this as a concept, and it would certainly make the spell much more dangerous for low level mages to throw out.

However in every conversation I have had with EO, it has been underscored the intent is to recreate things as faithfully to 3.5 as is pratical, so I'm not sure adding custom affects like that to a spell is very likely.

And yes, FDS, good point. My bad. To the feedback thread.


This Feedback Thread - https://www.nwnravenloft.com/forum/index.php?topic=56864.0

[EO]

These should now be fixed.