Talk:Desolate (3.5e Spell)
Ratings[edit]
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Falling off the RNG as far as attack/AC goes is really, really bad. |
|
Brainduster dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This is pretty boring. A bonus to damage is... nice... I guess? But the duration is weird, and the effect is not very interesting.
I dunno, it might be more interesting, or expected, if it had the target take a test versus fear, or had literally any other interesting effect other than "it makes your blade turn black like my soul and also do more damage." I don't know - a straight-up flat damage boost gated behind a regular attack is pretty snoozeworthy at the same level people are turning into seven-headed hydras. |
If it was a save vs fear, then it would be completely worthless vs a paladin (the one class which can't use this spell). If it was a will-save in general then the general idea would be crippled by the magic users and clerics that specialize in will saves. For the exact opposite reason it can't be a fortitude save either. Being a reflex save wouldn't fit the general idea of the spell. By all means I can understand what you mean it's simple and boring... But for the exact reason this spell is designed for combat versus lone enemies. What about it's duration is strange to you? 4 minutes per caster level. Snafusam (talk) October 26, 2013 01:50(PDT)
<<Rating redacted>> --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
care to advise a way of trying to balance it to where it IS a good idea, instead of simply stating how/why you think it's a BAD idea? you've got 3-5 different complaints here, and not one suggestion. Snafusam Talk
- Would be alright if it were just the damage bonus IMO. You could even double it if you like. This is true both of the lesser and greater versions. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Spell Design Comments[edit]
Alright, let's start from the top down and point out some problems/omissions and see if we can get this spell into fancy working order.
It's got a couple descriptors (darkness and force). Reading down in the description of the spell below, evil (also a descriptor) is mentioned. That's a bit of disparity that should be cleared up. Also, what type of damage the spell adds should also be clarified, since it appears that it is supposed to be force damage, despite not being stated. Are you sure the darkness descriptor is what you want here? It does nothing mechanically to suggest darkness, only mentioning it in the flavor. There's no mechanical decrease in light level around an object with the spell cast upon it. If you really want to keep the darkness descriptor, let the spell do something with light.
Spells don't get added to cleric domains, since domains only get one spell per level and those are already full. That would be why there aren't breadcrumbs that link to pre-existing SRD domains. Just get rid of those domains and the broken breadcrumbs at the bottom to fix that.
Verbal and Somatic components... pretty standard, though you may want to consider Divine Focus for the classes with divine casting progressions. Classes with arcane casting just ignore that part anyways since it doesn't apply to them.
Skipping down to duration we find that there's an irregular duration of 4 min./level. There was some mention of this as a problem above and the short of it is that spells with durations are generally set in either rounds/level, min./level, 10 min./level or hours/level. There is some deviation to be found within that structure, but basically that's to keep it easy for players and DMs to quickly calculate how long stuff lasts. How long does the spell last if cast by a 13th level sorcerer? If answering that took longer than 1 second then you've got an annoyance. Find out if you want characters walking around with the spell without having to re-cast it between encounters in a dungeon (10 min./level) or lasting for a bit over an encounter or two depending on density and preparation time (1 minute/level). It'll make tracking the spell alongside other spells a lot easier too.
Translating spells from one medium into D&D can be tricky if you try too hard to stick to the original, since D&D isn't structured like a lot of other games (least of all, anything like a video game which is very rigid and limited in scope). You're best of taking the fundamental essence of what you're adapting and building upon that. A straight bonus to damage in D&D is really not very interesting as a spell. Add a secondary effect related to the descriptors here. That's all I've got for now. Work on this spell! --Ganteka Future (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow thank you again Ganteka, looking at it, your right the darkness descriptor and evil descriptor doesn't fit right for dnd purposes. mechanically the darkness and evil descriptors did nothing.
the domain lists do have alternative spells across books, the purpose of this is that (with dm cooperation) the spells can be substituded for domain list spells. for example the destruction domain has disintegrate which is a wizard spell, what would be wrong with swapping it out with the cleric spell Destruction. they're virtually the same spell. for an SRD purpose I realize why there aren't links or breadcrumbs however they're listed here to emphasize the option.
I have to agree with divine focus. The duration feels too long and yet too short at the same time, so I've rounded up, lets see how it works. You're right about the translation it also makes deciding which descriptors to use an interesting headache.Snafusam (talk) October 28, 2013 17:52(PDT)
