PDA

View Full Version : Sun Scarabs, a proposed undead-fighting necromantic spell (P.E.A.C.H., please)



Grelna the Blue
2012-12-12, 05:44 PM
I play a good-aligned necromancer wizard specialist in a 3.PF game. Dismayed by a shortage of spells for such a character, I am attempting to design a few. The 5th level spell below is a proposed counterpart to the D&D 3.5 PH2 4th level spell Doom Scarabs (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-ii--80/doom-scarabs--2947/) (differing in that Doom Scarabs affects only the living and allows no Spell Resistance vs. its damage). Please let me know what you think.

Sun Scarabs

School: Evocation/Necromancy [good, light]
Level: Wizard 5; Domain: Sun 5
Components: V, S, Special (see text)
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous; plus 1 round/caster level for dazzle effect and penalty to channel resistance
Saving Throw: Reflex half, Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

A swarm of brightly glowing golden scarabs surges from your outstretched hand. They rip and bite at all undead creatures in the area (at the GMís discretion, this spell may also affect other creatures powered by negative energy and harmed by positive energy).

Any undead creature in the area takes 1d6 points of positive energy damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) and is dazzled for 1 round/caster level. A successful Reflex save negates the dazzling and reduces the damage by half. Creatures especially susceptible to sunlight (vampires, wraiths, etc.) make this save at -2.

For every 1d6 points of non-lethal damage you are willing to take as a sacrifice (up to a maximum of 4d6), all Undead creatures in the area take a commensurate penalty to their channel resistance equal to the number of dice sacrificed. The penalty inflicted by this spell does not stack with multiple castings (although it can overlap) and lasts for 1 round per caster level. A Will save may negate this effect.

Incorporeality is no defense against this spell's effects.

scarmiglionne4
2012-12-12, 07:51 PM
While I am not sure about dazzling undead (can undead be dazzled?), I see next to nothing wrong with this spell. I like the dazzling effect, perhaps just say it does what dazzle does and don't actually call it dazzle. I could be mistaken on this, though.

I think the spell level is good, the effects are good. I LOVE the effect that gives undead with turn resistance a penalty to that resistance.

I might give it a focus for flavor. A gold scarab worth so much gp.

PEACH in signature

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-12, 08:09 PM
While I am not sure about dazzling undead (can undead be dazzled?), I see next to nothing wrong with this spell. I like the dazzling effect, perhaps just say it does what dazzle does and don't actually call it dazzle. I could be mistaken on this, though.

I think the spell level is good, the effects are good. I LOVE the effect that gives undead with turn resistance a penalty to that resistance.

I might give it a focus for flavor. A gold scarab worth so much gp.

PEACH in signature

Well, I looked in the d20 SRD and the PF SRD, and in both the Undead Traits lacked any mention of immunity to the dazzled condition, so I think I'm okay there. Of course, my GM will be the final arbiter.

I had wondered if I should include a material or focus. I wouldn't mind using a scarab. The character started out in Mulhorand, so it would be completely in character for her to have gold scarab jewelry.

Will post something on the battle options in your sig shortly.

TuggyNE
2012-12-12, 08:20 PM
This looks really nice, I have no particular changes to suggest. If anything, it might be slightly weaker than others of the level, but not too bad.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-13, 12:05 AM
I'm always on the lookout for new and interesting necromancy spells, especially since my own magic-fix's version of necromancy includes all negative and positive energy effects (i.e. Necromancy is Life-and-Death magic). It also shifts some of the standard functions around between arcane and divine.

The only issue I have with this spell is that it doesn't really seem like an Evocation effect (unless there is other homebrew of yours which puts generating positive energy in the evocation column, which is admittedly not a bad idea). If the scarabs are supposed to be some sort of positive-energy creature or construct, I would say the spell seems more like conjuration/necromancy.
Just something to think about.

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-13, 12:48 AM
The only issue I have with this spell is that it doesn't really seem like an Evocation effect (unless there is other homebrew of yours which puts generating positive energy in the evocation column, which is admittedly not a bad idea). If the scarabs are supposed to be some sort of positive-energy creature or construct, I would say the spell seems more like conjuration/necromancy.
Just something to think about.
Well, Doom Scarabs, the 4th level spell from which I got the basic theme, IS Conjuration/Necromancy. However, because Doom Scarabs came out in the period in 3.5 when Conjuration was making a bid for the supreme school of blastiness, it allowed no SR. In the Pathfinder games I run and play in, although we allow some 3.5 material, we didn't keep most of the no-SR Conjuration spells. We did keep Doom Scarabs, but said that as real and nonresistible briefly summoned creatures the scarabs could be hedged out by Protection from Good spells, which only seemed to make sense anyway.

