[Spell Theme] Love

[Zherog]

This is my first time ever creating spells - be gentle with me. ;) I don't think these are "finished" products, but I wanted to get them posted. Expect many edits on my part in the near future.

***

Infatuation
Enchantment (Charm) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]

Level: Sor/Wiz 0 (Bard 0, Cleric 0)
Components: V,M
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: 10 feet
Target: One Living Creature of the same type as the caster
Duration: One Minute
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

By uttering a few flattering words, the caster is able to cause the target to become infatuated - for a short period. On a failed save, the target's attitude towards the caster is considered Friendly for the duration of the spell. After the spell's effect wears off, the caster may roll a Diplomacy check, with a circumstance bonus equal to her caster level, with a max of +5 to permanently affect the target. Attacking the target or his allies (by the caster or the caster's allies) causes the spell to end immediately, and no diplomacy check is allowed in this situation.

Material Component: a single rose

Love Sick
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]

Level: Sor/Wiz 3 (Bard 2, Cleric 3)
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One Living Creature
Duration: 1 Round/Level
Saving Throw: Will partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

Upon failing her save, the target of this spell is reminded of a loved one who is far away. Should the target have never loved, she is instead stricken with grief over the emptiness in their lives. Regardless of the cause, the effects are the same as listed below.

She immediately begins to feel ill over not being near her loved one, causing her to become Nauseated for the duration of the spell. On a successful save, the target is still affected with grief over missing her loved one; her condition is Sickened for the duration of the spell.

Bonds of Marriage
Transmutation

Level: Sor/Wiz 6 (Cleric 6)
Components: V, S, F, XP (see text)
Casting Time: One Hour
Range: Touch
Target: Two willing, living creatures
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will Negates (Harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)

Bonds of Marriage creates a strong, emotional bond between two willing subjects. Upon the completion of the casting of this spell (which is often accompanied by a solemn ceremony and followed by a great celebration), the two recipients are made stronger by the presence of the other. All effects of this spell require the pair to be within 1 mile per caster level. If the pair is ever further apart than that, the benefits are temporarily suppressed (and see below).

The receipients share an empathic link. This link allows one of the pair to know how the other feels at any given time. Activating this link is a free action. Actual thoughts or sensory information is not conveyed by this link, only emotions. For example, one recipient may know his partner is afraid, but will not be able to determine why via this link.

Further, the recipients of this spell each receive a +10 morale bonus to saving throws against Charms, Compulsions and fear effects.

These benefits do not come without a cost, however. Should the pair be separated by a distance greater than 1 mile per caster level for a period of 24 hours, the morale bonus to saving throws is reduced by 2. This penalty is cumulative for every 24 hour period, to a max penalty of -10 after being apart for 20 or more days. Simply coming within range of each other is enough to halt the progression of the penalty. However, to restore the bonus back to +10 the couple must be able to physically see each other.

Both targets of this spell must have an intelligence score of 4 or higher. Further, if one or both of the targets of this spell received the benefits of a Bonds of Marriage spell or a Happily Ever After with a different partner, the previous spell's effect must be dispelled before this spell can take effect. If the previous bond is not sundered, the casting of this spell fails, though the receipients still must pay the listed XP cost.


The focus of this spell is a pair of gold rings, each worth at least 100 gp. At the end of the casting of the spell, the caster must touch each recipient as they place a ring upon the left hand of the other. If, for whatever reason, a recipient does not have a left hand, a reasonable substitution may be made. Further, each recipient must willingly pay 500 XP at the completion of the spell. Nothing can restore this XP loss, including Wish or Miracle.

Happily Ever After
Transmutation

Level: Sor/Wiz 8 (Cleric 8 )
Components: V, S, F, XP (see text)
Casting Time: 1 day
Range: Touch
Target: Two willing, living creatures
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will Negates (Harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)

This spell is similar to Bonds of Marriage except as noted below. The ritual required to cast this spell takes 24 hours to cast. The caster and recipients must be within sight of each other for the duration of the casting, and must be in contact with each other for the final hour of casting.

Upon completion of casting, the receipients gain all the benefits and costs of Bonds of Marriage but with an Instantaneous duration. If the targets were already the recipients of the Bonds of Marriage spell, the effects of this spell do not stack; instead, they change the duration.

In addition to all the benefits of Bonds of Marriage the targets gain the following. The distance the empathic link functions is unlimited, though both targets must be on the same plane. Additionally, the targets gain an telepathic link between themselves, allowing them to communicate over great distances instantly. The morale bonus to saves is increased from +10 to +15. The time period for the onset of penalties is increased from days to weeks, and only comes into effect when the recipients are on different planes.

