http://www.sederqvist.com/ao/3e/dapspells.doc
Cleansing Flame: I would keep the spell 7th level and add something that specifically makes it harder on defilers, like...
Defilers killed by the fire turn to ash and cannot be brought back to life as their life energy has been irrevocably consumed by the bolt.
Ragestorm: "Ragestorm creates a miniature Tyr-storm, the affected becomes the focus of an intense force of rain..." <-- it should read: "Ragestorm creates a miniature Tyr-storm, the affected target becoming the focus of an intense force of rain..."
Mental Dagger - The text notes "Up to three daggers may be formed each round." but the duration of the spell is instantaneous.
Something always slips through revision...
Something isn't right...
Mage Seeker I would amend the spell to stipulate that the wizard must have cast a spell in the area to be able to track the wizard. This would mean that the spell would be following the exchanged/taken energy of the land instead of just the wizard (divination spells that target a specific individual should probably include a will save to resist).
Mental Dagger Since there is a power point cost, maybe you should list something likePP(1/3) in the components heading.
Psionic Dampener you could decided to remove the concentration requirement and instead make the duration 1round per 2 levels and then have a progression to the spell. A progression like the prionic restraints in ExPsHB. "On a failed save the target may only expend 4 power points per round and prevent the free manifesting of powers." A further stipulation would be that the pp/r limit would decrease by 1 for every 3 caster levels above 7th (3pp/r at 10L, 2pp/r at 13L, 1pp/r at 16L, & no pp/r at 19L).
Psionic Override Perhaps limit the power levels to 1d4+3.
Scapegoat This seems pretty powerful for a 4L spell. You could increase the spell level to 7 or 8, limit the effect to huminoids, or possibly just make it worsen the NPC attitude toward the target by one step per 6 caster levels.
Summon Tyr Storm & Tempest Should the school be Conjuration for the spells? They bring elements of the Cerulean Storm, an elemental force type storm, to the location. Would that constitute a conjuration?
Great work so far!
Cleansing Flame going along the lines with the tables on p. 36 of the DMG 3.5, I would increase the damage on a failed save to 1d6/level (max 15d6) and change the wiz/sorc level to 4th. This would put it in line with the tables.
A 4th level spell that inflicts 15d6 points of damage? Even with the limited application area, that's too much.
As for the spell writeup I find the formulas for calculating damage for failed vs succesful save to be out of sync. As currently worded, a 15th level caster would on average inflict 28.5 points of damage to a character who makes the save, and 25 points of damage to a character who fails the save. There is no listed cap for the level added bonus. A separate formula for damage calculation for a failed save is not a good 3.5 mechanic. A more seamless mechanic would be 1d4+1 per level (10d4+10 damage cap) and save for half damage.
Furthermore, the phrase "affects only things that have been defiled or has been used for evil purposes" is too vague. The same applies to the term "corrupted by defiling".
You also need to make a clearer distinction between object and target. An object can be a target, just as a creature can. Use the term creature for non-object targets. Also, what about magical and psionic items versus mundane items concerning the item destruction part of the spell?
Depending on how your final version of the spell ends up, I would probably place it at 5th or 6th level.
A 4th level spell that inflicts 15d6 points of damage? Even with the limited application area, that's too much.
As for the spell writeup I find the formulas for calculating damage for failed vs succesful save to be out of sync. As currently worded, a 15th level caster would on average inflict 28.5 points of damage to a character who makes the save, and 25 points of damage to a character who fails the save. There is no listed cap for the level added bonus. A separate formula for damage calculation for a failed save is not a good 3.5 mechanic. A more seamless mechanic would be 1d4+1 per level (10d4+10 damage cap) and save for half damage.
Furthermore, the phrase "affects only things that have been defiled or has been used for evil purposes" is too vague. The same applies to the term "corrupted by defiling".
You also need to make a clearer distinction between object and target. An object can be a target, just as a creature can. Use the term creature for non-object targets. Also, what about magical and psionic items versus mundane items concerning the item destruction part of the spell?
Depending on how your final version of the spell ends up, I would probably place it at 5th or 6th level.
I see the merits of your argument and I think that I can help with how the spell effects objects and beings. This spell reminds me of the holy smite and unholy blight spells in that they attack something that is antithetical. To make the Cleansing Flame better, I would suggest making Preserver status a manditory for the spell, or non-defiler for the cleric version. This would be akin to the racial component requirements in Exalted book. Furthermore, the damage should be based on the connection to defiling that has already been suggested. For this I would have the regular damage suggested by Jon of 1d4+1/level ( but with a max of 12d4+12 for the spell being 5th or 6th level). Regular damage would be taken by anything with the defiled template or by beings that are defilers. Tainted wizards would receive only half damage (or quarter on a successful save). In regards to objects, I would rule that any magic item created that has requirements that are met by the creator through defiler spells (i.e. a templar/wizard(defiler) or cleric/wizard(defiler) that makes a magic item in which the prerequisits are based on templar or cleric abilities does not create a "defiler" magic item but a divine magic item) takes full damage from the spell, however, a saving throw is aloud as usual with unattended objects using their own saves.