Posting this here as a 3.PF spell, I was hoping to stay away from the 3.5 Conjuration/SR debate (especially as I thought it would no longer be balanced if it disallowed SR) and thought anyway it might be a little more similar to spells like Vortex of Teeth, which are Evocation spells.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-13, 01:11 PM
Well, Doom Scarabs, the 4th level spell from which I got the basic theme, IS Conjuration/Necromancy. However, because Doom Scarabs came out in the period in 3.5 when Conjuration was making a bid for the supreme school of blastiness, it allowed no SR. In the Pathfinder games I run and play in, although we allow some 3.5 material, we didn't keep most of the no-SR Conjuration spells.

Let me make sure I'm understanding the breakdown of the spell correctly: the damage does not allow a check for spell resistance, but the seconday effect does, yes? I would think it would be the other way around.

I have a full-on magic fix that I'm continually tweaking and updating, and one of the things it does is give every creature a base level of spell resistance, sort of like they get a base level of AC.
I've never really played a conjuration-focused full caster; I assumed that requiring attack rolls for most of the conjuration spells would balance out the lack of spell resistance, since full-casters tend to have poor BAB. But I recognize that a lot of these are ranged touch spells anyhow.

I really would prefer to put spells in the schools where they fit thematically (I've already shifted healing from Conjuration to Necromancy), rather than just give every school some of everything. So now I'm starting to think that maybe I should just strip out all the elemental energy-related spells from Conjuration entirely (everything except for Force, maybe), and give the ones that aren't duplicates of something else to Evocation. That way evocation is definitely the go-to school for blasting, and conjuration focuses on summoning creatures and objects, but not energy effects.


Sorry, got a little off topic. It still seems odd to me that this spells is part Evocation, but if it lines up with other similar spells in your system then I guess I wouldn't have a problem, so long as it's consistent.

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-13, 01:39 PM
Let me make sure I'm understanding the breakdown of the spell correctly: the damage does not allow a check for spell resistance, but the seconday effect does, yes? I would think it would be the other way around.

I have a full-on magic fix that I'm continually tweaking and updating, and one of the things it does is give every creature a base level of spell resistance, sort of like they get a base level of AC.
I've never really played a conjuration-focused full caster; I assumed that requiring attack rolls for most of the conjuration spells would balance out the lack of spell resistance, since full-casters tend to have poor BAB. But I recognize that a lot of these are ranged touch spells anyhow.

I really would prefer to put spells in the schools where they fit thematically (I've already shifted healing from Conjuration to Necromancy), rather than just give every school some of everything. So now I'm starting to think that maybe I should just strip out all the elemental energy-related spells from Conjuration entirely (everything except for Force, maybe), and give the ones that aren't duplicates of something else to Evocation. That way evocation is definitely the go-to school for blasting, and conjuration focuses on summoning creatures and objects, but not energy effects.


Sorry, got a little off topic. It still seems odd to me that this spells is part Evocation, but if it lines up with other similar spells in your system then I guess I wouldn't have a problem, so long as it's consistent.

Doom Scarabs, the spell from the 3.5 PH2, does not allow SR on the damage, but does allow it on the secondary effect. This is, apparently, because the summoned scarabs are "real", not magic. So their damage is not resistible, but the magical side effect is. This is rather strange, but more defensible than the idea of conjuring "real" [damaging element] that you can hold in your hand and throw and that scales up in damage with level (e.g., Lesser Orb of Acid (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-arcane--55/orb-of-acid-lesser--463/)).

Sun Scarabs, on the other hand, was designed to allow SR to the entire effect, because the scarabs are essentially made of magic and thus seemed to me more like evocation than conjuration.

I think we're on pretty much the same page in other respects, although I'm curious why you would include Force effects in Conjuration, as they had always seemed to me to be the most pure examples of Evocation spells in the game.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-13, 02:14 PM
Doom Scarabs, the spell from the 3.5 PH2, does not allow SR on the damage, but does allow it on the secondary effect. This is, apparently, because the summoned scarabs are "real", not magic. So their damage is not resistible, but the magical side effect is.

Sun Scarabs, on the other hand, was designed to allow SR to the entire effect, because the scarabs are essentially made of magic and thus seemed to me more like evocation than conjuration.

