Results 181 to 210 of 384
Thread: Test of Spite [3.5]
-
2010-05-09, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
Do you have a problem with 4 Mirrors of Opposition vs the Wizard?
The accuracy of this post is questionable
The Endless Dungeon
The Neverending Dungeon
Renewal A fantasy/post-apocalyptic/new world setting WIP
-
2010-05-09, 03:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
-
2010-05-09, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
ok, guess i'm looking for another qualifier.
-
2010-05-10, 03:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
ToS Fix: Spellblades now work as per spell-turning.
Weigh in, please?ToS Live Chat.
Password: dog
-
2010-05-10, 03:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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?
-
2010-05-10, 07:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
@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.Last edited by Aharon; 2010-05-10 at 07:08 AM.
-
2010-05-10, 07:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
-
2010-05-10, 09:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
-
2010-05-10, 09:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.
-
2010-05-10, 10:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
-
2010-05-10, 10:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
-
2010-05-10, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
-
2010-05-10, 03:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
one
And whether tying up a whole bunch of them on a quarterstaff counts as wielding.
-
2010-05-10, 04:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.
-
2010-05-10, 04:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2010-05-10, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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:
SpoilerSpellshift: 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 +6000gpLast edited by PhoenixRivers; 2010-05-10 at 04:42 PM.
-
2010-05-10, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
@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.
-
2010-05-10, 05:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.
-
2010-05-10, 07:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
DocRoc: to?
Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.
-
2010-05-10, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.Last edited by PhoenixRivers; 2010-05-10 at 07:58 PM.
-
2010-05-10, 08:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2010-05-10, 09:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.
-
2010-05-10, 09:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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.
Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
DocRoc: to?
Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.
-
2010-05-10, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
Last edited by PhoenixRivers; 2010-05-10 at 09:26 PM.
-
2010-05-10, 09:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Japan
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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 edited by Claudius Maximus; 2010-05-10 at 09:41 PM.
Editor and playtester for Legend.
-
2010-05-10, 10:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
-
2010-05-10, 10:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
Updated Spellshifting, to account for the direction that the discussion's taken:
SpoilerSpellshifting:
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.Last edited by PhoenixRivers; 2010-05-10 at 10:10 PM.
-
2010-05-11, 02:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Japan
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
I was going off this:
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.Editor and playtester for Legend.
-
2010-05-11, 06:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
I have a VERY strong preference that people use war-marked, because that sucker needs all the testing it can get.
Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
DocRoc: to?
Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.
-
2010-05-11, 09:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Test of Spite [3.5]
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?