Why does Ice Storm suck?

[der_kluge]

I'm looking at the Ice Storm spell. Can anyone tell me why this is a 4th level spell?

I mean, fireball is 3rd, and does 5d6 points of damage at 5th level, and 7d6 points of damage at 7th level, which is when a wizard would get ice storm - which only does 5d6 points of damage. Which, when you consider spells such as stoneskin and polymorph self are 4th level - why would anyone take Ice Storm?

I realize that there's no save, but still!

 

[Knowledge Sinkhole]

Well, though you may think little of the lack of a saving throw, the designers did not. The fact that it is a no save damage spell is why it is 4th level.

 

[Oni]

While it is a spell that I am generally not very fond of it is a little harder to get around than fireball. Only doing partially elemental damage means it is still effective against resistant creatures. Also no save means no evasion. Also it covers an ever so slightly larger area of effect.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think it does. I think 5d6 damage, that's no save is very good.

 

[Stalker0]

Considering the lack of a save, the ice storm may actually do more damage on average.

Also, there are more monsters vulnerable to cold then to fire.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

Boy, that's right. No save, just think if this spell was empowered or energy admixtured. At 6th level that's 7.5d6 and at 8th level that's 10d6, area effect, no save. Wow.

 

[der_kluge]

But it doesn't increase. So, at 10th level, a wizard could cast ice storm (5d6), or cast fireball (10d6). Even if someone saved against the fireball, they'd be taking the same amount of damage as the ice storm. And since it's a level lower, that means I could end up casting *more* fireballs than I could ice storms, anyway.

And ice storm and fireball have the exact same area of effect - 20-ft. radius. The fact that ice storm extends upwards 40-ft. is entirely irrelevant unless all of your enemies are levitating 30 feet off the ground where you've detonated your fireball. (unlikely)

PLUS, fireball incinerates combustibles, and ice storm does not. So, you could use fireball to burn inns down (if you felt so inclined). Ice storm can't do that.

About the only advantage with ice storm is that it could be used underwater.

 

[Mort]

I think you're still missing the "no save" part.
A fireball or lightning bolt cast at a rogue or a monk has a very good chance of doing 0 damage not just half. Since ice storm has no save - evasion doesn't apply and you'll still do damage to them.
Further, by the time you get to 9th level - resistances become common and fireball and lightning bold may do no damage to other things as well. Since Ice storm is 3d6 impact, you are gaurenteed at least some damage (for spell disruption purposes if nothing else).

 

[the Jester]

The key part is the mixed damage type, I think. It's less likely that you'll fight something ice storm can't hurt (need both cold and impact resistance) than that you'll fight something fireball can't hurt (all you need is fire resistance or immunity or subtype). Heck, an ice storm is still useful against cold subtype creatures.

And, as others have mentioned, evasion is pretty easy to come by; no save, no evasion.

 

[Spatula]

But it doesn't increase. So, at 10th level, a wizard could cast ice storm (5d6), or cast fireball (10d6). Even if someone saved against the fireball, they'd be taking the same amount of damage as the ice storm.

Unless the target has Evasion or Improved Evasion. Unless the target has energy resistances. And not only are monster resistances more common as you go up in levels, monster saving throws increase faster than spell save DCs.

And since it's a level lower, that means I could end up casting *more* fireballs than I could ice storms, anyway.

One more, generally, and that goes away as your levels increase.

PLUS, fireball incinerates combustibles, and ice storm does not. So, you could use fireball to burn inns down (if you felt so inclined).

Not a big deal. You can use any fire spell, even a 1st level burning hands, to set things on fire.