Whether you're generating magical psuedo-creatures in the moment the spells is cast or just summoning them from another dimension, either way it feels more like Conjuration to me. But like I said, so long as the effect fits in your system then it works.
Also, you said it's the scarabs that deal the damage, but I guess I'd been picturing this as 2 seperate pieces: a cone of positive energy and a bunch of magic beetles that can't surive for long outside the cone since they aren't native to this plane. And it would play out something like this:
Skeleton: Oh god, the light! It BURNS!
Zombie: And the beetles! They're biting me everywhere!
Skeleton: Bugs! Why did it have to be bugs?
Zombie: I'm already rotting from the inside out, and I think that blast of positive energy just "healed" the maggots feasting on my innards!
Skeleton:We're already soulless abominations of nature, why do you torture us so?!?

Except the zombie lost his jaw to some unfriendly ravens a while back and the skeleton never had a tongue to begin with, so all the Cleric hears is: "Blargrgrbl mrgh!"
Cleric: Glory be to Pelor, the damned things are still moving! TURN UNDEAD!

Zombie: EEEEEEgh! My unlife is pain!
Skeleton: AAAARGH! And bugs! Don't forget the bugs.
:smalltongue:


I think we're on pretty much the same page in other respects, although I'm curious why you would include Force effects in Conjuration, as they had always seemed to me to be the most pure examples of Evocation spells in the game.

That was just my first thought on the matter; what you said definitely makes sense. I'm going over the Sor/Wiz spell list now and if I left anything behind it would probably be the acid. Some spells like Sleet Storm might become dual-school Evocation/Conjuration.

On another note, what do you think of things like Sonic effects, Gust of Wind, and Mage Hand? Interpreting what school they end up in seems like you would need to decide what quasi-scientific action your are magically mimicking.
For example, "sound" and "wind" are really just movement of air particles, which would make it like Transmutation. But you could reasonably claim that energy-based effects are Evocation, or that you are generating wind by summoning air from somewhere else.

Mystra
2012-12-15, 04:58 AM
This spell is near perfect.....you have it right with the spell resistance and all.

I only have one point: This spell is neither a [Force] or a [Good] spell. The scarabs are made out of 'positive energy' and do 'positive energy damage'.......so where to you see 'force'. And where do you see 'good'? This is just a pure attack spell, but there is no inherit goodness about it.

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-15, 08:02 AM
This spell is near perfect.....you have it right with the spell resistance and all.

I only have one point: This spell is neither a [Force] or a [Good] spell. The scarabs are made out of 'positive energy' and do 'positive energy damage'.......so where to you see 'force'. And where do you see 'good'? This is just a pure attack spell, but there is no inherit goodness about it.

Okay, I had reasons for those. Let me know if they are convincing.

This spell does not need the [Force] descriptor in a 3.5 game. At all. However, in PF it may need it because Paizo did not carry across the 3.5 language in the description of incorporeality that states that positive and negative energy affects incorporeal creatures normally, even though it is implied (channeling and holy water are called out as working normally). So I thought to sidestep possible debate in PF games by making the scarabs into a force effect that is strongly infused with positive energy. Honestly, I'm happier with the 3.5 side of that particular rule change (if it even IS a rule change), but it's not a question I'd want coming up in play.

As for the [Good] descriptor, I don't see the issue. It is a spell calling upon positive energy that can only be used vs. undead and similar creatures (who are almost always evil) and part of its effect is empowered by a sacrifice on the part of the caster. If it isn't a [Good] spell, what change in the description would be required to make it so?

Debihuman
2012-12-15, 08:21 AM
Just my 2 cents.

The reason that many conjuration spells (in particular those that bring forth creatures or effects such as fog) have no saving throw is so that you are guaranteed that your creature/effect will show up. Your adversary isn't affected by the spell until he or she makes contact with the creature/effect.

This spell does more than bring forth a creature so it makes sense to have a saving throw.

Here are some of the minor changes I would make. My reasons are below, in some cases towards the bottom of this post.


Sun Scarabs
School: Conjuration/Necromancy [light]
Level: Wizard 5
Components: V, S (Special see text)
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous; plus 1 round/caster level for dazzle effect and penalty to channel resistance
Saving Throw: Reflex half, Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

A swarm of glowing, golden scarabs surges from your outstretched hand. They rip and bite at all Undead creatures in the area.

The spell has several effects. The primary effect is it deals 1d6 points of positive energy damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to all Undead creatures in the area.

Damaged creatures may also be dazzled for 1 round/caster level (dazzled creatures take a Ė1 penalty on attack rolls and sight-based Perception checks).