Also, non-magical or psionic objects that are closely associated with defiling may take full damage as well (ex. obsidian orbs) with unattended non-psionic items recieving no save.
The major problem with this object rule is determining whether or not any arcane created magic item was constructed by a defiler. While this system becomes easier if one uses the optional taint systems, I propose an alternative. It can generally be assumed that evil arcane casters are for the most part defilers. Given this, any arcane created magic item that uses spells with the evil descriptor could be considered "defiler" items. For other items, one could rule that items with spell requirements from the conjuration and/or necromacy schools would have a substancial likelihood of being "defiler" items (perhaps roll when found or targetted, 80% chance that the item is "defiled"). Other items of unknown nature would have a less chance (30-45%). Items that rely on Abjuration and divination spells would have a significantly less likelihood of being "defiled" (10-15%). This is really a lot of work for just a single spell compounded by the fact that the caster probably wouldn't know whether or not the magic item was "defiled" until after the spell hit it. In that regard, one could rule that the spell only effects magic items that have an absolute association with defilers (such as evil items or items that duplicate "defiler" abilities).
Like Jon said, working on that would make the spell actually usable by 3.5 DMs.
1) I would be inclined to just leave items alone unless specifically a 'defiler' item- ie on that either increases or mimics a defilers metamagic feats or those arcane items made with spells specifically for defilers or with the evil discripter (like the defiler regeneration that I converted- so a ring of defiler regeneration would be subject to the effects of the spell).
2) I like that you are using the BoED as a reference, because this spell strikes me as kinda following the 'santified spell' route- I would also include not only defilers and tainted creatures, but also undead.
Mage Seeker: As divinations go, when this spell's option to home in on a particular wizard is used, it should be clearly stated that, if the wizard was not in the area of effect in the past 24 hours, the seeker does not point towards anything.
I say this because, right now, what happens is that the seeker points to the highest level wizard. This would mislead the caster into thinking maybe the spell has successfuly located that particular wizard.
I suggest writing the spell as so: When mage seeker is cast, the selected object (see below) glows slightly and pivots to point in the direction of the most potent wizard (not you) who has been in the area of effect within the last 24 hours. The item becomes a sort of compass that continually readjusts to point the direction of the wizard it first located.
If a name or description of a wizard is stated at the time the spell is cast, the mage seeker will home in on that particular wizard if he has been within the area of effect within the last 24 hours. If the particular wizard is not detected, the seeker stays immobile to indicate failure and can be used normally 1 round afterwards to seek out the most potent wizard who has been in the area of effect
I've just sent Jon the revised file.
Btw guys, I want more spells! There are other spells in Defilers & Preservers, what about them?
Btw guys, I want more spells! There are other spells in Defilers & Preservers, what about them?
I've made a very comprehensive list before looking which powers were left unconverted either by athas.org or wizards itself (or didn't have a better/similar version out). With a great degree of certainty, the only ones left out are the psionic enchantments.
By that I mean that there are very good DS-compatible spells out there, yet you don't see athas.org included said spells in its NPC write-ups and such, so actual additional DS spells would be good.
Like Jon said, the only reason Active Glands is a DS feat is because the equivalent feat is in Savage Species, a non-core book.
So considering this, there could be more spells that could be converted.
- You already converted a series of land-protecting spells, so why not Ward (1st), Border Guard (4th), Defend Distant Ward (5th), Ward's Revenge (7th), and Land Lock (9th)?
- Pact of Darkness I've always wanted to see, but I don't know if those types of spell still exist in 3.5
- Why didn't you convert Obsidian Death? Because of its reliance on other spells such as Orb of Power and Energy Conduit, whose mechanics may no longer be applicable to DS3.5?
- Semipermanency: saying no to that one is understandable...
- Shadow Shroud is too similar to those PHB spells that allow you to become a shadow and travel through shadows or the Plane of Shadow
- Steal Energy: that one doesn't work in DS since athasian wizards do not have innate power lieka battery, they take their power at casting time through energy gathering, so there's nothing to steal with this spell
- Guard Life and Spiderstrand would be fun
- Sphere of Entrapment is way strange
- Spell Deferment is replaced by magic items
- Mask Magic could be doable and is a logical extension of the Magic Trick spell
- Gardener's Touch could be done, or slightly modified into a 0-level spell, whcih would be cool
With a great degree of certainty, the only ones left out are the psionic enchantments.
