Test of Spite [3.5]

[lvl 1 sharnian]

Do you have a problem with 4 Mirrors of Opposition vs the Wizard?

[PhoenixRivers]

Do you have a problem with 4 Mirrors of Opposition vs the Wizard?

There is a reason I self banned simulacrum.

[Nohwl]

ok, guess i'm looking for another qualifier.

[Test Of Spite]

ToS Fix: Spellblades now work as per spell-turning.

Weigh in, please?

[PhoenixRivers]

ToS Fix: Spellblades now work as per spell-turning.

Weigh in, please?

More clarification on this.

Primary differences between spell blade and spell turning:

Spellblade has a delay that holds it until your next turn, spell turning works immediately.

Spellblade does not interact with a casting of spell turning, spell turning does.

Spellblade alters the target, Spell turning does not.

Spellblade has no limit to uses, spell turning affects 1d4+6 levels only.

Which of these function as spell turning? Any? All?

[Aharon]

@PhoenixRivers
Add to that list
Spell turning is effective against SR: No spells, Spellblade isn't.
Spell turning isn't effective against touch range spells, spellblade is.

[PhoenixRivers]

@PhoenixRivers
Add to that list
Spell turning is effective against SR: No spells, Spellblade isn't.
Spell turning isn't effective against touch range spells, spellblade is.

I'd put that first one as "Spellblade grants immunity to a spell, spell turning does not.

Both are valid, though.

[9mm]

ToS Fix: Spellblades now work as per spell-turning.

Weigh in, please?

against this; spellblades are limited to a single spell, this would make them an equivlent to the +5 reflecting property for 2000gp; I'd just say you can only have 1 spellblade propertie on the weapon, and you must be actively wielding it for it to be active.

[PhoenixRivers]

against this; spellblades are limited to a single spell, this would make them an equivlent to the +5 reflecting property for 2000gp; I'd just say you can only have 1 spellblade propertie on the weapon, and you must be actively wielding it for it to be active.

As long as Spellblades follow the standard rule for Spell Immunity, it's not too bad. In other words, spells which don't allow SR aren't eligible for absorbing. That would prevent people from putting dispels on it. Beyond that, it's not too terribly bad.

[9mm]

As long as Spellblades follow the standard rule for Spell Immunity, it's not too bad. In other words, spells which don't allow SR aren't eligible for absorbing. That would prevent people from putting dispels on it. Beyond that, it's not too terribly bad.

I'm pretty sure this is what has prompted the discussion; I know I've done that on more recent characters once I found out about them. The danger lies in a CoDzilla instead of a crazy almagamation of say rouge/hexblade/warblade.

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm pretty sure this is what has prompted the discussion; I know I've done that on more recent characters once I found out about them. The danger lies in a CoDzilla instead of a crazy almagamation of say rouge/hexblade/warblade.

... or something like Fluffy.

[Adumbration]

I'm pretty sure this is what has prompted the discussion; I know I've done that on more recent characters once I found out about them. The danger lies in a CoDzilla instead of a crazy almagamation of say rouge/hexblade/warblade.

There's also the question of exactly how many spellblade shuriken you can wield in one hand.

And whether tying up a whole bunch of them on a quarterstaff counts as wielding.

[9mm]

There's also the question of exactly how many spellblade shuriken you can wield in one hand.

one

And whether tying up a whole bunch of them on a quarterstaff counts as wielding.

thats the reason why I suggested not letting multiple spellblade enhancements on 1 weapon, a quarterstaff theoriticly could hold 2 because it's a double weapon so it would depend on which end is currently the bisness end

[PhoenixRivers]

The idea is that you can only use 1 spellblade at a time, and it doesn't work on SR: No spells.

Make that distinction, and you're fine.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The idea is that you can only use 1 spellblade at a time, and it doesn't work on SR: No spells.

Make that distinction, and you're fine.

how about minions wielding spellblades + chain spell?

[PhoenixRivers]

how about minions wielding spellblades + chain spell?

Elaborate on the intended tactic?

Here's a crack at rendering it OGL friendly. If adopted, it should be considered, in all ways, to be an update of the Spellblade enhancement:

Spoiler

Show

Spellshift: A weapon with this enhancement grants a limited form of Spell Immunity to one spell, selected when the item is crafted. Whenever the wielder is targeted by the spell, the spellblade absorbs the effect. On the wielder's next turn, he may use a free action to retarget the absorbed ability, which then has its normal effect on the new target (if the wielder chooses not to do this, the absorbed spell dissipates harmlessly and is lost). If, for some reason, the selected spell is not targeted but still affects the wielder (for example, turned back by spell turning), the wielder is still immune to the effect, although the spellblade does not absorb it. If a character attempts to wield more than one spellblade at once, none function.
Strong Abjuration; CL 13th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spell Immunity; Price +6000gp

[Aharon]

@Phoenix
That's a nice solution, but I'm not really seeing the intended use. Under the old interpretation that ignored the spell immunity clause, spellblade was used to protect against dispels - of which there aren't many. Of the top of my head, I can't name any spells that are single target, SR:Yes, and yet enough danger that I would want to be protected against them.

I like Doc Roc's approach better for that reason - it would be a cheap, one-spell-only spell turning (Assuming he will clarify that this was what he meant). One might argue that that would be underpriced at 6000, though.

[PhoenixRivers]

@Phoenix
That's a nice solution, but I'm not really seeing the intended use. Under the old interpretation that ignored the spell immunity clause, spellblade was used to protect against dispels - of which there aren't many. Of the top of my head, I can't name any spells that are single target, SR:Yes, and yet enough danger that I would want to be protected against them.

