Sesquipedelian Loquaciousness [Spell] [PEACH]

[Fortuna]

Sesquipedelian Loquaciousness
Enchantment (Compulsion) (Mind-Affecting)
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Duration: 1 minute/caster level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell forces the target to articulate their content utilizing naught excepting speech consisting of words containing more than six syllables. This does not interfere with spellcasting in any way. Any creature attempting to understand them must roll 20 on 1d20+their intelligence or be unable to comprehend it. If the listening creature fails, they must make a Will save or be confused as the spell for one round, treating the original spell target as the "caster" for all purposes other than duration. Any creature making their save is immune to the latter effect from this casting. Anyone failing will also treat the target as having a Charisma of one lower as regards social skills until the spell ends (stackable.) In addition, the creature must make a successful Will save each round or spend a swift action babbling. If they fail this, they must make another to avoid spending a move action as well. Finally, if they fail that one also, they must make another Will save or spend the entire round babbling uselessly, unable to do anything else.

Okay, that was my first piece of 3.5 homebrew ever. PEACH

[Trobby]

Okay, as a substitution for Silence (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/spellsS.html#silence), the spell level is too high. But as a Silence spell stacked with Confusion (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/spellsC.html#confusion), the level is too high. But, not being an expert on spell levels, I'll let someone else critique that.

For flavor's sake, you should include HOW the caster is supposed to affect the victim's speech. Should they touch the throat and cause a swelling sensation? Or do they touch the lungs, causing them to bloat like balloons? And for that matter does Gargantuan Speech affect the speaker's spell casting abilities, or not? *I assume not, but if they can, then it increases the spell's versatility, and you might want to consider raising it to a level 5 spell.*

[Lysander]

Do they have to roll against the caster's intelligence or the spell target's intelligence? The target's intelligence seems like a better bet. I would also say, to even things out, that should a person succeed in understanding the subject they're immune to subsequent confusions from the same casting of the spell, even if they fail to understand future sentences.

[The Neoclassic]

Some of this has already been mentioned by others, but I want to be thorough, so my apologies for repeats. :smallsmile:


Sesquipadelian Loquaciousness
Enchantment

I assume this is a (Compulsion) effect since it's not (Charm). Mind-affecting too, I think, as it messes with the person's ability to process/use language correctly.


Level: Sor/Wiz 4

As others have said, too high of a level. Second or third would be better.


Components: V, S
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Duration: 1 minute/caster level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

All good. :smallcool:


This spell causes the target to become incapable of speaking using any other than gargantuan utterings. Any creature attempting to understand them must roll their intelligence or less on 1d10+10 or be unable to comprehend it. If the listening creature fails by at least 10, they are confused as the spell.

Hmm, this phrasing is somewhat confusing. I also might just say that creatures who fail to understand also automatically become confused (or must make a Will save against it).


Okay, that was my first piece of 3.5 homebrew ever. PEACH

Yay! Have you done homebrew for other editions, or is this your first D&D homebrew at all (at least on the forums)? Also, don't let the extensive feedback discourage you; responses generally mean that people think it's worth looking at, thinking about, and improving! :smallsmile:

[deuxhero]

Do they have to roll against the caster's intelligence or the spell target's intelligence?

The creature attempting to understand the target.

Does the spell hinder verbal component use?

[DOOMBOT9000]

For flavor's sake, you should include HOW the caster is supposed to affect the victim's speech. Should they touch the throat and cause a swelling sensation? Or do they touch the lungs, causing them to bloat like balloons? And for that matter does Gargantuan Speech affect the speaker's spell casting abilities, or not? *I assume not, but if they can, then it increases the spell's versatility, and you might want to consider raising it to a level 5 spell.*

In conjunction with the mind altering nature of the spell, I think a good explanation is that it places a mental block that does not allow the subject to say words with less than four syllables. That could definitely be said in a more flavorful way, but I'm new at this too :smallamused:

[Fortuna]

Okay, edited it to reflect feedback

@The_Neoclassic, All of my other homebrew has been kept to myself as it is for... <looks around furtively> AD&D

[Trobby]

Anyone failing will also treat the target as having a Charisma of one lower as regards social skills until the spell ends (stackable.) This does not interfere with spellcasting in any way.

This is a little confusing. First off, the "This does not interfere with spellcasting" statement should go right after the second sentence, so as not to be confused with the part about confusion (I know it's a silly mistake to make, but it could happen).