The bond between the two targets is deep. Along with all the benefits listed above, should one of the targets die of unnatural causes, the mere presence of the other mitigates the need for any expensive material components required to return the dead member to life, such as the components required for True Resurrection.

Both targets of this spell must have an intelligence score of 5 or greater. Further, if one or both of the targets of this spell received the benefits of a Bonds of Marriage spell or a Happily Ever After with a different partner, the previous spell's effect must be dispelled before this spell can take effect. If the previous bond is not sundered, the casting of this spell fails, though the receipients still must pay the listed XP cost.

The focus of this spell is a pair of gold rings, each worth at least 100 gp. If the targets were previously affected by Bonds of Marriage the same pair of rings may be used. At the end of the casting of the spell, the caster must touch each recipient as they place a ring upon the left hand of the other. Further, each recipient must willingly pay 1000 XP at the completion of the spell. This XP cost is in addition to the XP cost of the Bonds of Marriage spell, if the recipients previously were the targets of that spell. Nothing can restore this XP loss, including Wish or Miracle. The effects of Happily Ever After can be terminated only by a properly worded Wish or Miracle.


Edits made: 08/11/04 9:09pm: [*]corrected typos Amber was kind enough to point out[*]made Infatuation language dependent, and made it only work against creatures of the same type as the caster.[*]Clarified that your allies attacking also causes Infatuation to end[*]Added some clumsy text to attempt to handle when the happy couple doesn't have hands for the Bonds of Marriage spell.

Edits made 08/17/04 4:15pm:[*]Added text to Love Sick to cover instances when the target has no loved ones.[*]Added text to Happily Ever After that would make the spell fail if one of the recipients was a partner in that spell with a different partner in the past.[*]Added text to Happily Ever After that explicitly allowed Wish or Mircale to end the effects of the spell.[*]Added text to Bonds of Marriage so that the spell will fail if cast on somebody who had previously received the spell Happily Ever After with a different partner.

Edits made 08/17/04 9:55pm:[*]Corrected pronoun usage in Love Sick

[Medesha]

This is my first time ever creating spells - be gentle with me.

;D

Infatuation

A couple things. First, the target is "one living creature", so technically I could make a beholder or a sahuagin friendly to me by giving them the rose? I'm not quite sure that's what you intended. It has a verbal component; you might want to make that component "flattery", and make the spell language-dependent.

They get a Diplomacy check to "affect" the target, not effect it.

And if your allies attack her allies, does the spell break?

Love Sick

I think this should be Transmuation/Fort partial.

Bonds of Marriage

"Upon the completion of the spell...", and all effects of the spell require the pair to be within 1 mile of each other.

Because this spell has a permanent duration, it can be dispelled. Would it be better to make it instantaneous?

Also, what if the happy couple don't have hands?

Happily Ever After

"The caster and recipients must be within sight of each other..."

Ignore the thing I said above about instantaneous duration.

I think there should be an additional material component of a 5000 gp party. ;D

Great work, babe!

[Zherog]

A couple things [regarding Infatuation]. First, the target is "one living creature", so technically I could make a beholder or a sahuagin friendly to me by giving them the rose? I'm not quite sure that's what you intended. It has a verbal component; you might want to make that component "flattery", and make the spell language-dependent.

They get a Diplomacy check to "affect" the target, not effect it.

And if your allies attack her allies, does the spell break?

1) Language dependent makes sense. Should I also make it so the target must be of the same type creature as the caster, so an elf can't infatuate a beholder, for example?

2) I always mix up affect and effect. :-/ I don't know why I can't ever keep 'em straight.

3) Yes, the intention is if the caster's allies attack the target's allies, the spell breaks. I'll make that adjustment as well.

I think this [love sick] should be Transmuation/Fort partial.

Right. You and I talked about it before I posted. In the end, I decided it really was a mind-affecting spell, so I went with Enchantment (Compulsion). I did the Will Save instead of Fort for the same reason - it's a matter of what your mind thinks. I'll wait and see what other feedback I get. If a lot of people think I have the school wrong, I'm willing to change it.

(regarding Bonds of Marriage) "Upon the completion of the spell...", and all effects of the spell require the pair to be within 1 mile of each other.

Because this spell has a permanent duration, it can be dispelled. Would it be better to make it instantaneous?

Also, what if the happy couple don't have hands?

1) OK, the first is a typo. The second I chalk up to my confusion of affect/effect as mentioned above.

