Talk:Desolate, Greater (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Falling off the RNG as far as attack/AC goes is really, really bad.

Hey, you might wanna double-check who gets this spell. because 1. the RNG doesn't get 8th level spells. 2. the RNG is not listed as capable of casting the greater version. though i do admire your determination... the lack of insight leads a bit to be questioned...--Snafusam (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Knowing a common game design term might help. And trust me, trying to be antagonistic in a juvenile way isn't going to get you very far. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

for something that is "common" this is the first time I've ever seen that abbreviated, the meaning/concept I understand however I've never seen it abbreviated. You're right it currently has no Random generation in it, the same as many magic buffs. If you thought it should include #dX then you might consider making sure your using an abbreviation that doesn't have multiple meanings (It looked like you were using "ranger" RNG as your arguement, even Eiji [I think it was Eiji] made this misinterpretation in a previous conversation). I'll admit my foot is in my mouth with my previous comment. so, filling words into your half-assed complaint (Yes, I'm continueing the juvenile antagonization :D), you think it should be more random than just # based on caster level.--Snafusam (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

He's saying the bonus is so large that it makes the d20 roll not matter, and that this is poor design. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of at the heart of my True Strike comparison from a while ago. The attack bonus on this spell is BIG. It's so big that if you previously had any chance of missing that wasn't due to miss chance, you're basically just checking for 1s when this goes off. It's a huge deal, and the condition doesn't do anything to mitigate it.

Anyway, if you think that combat bonuses shouldn't obviate the need for an activation check (in this case, attack bonuses obviating the need for an attack roll), this is going to come across as a pretty bad. It's why I suggested dropping the attack bonus scaling and doing other things instead, because those changes don't obviate the need for the attack roll in most cases. Note that no one seems to be complaining about the damage bonus, only the attack bonus. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize the massive problem with making the auto-hit a problem, It's simply a problem of getting the right numbers. -I'm lowering the numbers (again) trying to get the right mark.--Snafusam (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you want it to stack with enhancement bonuses from magic'd up weapons, I'd strongly recommend a small fixed bonus to hit instead of a scaling one. These aren't bonuses that need to scale to remain relevant, these are bonuses that you're applying on top of the ones that you need to remain relevant. And when you scale those, you do really weird things to expected success rates. So maybe something like +2 lesser, +3 std, +5 greater with big damage boosts as well. If you really want a bigger to hit bonus, use a bounded one like "you treat your BAB as if it were equal to your level" like divine power. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

	DanielDraco opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	It is not clear what this profane bonus actually does, but the most obvious interpretation makes it give you a whole new half-level tohit bonus which stacks with pretty much all others. That's problematic.

Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

Right, let's see how I can explain why this is a bad idea. +1 bonus per level is absurd. "But it's ok, it's conditional!" you say. Let me pose to you a theoretical spell using that logic. "If it is Tuesday and you're wearing a red shirt, all enemies die and you win." That's a great effect. Fortunately, it has two conditions to balance it out, that's totally safe right? The thing about balancing is that things can fail on two front. Things can be too strong (or weak) in general. Or they can be wildly unbalanced by having a strong benefit, and the penalty or restrictions just don't matter. It's why a race with +40 Str, -40 everything else is a bad race even though the overall score is -200. Now, I made fun using Ghostwheel since he's the one usually most concerned with going off the RNG, and you start out with, bare minimum, +15 attack. You will never miss again. Typically at +10, you'll already hit everything appropriate for your level, and bonuses (purposefully) usually cap at +5 to steer far from that +10 mark. "Conditional" is not an excuse.

RUNS. RUNS FAR FAR AWAY. In the distance, the sound of Ghostwheel rising from his eldritch prison below the ocean rumbles. The end is here! You fool, what have you done?! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?!??! -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

again, check the CONDITION of that bonus. if you think it's STILL too high, AFTER the condition please state an idea. i made a potentially VERY broken spell which can be very easily FIXED with the proper idea given... however i will state that yes anything above +20 is rediculas and unbeleavable i simply made it that strong as a temp while hoping sum1 would have a good idea. Snafusam (talk)

So it either useless or totally OP, not the mark of a good spell. In the end, nobody is happy. --Leziad (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as idea go, static bonuses are never fun. You may want to add something to the attack instead of a huge flat bonus. Maybe make the weapon unholy and something as long as no allies are within 10 feet. I can try to cook something up... --Leziad (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

considered that. but it doesn't fit with what i was going for. it might make more sense if i turn all 3 into one feat... Snafusam (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2013

Eiji-kun... i don't even know where i should start with that comment to be honest... Snafusam (talk)

How about this then - spell functions as a Greater Magic Weapon, and then adds Force damage equal to level and allows you to replace your BAB with your character level for every strike (or caster level, but that opens up some weird boosting shenanigans). It's sort of a GMW, Divine Power, and Flame Blade amalgamation at that point, but I think it might be workable. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The caster-level boosting shenanigans are something else entirely (the current max is included to keep that from being out-of-hand as-it-is.), but lets try and note those after the base spell. I'm going to re-attempt adding "to hit bonuses" (much less than the original) for an edition and see how it blow's over. (I suspect as well as it did originally) --Snafusam (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Condition Trigger

Bonus ridiculousness aside (and 10 minute per level almost True Strike is pretty nuts, even at 8), if you wanted a better condition for when to apply it you might have some luck leaning on the NPC attitudes table. If the bonus only applied when the target had no 'friendly' or 'helpful' creatures within 40 feet you avoid a bit of the declaration nonsense. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The NPC friendly table from the SRD:Diplomacy Skill, looks like it would work. Hmm, I'll include 'indifferent' sentient creatures. --Snafusam (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool idea, but...