A successful Reflex save results in half damage and creatures are not dazzled. Undead creatures especially susceptible to sunlight (vampires, wraiths, etc.) make this save at -2, as the scarabs are infused with positive energy. Incorporeality is no defense.

I think you want to emphasize the glowing over the golden part of the scarab so put it first. I do not think "dazzlement" is an actual word.

The following portion is more problematic.


When casting this spell, the caster chooses how much life force to sacrifice: zero, one, two, three, or four d6 points of nonlethal damage, to empower the spellís secondary effect. Any undead creatures in the area taking but surviving the spellís damage must also make a Will save. Should they fail, they gain an untyped penalty to their channel resistance equal to the number of dice of nonlethal damage sacrificed in casting, as the casterís sacrificed life force interferes with their essence.

Here are the issues.

1. Your sacrifice of hit points belongs in Components. Components V, S (Special see text). The amount of life force that you sacrifice should be a minimum of 1d6 or the effects wouldn't happen. How does one sacrifice zero hit points any way?

2. The secondary effect was the creature was dazzled in addition to taking damage. This is now a THIRD effect.

3. Sacrificing 1d4 of 1d6 non-lethal damage is convoluted. Furthermore, Converting your nonlethal damage into channel resistance against all creatures that fail their save doesn't work smoothly since you are working on points and the penalty refers to number of dice.

You might want to tighten your text to something like this:

For every 1d6 points of non-lethal damage you are willing to take in sacrifice (up to a maximum of 4d6), all Undead creature in the area take a commensurate penalty to their channel resistance equal to the number of dice you chose.


The penalty inflicted by this spell does not stack with multiple castings (although it can overlap) and lasts for 1 round per caster level.

Nicely done.


Spell resistance applies to this spell, but the caster level check is only rolled once (an undead creature in the area does not get separate spell resistance vs. each possible effect).

I think it should be tightened to:

Spell resistance applies once to this spell, not to each possible effect separately.

Debby

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-15, 09:16 AM
Thanks to all who have commented on Sun Scarabs so far! I have incorporated several textual suggestions from Debihuman (dazzlement IS a word, though), but it is good to know people seem fairly happy with the actual effects of the spell and the level at which it is placed.

So, unless someone notes a problem not hitherto mentioned, I think the questions remaining are which schools the spell should fall into (Conjuration/Necromancy or Evocation/Necromancy), what spell descriptors are appropriate (currently [force], [good], and [light]), and whether a material component or focus should be included as a requisite.

Once again, thanks!

Mystra
2012-12-16, 02:46 AM
I can see keeping [Force] to get the damage to incorporeal undead if you have too. I'd say that positive energy also does full damage to undead even in Pathfinder.

There is still nothing [Good] about the spell. It's just an attack spell. Tell me why fireball is not a [Good] spell? Positive energy is not good, nor is negative energy evil. They can be used for good or evil, but they are not good and evil themselves. Searing Light, for example, is not a [good] spell.

And the spell should be pure necromancy.

And...oh...you have the spell written as an undead harming spell only right? Why? Positive energy harms everything.

And just personal taste, but 'scarabs' are icky bugs associated with death.....I'd rename the spell Bright Bunnies!

TuggyNE
2012-12-16, 03:29 AM
And...oh...you have the spell written as an undead harming spell only right? Why? Positive energy harms everything.

Sort of. It's never actually written down, but most people assume positive energy heals living things (and is only dangerous if you get way too much). It's possible for positive energy to just damage whatever, but that's not common even though it's the technical default.


And just personal taste, but 'scarabs' are icky bugs associated with death.....I'd rename the spell Bright Bunnies!

Well, scarabs arguably represent breaking down corpses into raw materials for new creatures: death, as opposed to undeath. It's an interesting choice of symbolism.

Debihuman
2012-12-16, 06:01 AM
The 3.5 glossary on the WotC website clarifies this: "positive energy--A white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Energy Plane. In general, positive energy heals the living and hurts undead creatures."

Debby

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-16, 07:06 AM
I can see keeping [Force] to get the damage to incorporeal undead if you have too. I'd say that positive energy also does full damage to undead even in Pathfinder.