2) I want it to be dispellable. Consider it a divorce. :P

3) Hmmm... don't know. I'll have to make some condition to cover that, though, I suppose.

"The caster and recipients must be within sight of each other..."

Ignore the thing I said above about instantaneous duration.

I think there should be an additional material component of a 5000 gp party. ;D

1) Cool. Thanks for finding another typo. And I even proofread. :-/

2) Never! I can't ignore anything you say! :P

3) :o

Great work, babe!

Thanks! :-*

[Zherog]

Made minor corrections based on Amber's feedback. All corrections are noted at the bottom of the first post.

[Grey Watcher]

What about Polygamy?

And thanks for not making Gender a restrictive force on this spell. Gay and sexless characters everywhere thank you.

But as far as gender goes, since infatuation is the only one where you attempt to instill interest, rather than remind or strengthen an existing one, should there be something in the description that addresses this. For example, "Matt" is a heterosexual human male Fighter, and I, a homosexual human male Bard attempt to Infatuate him. Can I succeed or am I doomed to failure because he isn't interested in the same sex?

And what if the target of Love Sick has never loved? Say you cast it on a prepubescent child (why I have no idea, but I like to consider all possibilites).

Finally, does Happily Ever After incur penalties if you and your partner somehow end up on different planes?

[Veera]

Darn you, you took my theme! I'd been thinking about spells for Love all day at work ;D I'll have to think up a different theme now. Ah well, you did pretty good here anyways. I only ended up with Love Darts (Think Cupid's Arrows,) Heartbreak, Love Token, and Undying Love... Feel free to use those by the by, I'm dumping 'em now.

I like what you have here. Especially the Bonds of Marriage: it adds a nice little magical flair to an important ceremony. I think I'll have to use it at some point in my game! Infatuation is a nice one too, and could make a great surprise for the next guy in my party to accept a rose from a poor flower girl.

[Zherog]

What about Polygamy?

Nothing prevents one or both recipients of the spell to be married to other people. However, the spells only work on a couple.

And thanks for not making Gender a restrictive force on this spell. Gay and sexless characters everywhere thank you.

I'm generally equal opportunity. ;)

But as far as gender goes, since infatuation is the only one where you attempt to instill interest, rather than remind or strengthen an existing one, should there be something in the description that addresses this. For example, "Matt" is a heterosexual human male Fighter, and I, a homosexual human male Bard attempt to Infatuate him. Can I succeed or am I doomed to failure because he isn't interested in the same sex?

Infatuation is intended to be a very limited duration, limited effect Charm Person. I wouldn't think the spell would work on somebody in the situation you explain. I'm not sure if it's something I want to get into explicitly stating, though. If I do decide to cover those bases, I'll grant the target a +4 bonus on their save if the caster is of the "wrong" gender.

And what if the target of Love Sick has never loved? Say you cast it on a prepubescent child (why I have no idea, but I like to consider all possibilites).

The spell assumes there's somebody in the person's past. The prepubescent child most likely has somebody who cares (physically) for him or her.

Finally, does Happily Ever After incur penalties if you and your partner somehow end up on different planes?

Yes. I'll clarify that later today.

***

Thanks for the feedback! ;D

[Zherog]

Darn you, you took my theme! I'd been thinking about spells for Love all day at work ;D I'll have to think up a different theme now. Ah well, you did pretty good here anyways. I only ended up with Love Darts (Think Cupid's Arrows,) Heartbreak, Love Token, and Undying Love... Feel free to use those by the by, I'm dumping 'em now.

I don't think anything prevents you from using the same theme, Veera. Especially since your potential spells sound so much different from mine. I'd say go for it!

I like what you have here. Especially the Bonds of Marriage: it adds a nice little magical flair to an important ceremony. I think I'll have to use it at some point in my game! Infatuation is a nice one too, and could make a great surprise for the next guy in my party to accept a rose from a poor flower girl.

Thank you. :) I'd be flattered if one of these spells made its way into your campaign.

[Grey Watcher]

The spell assumes there's somebody in the person's past. The prepubescent child most likely has somebody who cares (physically) for him or her.

I was thinking that the spell might make you miss your mother instead of an old flame, I just thought we might be clear about it.

[The Giant]

I was thinking that the spell might make you miss your mother instead of an old flame, I just thought we might be clear about it.

You could also have a line explaining that if the target has never loved anyone (romantically or otherwise), they are suddenly hit with crushing regret over their miserable loveless existence—with the same game effect.

Z, I would also add the text about multiple Happily Ever After spells to Bonds of Marriage.