I like Doc Roc's approach better for that reason - it would be a cheap, one-spell-only spell turning (Assuming he will clarify that this was what he meant). One might argue that that would be underpriced at 6000, though.

I actually developed that while on IM chat with Doc Roc, and posted it for his opinion before bringing it here.

If you're not seeing a super-awesome use for the item, that's great. It's 6,000 gp. It should be about on par with other 6000 gp items.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...tm#bagofTricks
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...ingandClimbing
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...ipesofHaunting
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...shoesofaZephyr

Getting where I'm going with this? Immunity to a spell, even a single spell, is a steal at 6000 gp.

[Doc Roc]

I would be willing to see Spellshift move to 10k and include a slightly broader range of possible targets. The issue is that selecting dispel really was extremely problematic, because it would lead to cases where super-tankers had two or three layers of threat management for incoming dispels. I'm not sure this is desirable from a metagame standpoint.

I do like the general thrust, if you will, of the OGL version of spellblade. An additional advantage is that if we do it this way, we can make it an obvious and visible choice by including it in the resources section, instead of an obscure barrier to entry like it has been. It's obviously not perfect, but I think we're moving towards an elegant solution to a persistent question.

[PhoenixRivers]

At 10k, it should be on par with: this, or perhaps a little worse than belt of battle.

However, note: Spell turning effects are priced.

Reflecting shields are a +5 bonus (minimum of 35,000gp) for 1 spell, once a day.

I could see 10,000 for a specific spell turned, once a day. I could even see it as automatic (no action required), like a ring of counterspells, except with turning. Hell, I could see it functioning as a ring of counterspells, with the added effect of turning. You want another turn? Cast another spell into it. The unlimited absorption/turning of any one spell, however, is begging for abuse. Attaching a cost after the first, in terms of actions and resources, mitigates the power.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Elaborate on the intended tactic?

As an example:

I get a half-dozen weapons with Spellblade (Enervation).

I then obtain a half-dozen minions, and pass them out to each minion.

I then cast Chain Enervation on the half-dozen minions, probably also targeting the final target.

Next round, all minions release their Enervations on target, likely obliterating it due to level drain.

[PhoenixRivers]

As an example:

I get a half-dozen weapons with Spellblade (Enervation).

I then obtain a half-dozen minions, and pass them out to each minion.

I then cast Chain Enervation on the half-dozen minions, probably also targeting the final target.

Next round, all minions release their Enervations on target, likely obliterating it due to level drain.

Well, beginning play with a half dozen minions is possible, but not easy without summoning in the buff round, and item handouts. Still, yes, it is an effective tactic that uses (at +10k pricing) about 66k, as well as chain spell. I'd say that's a justified expense for such an ability.

And yes, I'd limit spellshifting to melee weapons only.

[Doc Roc]

I think we are probably best served if we make it so that spellshift needs to be reloaded after each turn. It follows the best-case precedent of other, similar and often more expensive items.

[PhoenixRivers]

I think we are probably best served if we make it so that spellshift needs to be reloaded after each turn. It follows the best-case precedent of other, similar and often more expensive items.

Max spell level stored of 6, and automatically turns the next casting of whatever spell is stored in it?

Basically: Functions as a ring of counterspells, except that the next casting of the spell that is targeted on the wielder is turned, as per spell turning?

[Claudius Maximus]

Added the following rule:

Extend Spell and Persistent Spell do not stack to result in a 48-hour duration.

This has actually been the case for a while, but for whatever reason it seems it never made it onto the banlist. We're now making it more visible.

Is anyone aware of any other rules that may have slipped through the cracks like this? I don't imagine unwritten rules are conducive to new players, and the last thing we need is more entry barriers.

[9mm]

Added the following rule:

Extend Spell and Persistent Spell do not stack to result in a 48-hour duration.

This has actually been the case for a while, but for whatever reason it seems it never made it onto the banlist. We're now making it more visible.

Is anyone aware of any other rules that may have slipped through the cracks like this? I don't imagine unwritten rules are conducive to new players, and the last thing we need is more entry barriers.

last I checked the HARD fighter ban you cited is not up yet.

[PhoenixRivers]

Updated Spellshifting, to account for the direction that the discussion's taken:

Spoiler

Show

Spellshifting:
An armor with this ability allows a single spell of 6th level or lower to be cast into it, which cannot be cast out of the armor again. Instead, should that spell ever be cast targeting the wearer, the spell is immediately turned, as per Spell Turning, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part. Once so used, the spell cast within the armor is gone. A new spell (or the same one as before) may be placed in it again.
Strong abjuration; CL 13th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spell Turning; Price +10,000gp.

Primary Alterations: Treated as an actual spell-turning effect, allowing for SR:No spells.

Only turns one spell before recharge is required, and requires resources to do so.

Altered from Weapon enhancement to armor. Armor enhancement seems more fitting for a protective abjuration. Also solves most chain summon options, and multi-use tricks.

In exchange, allows the spell within it to change, as the wearer dictates.

[Claudius Maximus]

last I checked the HARD fighter ban you cited is not up yet.

I was going off this:

Fighter is replaced by War-marked which uses these marks
<snip>
These updates are no longer optional.

I figured that if the Fighter is replaced completely, it's essentially the same as banning the Fighter. If this is not the case and people can still use the Fighter, I apologize. If so, the above text is rather confusing and should probably be changed.

[Doc Roc]

I have a VERY strong preference that people use war-marked, because that sucker needs all the testing it can get.

[Aharon]

Do rules changes apply to characters that were already submitted? For example, there's a submission by T.G. Oskar that uses the old paladin, can that still be used?