There is still nothing [Good] about the spell. It's just an attack spell. Tell me why fireball is not a [Good] spell? Positive energy is not good, nor is negative energy evil. They can be used for good or evil, but they are not good and evil themselves. Searing Light, for example, is not a [good] spell.
This question makes more sense in a world ruled by sense than in the game setting. Many spells have the [good] descriptor for hard to see reasons. However, in this case, the spell is distinguished from Searing Ray, for instance, by the fact that it hurts only undead (and maybe other creatures powered by negative energy), who are almost always evil, while Searing Ray hurts everything, good or evil. Moreover, Sun Scarabs offers the opportunity for sacrifice toward that goal. Self-sacrifice is not inherently good in and of itself, but in a good cause I think the case can be made.


And the spell should be pure necromancy.Okay, why?


And...oh...you have the spell written as an undead harming spell only right? Why? Positive energy harms everything.
tuggyne and Debihuman covered this, so I won't.


And just personal taste, but 'scarabs' are icky bugs associated with death.....I'd rename the spell Bright Bunnies!In the real-world Egyptian mythology scarabs play a part in, they were actually very closely associated with the sun. The sun was seen as a ball of dung pushed across the sky by a dung beetle, a kind of scarab. That is why scarabs were sacred. They had wholly positive connotations of life and protection. But because they were made into jewelry and objet d'art frequently found in tombs, and especially because of the movie The Mummy, those connotations are mostly unknown or reversed to non-Egyptologists. Hence Doom Scarabs in the 3.5 PH2. The PC I'd like to invent this spell, Khefernatra, is a native of Mulhorand, a land modeled (perhaps too closely) after a stereotypical fantasy Egypt. So, bunnies? No. Scarabs? Yes.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-16, 03:00 PM
Sort of. It's never actually written down, but most people assume positive energy heals living things (and is only dangerous if you get way too much). It's possible for positive energy to just damage whatever, but that's not common even though it's the technical default.
I always thought that positive energy needed to be carefully controlled to have a purely beneficial effect, and that's what a healing spells represents. Pure, unfiltered and uncontrolled positive energy (the kind use mostly in anti-undead spells) would either be like a drug overdose of cancer causing radiation (i.e. life growing out of control).


The 3.5 glossary on the WotC website clarifies this: "positive energy--A white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Energy Plane."

Huh, I always pictured it as being more golden-colored than white. Sort of like a candle or, well, the sun, I guess. I never really thought to check up and see if there was an official description; I wonder how other people picture some things?


In the real-world Egyptian mythology scarabs play a part in, they were actually very closely associated with the sun. The sun was seen as a ball of dung pushed across the sky by a dung beetle, a kind of scarab. That is why scarabs were sacred. They had wholly positive connotations of life and protection.
*snip*
So, bunnies? No. Scarabs? Yes.

This is the sort of thing that I think makes D&D funny, I think- one culture's savior is another culture's death-god. I'd have no problem with letting a player develop a localized version of a spell that used imagery they where familiar with. That wouldn't change much mechanically, so it's the fluffy sort of thing character individualization is made of (pun oh-so intended :smallsmile:).

Mystra
2012-12-17, 12:09 AM
The 3.5 glossary on the WotC website clarifies this: "positive energy--A white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Energy Plane. In general, positive energy heals the living and hurts undead creatures.

Granted I go by the 2E idea that positive energy is harmful, and that you need a god to filter it so it only heals and does not harm. I see positive energy like heated water: warm water can be used for a bath, but hot water can hurt you.

Though plenty of 3x/P spells do have positive damage that effects everyone..like Bolt of Glory, for example.

But from the game play point of view, why would you want a spell that only effected undead? You could at least have the spell do some damage to all, but do much more to undead(again, like spell such as Bolt of Glory).

Debihuman
2012-12-17, 02:30 AM
@ Mystra: you can't expect other people to hang onto outdated 2e rules just because you choose to. That's an unfair assumption.

The advantage of the Descriptor tags [Force, Good, Light] is that it governs how the spell interacts with creature's special abilities. They don't have a game effect in and of themselves.

Some creatures have penalties or bonuses against spells of a certain type. The fact that this spell can dazzle undead creatures certainly indicates that the Light descriptor is warranted. An evil creature hiding in a darkness spell would be revealed by the Light descriptor of this spell since this is a 5th level spell and darkness is a 2nd level spell.

The Good descriptor isn't as immediately useful. For example, chain devils have regeneration but take normal damage from silvered weapons, good-aligned weapons and spells or effects with the good descriptor. Unfortunately, the spell only affects Undead, so the chain devil doesn't have to worry about this particular spell. I'm not sure which (if any) Undead are affected by spells with the Good descriptor.

In addition, I would have also put this spell on the list for the Good domain for clerics at level 5 as well. It's not just a good wizard spell. Why can't sorcerers use it? I'd peg it at Good 5, Sor/Wiz 5 rather than simply Wiz 5.