Cool!
Seker once told me that it was likely that Defiling Regeneration would not be made into an epic spell, but would rather be a sub-epic spell.
What's your take on that?
Cool!
Seker once told me that it was likely that Defiling Regeneration would not be made into an epic spell, but would rather be a sub-epic spell.
What's your take on that?
FYI- I have made a version of defiler regeneration.
Note: In many places you say (round up) and in others you say (rounded up). So which is it?
Cleansing Flame: The following section should read...
The bolt strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has cover or concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out.
What does that last phrase refers to anyway? An evil leg?
Psionic Dampener: What does this mean? : The spell prevents the free manifesting of powers.
Touch the Black: Should read...
This spell calls into being a 40-foot cube of inky-black nothingness that chills everything inside it and deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.
All within the cube become shaken for the next 1d4+1 rounds whether they succeed at their save or not.
Material Component: A shard of obsidian or glass.
Scapegoat: Should read...
Those within range with Intelligence 3 or greater are allowed to make a Will saving throw to come to their senses.
Mental Dagger: The text is a bit strained. Take a ganter from ranged spells with multiple effects, such as Scorching Ray. Should read...
You can convert your own power points into a dagger-shaped force. Each such use requires the expenditure of one third of your total power points (rounded up), so the trade off is normally of most use to those with wild talents. This dagger-shaped force is treated as a dagger, with which you are considered proficient. You can apply the benefit of Weapon Focus (dagger) and Weapon Specialization (dagger) to attacks with it. Throwing a mental dagger ["requires a ranged touch attack" or "is a ranged attack"], deals 2d4 points of damage + Int modifier and has a range increment of 20 ft.
Further, the mental daggers act as if they were psionic weapons for purposes of overcoming damage reduction. Up to three daggers may be formed. If you form more than one dagger, you can throw them at the same or different targets, but all daggers must be throwned simultaneously. You must choose your targets before you check for power resistance or roll damage.
Note: Only one option in the [] should be kept for the spell. Scorching Ray is a ranged touch attack, but its also magical ribbons. In this case its an object physically handled so it should probably be a ranged attack.
Well, I hope you're not counting the non-core supplements as sources of Wizards-made spells...since athas.org is better off with its own spells even if some supplements such as Complete Arcane already have a similar spell.
No, only spells in OGC stuff. The complete series hasn't been translated in Brazil yet and it's very hard to come by the original version.
Like Jon said, the only reason Active Glands is a DS feat is because the equivalent feat is in Savage Species, a non-core book.
You can do that? Because I really like the 'heat protection' and 'dissecation' thingies from Sandstorm, I'd really like to see an equivalent in the core rules.
Seker once told me that it was likely that Defiling Regeneration would not be made into an epic spell, but would rather be a sub-epic spell.
I think i would prefer a beefed up version of the spell to be made epic. Unlike Kinetic Control, which should be made a sub-epic POWER.
Note: In many places you say (round up) and in others you say (rounded up). So which is it?
Hmmm, i need to check it up which one is the correct.
Cleansing Flame: The following section should read...
I'm using the exact same wording as magic missile.
What does that last phrase refers to anyway? An evil leg?
Psionic Dampener: What does this mean? : The spell prevents the free manifesting of powers.
I think it means psi-like abilities. The expression is used in the psionics srd for iten that limit the use of PPs. It doesn't explain very well.
If you form more than one dagger, you can throw them at the same or different targets, but all daggers must be throwned simultaneously. You must choose your targets before you check for power resistance or roll damage.
Again, i used magic missile as model.
Keep the comments coming!
Instead of having a feat that affects all natural attacks, this one affects poison for example.
The feat was created by Jon I believe. The point I was making was that there are better feats and spells out there, but we can't use them, instead we can have pale, specialized copies of our own making.
Sorry, I reread Cleansing Flames, and yes its clear, so my brain must have been fatigued, or possibily sickened (exhausted?), last night when I suggested otherwise.
After reading Magic Missilie, I still can't figure why they bothered with the "specific part of a creature" bit. Must be because they used the word unerringly...
The spell prevents the free manifesting of powers. <-- Then it could be: "The spell hinders or prevents the manifesting of powers." .... hinders or prevent because at low levels it hinders and at higher levels it prevents
About the use of Magic Missile wording for the dagger spell: ok, I used Scorching Ray wording. They both work, but do note that neither wordings perfectly match, since you don't shoot but you throw stuff.
THe part that says: "If you form more than one dagger, you can throw them at the same or different targets, but all daggers must be throwned simultaneously." is from Scorching Ray, modified to match the fact its a throwned weapon.
