Alex Schultz wrote: > ERACC wrote: > >> I cannot believe HOW neutered this spell is. It used to be an awesome >> spell worth the effort of going to get. Now I am sorry I wasted an >> entire evening going to get it on crossfire.metalforge.net earlier. >> As hard as it is to get this spell it should be at least as powerful >> as I remember it being. What's with neutering hard-to-get spells? >> >> Can the spell be returned to its' former glory, please? Otherwise it >> just takes up space in my spell list. Level 46 sorcery and it takes >> THREE casts of color spray to kill about 10 - 15 Fiends. They should >> ALL be dead in one cast based on how the spell USED to work. >> > I agree, it's currently underpowered to the point where it's useless > even when it might otherwise be attractive due to it's variety of > attacktypes being difficult to resist. Even if I inscribe lots of > scrolls of it that are about lvl 100, it can't even graze a lvl 60 in > the arena or any monster that's of the slightest worth. > The balance of the spell might currently be ok for a lvl 15-30, however > it's near impossible for a lvl 15-30 to get it considering the quest > it's in and the fact that spellbooks can't be carried out. Comparing it to dragonbreath (which seems properly powerful), there are a few things I quickly notice: Base damage for dragonbreath is 25, for colorspray, 8. Both increase damage at same rate (1 point/3 levels) Colorspray has a longer range (10 vs 7), both increase at 1 sq/5 levels. Colorspray costs considerably more mana (35 vs 13) Looking at this, it'd seem that starting damage may be a bit low and casting cost a bit high. But I also wonder if some of the problem is that nature of the spell itself. If casting on high level creatures, chances are they are probably highly resistant to several of the attacktypes. For example, if a creature is immune to half the attacktypes, the damage it does would effectively be reduced. In comparison, you'll use dragon breath or other single attacktype spells on the creatures that it works on. So in that sense, it is probably also more effective.