Somehow this seems like a particularly useful spell one would use against evil mummies. Scarabs just bring out the Egyptian themes I suppose.

Debby

Grelna the Blue
2012-12-17, 10:46 AM
@ Mystra: you can't expect other people to hang onto outdated 2e rules just because you choose to. That's an unfair assumption.

@ Mystra, I'm sorta with Debihuman on this one. I too preferred the 2E spell setup as far as the division of spell effects into the different schools. With the exception of Teleportation effects being put into Conjuration, I think most of the edition changes made little sense and they especially frelled over Necromancy. However, I can't post spells working by the old rules that will be relevant to very many people, aside from that minority still playing 2E, who already have many more spells available to choose from than those found in 3.5 and Pathfinder combined.


The Good descriptor isn't as immediately useful. For example, chain devils have regeneration but take normal damage from silvered weapons, good-aligned weapons and spells or effects with the good descriptor. Unfortunately, the spell only affects Undead, so the chain devil doesn't have to worry about this particular spell. I'm not sure which (if any) Undead are affected by spells with the Good descriptor.

In addition, I would have also put this spell on the list for the Good domain for clerics at level 5 as well. It's not just a good wizard spell. Why can't sorcerers use it? I'd peg it at Good 5, Sor/Wiz 5 rather than simply Wiz 5. Debby, I didn't give it to clerics because I wanted this to be a new invented arcane spell in the game in which I play. There's no reason it couldn't be clerical in other games, though, so I'll revise the spell accordingly.


But from the game play point of view, why would you want a spell that only effected undead?That is a good objection, but there are many other spells with the same limited usefulness. The 3.5 spell Incorporeal Nova, for instance. The PC who I hope to invent this spell is in an undead-heavy campaign and one advantage to a spell that affects only undead is that friendly fire is not a concern. The caster essentially has the feat Selective Spell when casting it. In other campaigns where undead play a smaller role, a spell which has no other valid target but [darkness] spells would be a poor spell choice in most situations. But that is true of many niche spells. Besides, the original 3.5 spell I got the idea from, Doom Scarabs, affects only the living. I wanted this spell to mirror that one in some of its effects.

Jeff the Green
2013-01-11, 11:15 PM
Soooooooo late in returning the PEACH from the exchange. Sorry about that. :smallredface: I do have a few comments, mostly about cleaning up language.


The spell has several effects.

We know this from just glancing at the description. Note that official spells with many effects don't say this; just describe them and save verbiage.


The primary effect is 1d6 points of positive energy damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to all Undead creatures in the area.

Damaged creatures may also be dazzled for 1 round/caster level (dazzled creatures take a Ė1 penalty on attack rolls and sight-based Perception checks).

A successful Reflex save results in half damage and creatures making their save are not dazzled. Undead creatures especially susceptible to sunlight (vampires, wraiths, etc.) make this save at -2, as the scarabs are infused with positive energy.

I think this wording could be cleaner. Maybe something like

Any undead creature in the area takes 1d6 points of positive energy damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) and is dazzled for 1 round/caster level. A successful Reflex save negates the dazzling and reduces the damage by half.


Incorporeality is no defense against this spell's effects.

Spell resistance applies once to this spell, not to each possible effect separately.

I don't think these are necessary. The [Force] descriptor covers the incorporeality thing, and I'm pretty sure that's how Spell Resistance works normally.

Hope that helps, as late as it is. :smallsmile:

infinitetech
2014-10-05, 03:30 AM
to make this closer to the original spell, why not have it actually summon sun-stone elemental scarabs, sun-stone elementals naturally put out positive energy as other elemental do their elements, this way they are a "real" creature, and you can stat them if you wanted to, plus you could use a fossilized body of one of them as your focus, and sun-stone is rather cool to see, its a multi-hued glowing opalescent stone that has pure light inside it,

and a zombie covered in rainbow scarabs glowing like the sun would be hilarious, "just accept it, your state of un-death shall now be forced into a world of joy, friendship, and song"

also i agree that "good" doesn't fit, positive yes, good no, after all, not everyone who is brought back is innately evil, just the ones who make it hard for others, and i have never agreed with palor being good due to his track history, kind of like the church, wont see me working with them any time soon, so it would be a conjuration light spell,

also, get a sun-stone scarab elemental as a pet, would make for an epicly awesome familiar, if you want it statted just tell me,

id also say that the other spell probably summoned shadowed moon-stone elemental beetles due to the description