Also, the bit about Weapon Focus is from the Drow Longblade I think its called, from Races of Eberron, that says even though its not a dagger a wielder can take advantage of dagger-related feats. Seemed appropriate in this case since you said the force was treated as a dagger. Besides, its physically throwned, so its physical enough.
I was really interested in this "convert non ogc material to an athasian limited version" stuff... as brun01 said, would it be possible to do with the good parts of Sandstorm?
Fabricio, the "convert non ogc material to an athasian limited version" stuff, as you say, is the only legal way to go AFAIK.
But making our own version with different mechanic and text is illegal if the idea can clearly be traced back to the WotC sourcebook. At least that's how I think its done.
For example, I don't think I can make my own version of Complete Adventurer's Extraordinay Concentration feat (very useful feat in DS for characters who are both manifesters and spellcasters), since the concept of the feat itself is WotC property. I could do that though, if the mechanic I used was very different but ultimately did the same thing. But as you know, WotC feats are very well made and very streamlined, so its quite difficult to make copies with a different text.
THe part that says: "If you form more than one dagger, you can throw them at the same or different targets, but all daggers must be throwned simultaneously." is from Scorching Ray, modified to match the fact its a throwned weapon.
snip>>>>Besides, its physically throwned, so its physical enough.
Just to clear things up, the past tense form of the word "throw" is "thrown". "Throwned" is not a word.
As for these spell conversions - Any chance we might see these added to the 3.5 doc?
As for these spell conversions - Any chance we might see these added to the 3.5 doc?
Seeing they're conversions of original DS2 spells, I would say yes. They would have to be playtested, evaluated and approved by the Spells and Powers Bureau first - just as the powers Fabricio and Bruno converted were.
Fabricio, the "convert non ogc material to an athasian limited version" stuff, as you say, is the only legal way to go AFAIK.
But making our own version with different mechanic and text is illegal if the idea can clearly be traced back to the WotC sourcebook. At least that's how I think its done.
For example, I don't think I can make my own version of Complete Adventurer's Extraordinay Concentration feat (very useful feat in DS for characters who are both manifesters and spellcasters), since the concept of the feat itself is WotC property. I could do that though, if the mechanic I used was very different but ultimately did the same thing. But as you know, WotC feats are very well made and very streamlined, so its quite difficult to make copies with a different text.
Just point me the original non-ogc text [feat, special hability, power, spell, item] that you want converted and I'll show you the miracles I can perform as "word-bender" hehehehe. Speaking (more) seriously now, it's not always that you have to mimic exactly what the text says, and you can attain the desired/proper effects through different paths.
Also, one is Evocation and the other Conjuration, yet both call in a storm...
I just noticed Ragestorm is of the same level as Cerulean Hail (DS3). Is the damage both spells can put out, when area of effect and duration are computed, equal each other?
Actually, I have no idea, I could't find references to how much damage a Tyr-Storm causes... But, probably, yeah.
Also, one is Evocation and the other Conjuration, yet both call in a storm...
The difference is very narrow sometimes:
Evocation: Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
Conjuration:Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (summoning), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation).
But, probably, yeah.
I don't feel the confidence! ;)
Hehe, but no one feels confident about that stuff anyway, i.e. are spells balanced compared to each other. Its a logistical nightmare.
I was wondering about the instant duration of Cerulean Hail and the 4 dices of damage it inflicts, while Ragestorm lasts for more than one round and inflicts as many dices of damage as caster level (with no cap btw!!), which can possibly bring the spell to at least 4 dices of damage per round (or higher), every round, which is the equivalent of free castings of Cerulean Hail since both spells are of the same level. So I guess something needs to be done with the damage, the cap damage, and the respective levels of both spells.
Another option is to keep the high-hitter Ragestorm as is and make the less-powerful, static Cerulean Hail allow no saving throw, making it a viable alternative. Dunno if this is feasible (i.e. making a "Reflex half" spell become a No Save spell).
The difference is very narrow sometimes
That's the thing: where's the difference in the spells themselves?
Since both spells call a storm to inflict damage on a foe, where no storm exists, shouldn't they both be of the same school, most probably Conjuration?
Another option is to keep the high-hitter Ragestorm as is and make the less-powerful, static Cerulean Hail allow no saving throw, making it a viable alternative. Dunno if this is feasible (i.e. making a "Reflex half" spell become a No Save spell).
Ice storm doesn't allow a save either, so it's proven to be acceptable, to not have on an area effect spell with storm in the name, right there.
Since both spells call a storm to inflict damage on a foe, where no storm exists, shouldn't they both be of the same school, most probably Conjuration?
Guess so, dunno why I made it Evocation, probably because of Call Lightning...