...allies can be declared arbitrarily. Hell, you can declare your enemy as your ally, if you want. --DanielDraco (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

hence one of the most comical flaws in this spell. Snafusam (talk)

If you agree it is a flaw, should it not be fixed? This is not unworkable... -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversation from an altered Rating which is no longer here.

I can understand why you say this, and why it's such a colossal flaw. but if your players (or your DM) are really this^^ determined to "screw" every detail they can possibly squeeze out, then you probably shouldn't be playing with them. much less using this spell, because it's no fun for anybody at that point. true your arguement is valid and within the rules, however it has no self, player or friendly-respect. The players/dm can just as easily use the same arguements for alignment and otherwise... (SnafuSam talk) November 21, 2013 16:22(PDT)

That's bad reasoning. "These rules works in my game, so the (colossal) flaw doesn't need patching." Yeah, ANY rules work if you finagle it enough. But you're writing rules text, you should strive to be as flawless as possible. I know nothing can be flawless, but as you said yourself, this is a COLOSSAL flaw. It's not unworkable, you should be able to fix this.

IMO, starting with the absurd numbers. Tarkis gave something below, maybe try that. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

^This. D&D 3.5e is written like legal documentation; it is explicit in every detail and a central design goal is to eliminate judgement calls in the rules wherever possible. If you fudge rules in your games, that's fine, but when you are writing for general consumption you should write for general consumption and not for your own game -- so follow the paradigm of closing loopholes, or you're likely to have your material downrated for it.

One way that you might consider tightening it up a bit is to approach the enemy's loneliness from the perspective of the characters around him. Something as simple as "if no creatures within 40 feet of the target regard it as an ally" might work. I could probably tighten that up a little bit more still, but it's a start. EDIT: Didn't even read Tark's comment below. Dat hivemind. Both have the same potential issues of players being finicky assholes ("Well I mean I was hired to protect him, but I don't really like him so I'd say [I'm unfriendly / he isn't my ally] even though I'm fighting with him"), but again, still an improvement. --DanielDraco (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay, suggestions!

Not just opinions or declarations of "this is bullshit" actual usable suggestions! This helps SO fucking much :D! Thank You All! Ok, so where to start, just looking at this all, the spells are going to change quite a bit...
Eiji-kun - I have realized this one flaw is beyond measure, if I had any damn clue how to fix it before now, I gladly would have (as almost anybody on this site would, for their creations). The problem being, I had NO F'n clue how to even try and fix this flaw without breaking it in multiple other ways the current of non-ally was the best I had. (I realize now I forgot to change the status of 'complete' to 'flawed') Oh, might want to double-check your rating... kinda out-of-date.
DanielDraco - I can understand why it's written so formally and complete. However the incompetent complaints don't help, especially sense you've made the same complaint twice. Do you even know what the "paradigm of closing loopholes" is!? "if no creatures within 40 feet of the target regard it as an ally" is a good suggestion, thank you.
^also, I attempted looking for a way to solve the flaw the first time you made your complaint, the second time I just wanted you to shove your !@#$ up your %^&! because there was no current solution beyond "co-player respect". It wasn't until your third post you even noted the complexity of the trigger (which I'm STILL trying to sort out!).
Tarkisflux - responses above :P (thank you again!) --Snafusam (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Critics are under no obligation to be constructive -- if there is a problem with an article, it is valid to point out the flaw and downrate on its basis even if the critic knows no solution, let alone suggesting it. That said, I'm perfectly happy to give suggestions. Here's another couple.

Including "indifferent" means that a chipmunk on the tree above your target nixes the spell. I would say "friendly or more" (to also account for the possibility that someone is actually using the ELH and thus includes "fanatic").

You should probably clarify what sort of bonus this profane bonus is. As is, it seems to suggest that it acts as a +CL weapon -- which would be all sorts of crazy. --DanielDraco (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

True critics aren't any under obligation, however in this context, it's incompetent to make such an useless criticism and offer no suggestion to improve it. if critic-X is really that lazy, why critisize in the first place? all the same, thank you for your suggestions and additions :D

The catagories aren't being included by that reasoning, they're being excluded. also, the chipmunk wouldn't be "sentient" (speficially because of the ants/chipmunk I added sentient and indifferent) good note on the fanatic, missed that. I've seen "+CL" somewhere before but I can't remember what it meant... --Snafusam (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A chipmunk certainly is sentient. +CL means "plus caster level". --DanielDraco (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not "certainly". The definition can vary. Either way, it should be made more explicit. --Aarnott (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)