Question: Why do you need to be smarter to live happily ever after?

[Zherog]

You could also have a line explaining that if the target has never loved anyone (romantically or otherwise), they are suddenly hit with crushing regret over their miserable loveless existence—with the same game effect.

To quote the guys from the stupid commercials for my favorite adult beverage: "Brilliant!" ;)

Z, I would also add the text about multiple Happily Ever After spells to Bonds of Marriage.

Good idea. Thanks!

Question: Why do you need to be smarter to live happily ever after?

Obviously because stupid people can't be happy. ;D Actually, I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. I'm sure I had a reason (even if it was a stupid one), I just can't recall what it was.

[Grey Watcher]

Actually, I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. I'm sure I had a reason (even if it was a stupid one), I just can't recall what it was.

Well, if this will help jog your memory, my impression was that you had to be intelligent enough to understand, in some way, what kind of commitment they're making.

[Zherog]

Well, if this will help jog your memory, my impression was that you had to be intelligent enough to understand, in some way, what kind of commitment they're making.

My memory is too old to go jogging! :P

Anyway - yes, that's what I was thinking by adding a minimum Int score in the first place. I wanted the recipients to understand what was going on; basically, I didn't want this being cast on animals and such. I'm thinking I went with the higher Int requirement on Happily Ever After because it's a deeper commitment, and thus requires a bit more understanding.

[Zherog]

I finally got around to making the necessary edits to the spells.

Any other comments? Do these spells seem balanced for their level? Too high, too low, majorly exploitable loopholes?

Thanks to those who have offered feedback already!

[guessmith]

The DM in me says, "Great job! Nice spells"




The cynic in me is rolling on the floor in fits of maniacal laughter. Ah well, this is a fantasy game afterall. ;)

[Grey Watcher]

With Bonds of Marriage, I assume that refers to caster level at the time of casting. I mean, with a permanent spell like this, it's possible for the caster to have run off and earned a level or two. I'm assuming that the effects (such as how long you can be separated before bad stuff happens) doesn't scale up along with him/her/it.

Also, a grammatical quibble with Love-Sick: You start off refering to the target as "her", but then suddenly switch to "they" for no aparent reason. When refering to an individual (even an unidentified hypothetical individual) you're still supposed to use the singular pronoun.

[Zherog]

With Bonds of Marriage, I assume that refers to caster level at the time of casting. I mean, with a permanent spell like this, it's possible for the caster to have run off and earned a level or two. I'm assuming that the effects (such as how long you can be separated before bad stuff happens) doesn't scale up along with him/her/it.

Correct. It doesn't appear to be unconventional to refer to caster level in cases like this if I recall.

* goes to read Permenancy real quick *

Permenancy makes a point that the list of personal spells can only be dispelled by a caster higher level than you. All other text in the spell refers to the dispell rules. So I'm comfortable (at this time) leaving them as they're worded.

Also, a grammatical quibble with Love-Sick: You start off refering to the target as "her", but then suddenly switch to "they" for no aparent reason. When refering to an individual (even an unidentified hypothetical individual) you're still supposed to use the singular pronoun.

Now, this I'll fix. Thanks for the catch!

[Lord Iames Osari]

I'd make Bonds of Marriage and Happily Ever After able to target more than two willing, living creatures. How about "at least two and no more than 5 willing, living creatures". Any more than 5 and I doubt the necessary intimacy and depth of feeling could form (and more than two would be very rare in any case), but it's nice to have the capability.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Gaaah, the stench of Threadomancy is wafting all the way up to Friendly Banter.

*casts Plugin's Pleasant Aerosol*

[Vaynor]

Seconded VT.

[InaVegt]

He probably came here through the compendium, IIRC it's allowed then

[The Glyphstone]

Yup. No threadnomancy here...

[Lord Iames Osari]

He probably came here through the compendium, IIRC it's allowed then

Yah. That's what I did.

[SilveryCord]

Yes, although I intend to try and use these in my next game, I imagine it will raise akwardness between the males playing females and the males playing males.
"Bob, you're getting married to Rick's character. You have to kiss, NOW. hehe. In character, of course. But it would help to act it out!"

[Roland St. Jude]

Yes, although I intend to try and use these in my next game, I imagine it will raise akwardness between the males playing females and the males playing males.
"Bob, you're getting married to Rick's character. You have to kiss, NOW. hehe. In character, of course. But it would help to act it out!"

Some people will do anything for an XP bonus.

[Hacktor]

I think i'll use them At my Sesions ..cast some on the BC/s and watch them Cry >:)