Second, the duration of confusion needs to be specified in this spell. Confusion has a duration based on caster level, and you need to specify if the caster level is that of the original caster, or if the duration is based on some other factor (I would assume the original caster's level).

Also, I know that I'm giving this spell a lot of critique, but I really do like the idea; especially since you could cast it on yourself to affect others, or cast it on another caster to drive his party insane. (Incidentally, DMs would have to house-rule that, under the effects of this "Insanity", the "caster" is the player speaking and not the original caster of the spell.)

And as one last point; is the affected person immune to the confusion effect, or do they need to make an Int check too?

[Fortuna]

This is a little confusing. First off, the "This does not interfere with spellcasting" statement should go right after the second sentence, so as not to be confused with the part about confusion (I know it's a silly mistake to make, but it could happen).

Second, the duration of confusion needs to be specified in this spell. Confusion has a duration based on caster level, and you need to specify if the caster level is that of the original caster, or if the duration is based on some other factor (I would assume the original caster's level).]

Edited to take this into account.

[QUOTE=Introbulus;6932538]Is the affected person immune to the confusion effect, or do they need to make an Int check too?

Only if they are trying to understand themselves! Since they know what they are saying, they are immune to that portion of the spell.

[Amadi]

Cast this on yourself, run around confusing just about everything. Totally worth a 3rd level slot. :smallamused:

I don't see any reason to cast it on opponents, though. :smalltongue:

[Fortuna]

If you cast this on an opponent, a known opponent, before they do something important socially...

EDIT: Decided to make this spell slightly nastier, now it wastes actions if you don't make a Will save every round.

[Debihuman]

Any creature attempting to understand them must roll their intelligence or less on 1d10+10 or be unable to comprehend it. If the listening creature fails, they must make a Will save or be confused as the spell for one round, treating the original spell target as the "caster" for all purposes other than duration.

Why isn't this a standard Save?

Debby

[Fortuna]

Because it represents your ability to understand the long words, and I want it to be heavily dependant on Int.

[DragoonWraith]

Why not make it a standard Int check, then? As far as I am aware, 3.5 D&D has no instances of a need to roll under a target number to gain the desired effect, and adding a single exception to that is not a good idea. Use standard mechanics for these things. So they do an Int check (1d20+Int modifier) versus a static DC (or a DC based on the caster level of the original caster), or become confused. The Int check should probably replace the Will save; double chances to save generally make for rather weak spells.

[Fortuna]

The problem with that is that I desperately want someone with, say, a 14 Int to have a much harder time than someone with a 19. How do you suggest that I deal with that?

[DragoonWraith]

"All who hear the target of this spell must make a special Intelligence check, to which they add their Int modifier a second time (squaring the Int modifier). The DC for this check is 20."

{table=head]Int|Mod|Check|% Chance
6-7|-2|1d20-4|0%
8-9|-1|1d20-1|0%
10-11|0|1d20|5%
12-13|1|1d20+1|10%
14-15|2|1d20+4|25%
16-17|3|1d20+9|55%
18-19|4|1d20+16|85%
20+|5+|N/A|100%[/table]
How's that look?

[Debihuman]

The problem with that is that I desperately want someone with, say, a 14 Int to have a much harder time than someone with a 19. How do you suggest that I deal with that?

As mentioned earlier, that is an Intelligence check. "An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check."

How you wish to set the DC is up to you. It can be a static number or can be a variable number [you can simply use the standard 10 + spell's level + caster's Int modifier]. An opponent with Int of 14 will have a harder time succeeding than will an oppoenent with an Int of 19.

Debby

[AgentPaper]

"Anyone hearing the target of the spell is confused unless they roll 1d10 plus their intelligence score and get a result equal to or higher than 20."

That work?

[Fortuna]

Thanks AgentPaper, that makes a lot more sense in 3.5 terms. I tend to think mostly in terms of first edition, because that is what I regularly play.

[DracoDei]

@The_Neoclassic, All of my other homebrew has been kept to myself as it is for... <looks around furtively> AD&D

I don't think people here have much against AD&D...

[Fortuna]

Really? I saw an entire thread gome time ago saying it is evil and horrible and similar things.

[Debihuman]

Just two minor nitpicks: "sesquipedalian" is the correct spelling, and you also misspelled "successful." Otherwise, it looks really good.

Debby