A review and advice needed for my [edit:*not*evil] spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

A review and advice needed for my [edit:*not*evil] spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DeadEye19
12-01-05, 03:26 AM I have written this spell between classes... It's an evil spell that supposes to disturb good groups' cooperation, and make them less helpful to one another.
I still don't have a level for it, and I would be grateful for some advice and opinions. I hope other DM's would like it and drop it on their surprised players.

Unhelpful Friend
Enchantment(?)[Evil?]
Level :Bard(4),Sor/Wiz(5),[domain ?]
Components: V,S
Casting time: 1 Standard action
Range: Close(25 ft.+5ft/2 levels)
Target: One (good?) creature
Duration:1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will Partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

The subject of this spell greatly loses it's ability to help it's friends.
All attack and damage rolls made by the subject against targets that have attacked it's allies in it's last turn, was attacked by an ally in the ally's last turn, or within melee range with an ally suffers a -5 penalty.
Every skill check to aid an ally, such as a heal check to treat a dying friend, is likewise made with a -5 penalty.
If the spell caster attempts to cast on his allies beneficial spells that grant bonuses of this types: Circumstance, Competence, (Deflection?-can be nice, too), Enhancement, Luck, Morale, and Resistance- will instead become penalties of the same type, so a Bull's Strength spell will inflict a -4 penalty upon an ally, for example. Sacred bonuses become penalties, doubled, from a Profane source.
Any other beneficial spell ( Fly, Mage Armor, Cure Light Wounds, etc.) will simply be negated.

If the subject successfully saves against the spells, the penalties to attack, damage and skill checks are instead -2.Upon casting a beneficial spell on an ally, the subject must make a caster level check (DC=10+caster level of the Unhelpful Friend ) for each allied target for the spell to effect the ally; Otherwise, it is merely negated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my first spell I bought up here. Feel free to comment and please help me fill the (?)'s. Hope you'll find it to your liking.
(P.S, to somewhat limit it, it's only working on good creatures. Neutral and evil can, of course, battle with allies and even true friends, yet this evil spell is aimed to prevent good creatures from helping others of their group, forcing them to be a bit more self centered in the ongoing battle )
DeadEye19
12-01-05, 05:12 PM No comments? No help determing a level? Nothing?
smrtgmp
12-01-05, 06:39 PM It generally takes at least a few hours to generate a response.

I really like the idea you have here, but I dont think it should be evil. I would remove the cavet limiting to good targets and the [evil] descriptor. There is nothing inherently evil about this spell, IMO. Its certainly not nice, but that doesnt make it evil. IMO, the [evil] descriptor should be limited to truly vile spells.

Re: its level: I would place it at 4th level for wizards and bards. I dont think this should be a standard cleric spell, but I could see it on a domain list. The will partial is fairly powerful, but the fact that it has a short range and is limited to a single tartet are good balancing factors.

As the spell is forcing the target to act in a certain manner, I would also add the compusion descriptor to the spell.

Again, nice spell. :)
DeadEye19
12-02-05, 01:28 AM It generally takes at least a few hours to generate a response.
Yeah, I know. But in those hours, managed to get to the seconed page... And I was not sure how many of the posters look at the seconed page. I was excited about this one, as it is an original idea made by me, and I didn't want it to go down with zero responses.

I really like the idea you have here, but I dont think it should be evil. I would remove the cavet limiting to good targets and the [evil] descriptor. There is nothing inherently evil about this spell, IMO. Its certainly not nice, but that doesnt make it evil. IMO, the [evil] descriptor should be limited to truly vile spells.
In a sense, it makes you much less helpful to everyone else, and you have to think about yourself in the fight.It's the hidden evil of it. The caring cleric and the defending knight would act differently, more self centered than usual. I thought that's an evil philosephy. But you might be right, and it might not be enough... That's a thing I would love to have more opinions on.

Re: its level: I would place it at 4th level for wizards and bards. I dont think this should be a standard cleric spell, but I could see it on a domain list. The will partial is fairly powerful, but the fact that it has a short range and is limited to a single tartet are good balancing factors.With the will partitial I estimated it to be 5th or 6th... But your post made me reconsider. I limited it to a single target and short range for balance, as you said- good observation by your part. I put some effort into the wording of the spell, trying to make all aspects clear and leave as little room for questions as possible.
Considering your post, it could be be 5th sor/wiz and 4th brd... and some domain, if I'll look into it. How about that?

As the spell is forcing the target to act in a certain manner, I would also add the compusion descriptor to the spell.
It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide.
The spell weakens their attacks and twists thier spell casting, but never puts hard, solid, psychological barrier. I was actualy looking for a school that can alter one's spellcasting abilities in this way... And Enchantment looked much more appropriate than transmutation. Still, it's not mind effecting, and compulsions are all mind effecting, are they not?
Again, nice spell. :)
Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought.
I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying.
smrtgmp
12-02-05, 01:37 AM I suppose 5th might be appropriate, but I definately wouldnt place it at 6th. And honestly, I think 5th is too high, given that dominate person, which you could use to force someone to ignore their friends, is 5th. Just my 2cp on the matter.
It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide. IIRC, all enchantment spells are either charms or compulsions. Even confusion and feeblemind are compuslsions. And, if you think about it, you are forcefully changing the way someone interacts with their environment. Sounds like a compulsion to me.
The spell weakens their attacks and twists thier spell casting, but never puts hard, solid, psychological barrier. I was actualy looking for a school that can alter one's spellcasting abilities in this way... And Enchantment looked much more appropriate than transmutation. Still, it's not mind effecting, and compulsions are all mind effecting, are they not?
I missed the fact that it doesnt have the mind affecting descriptor. It really should have one, as enchantment spells are inherently mind-affecting. And since this spell changes the way one thinks, I dont think anything but enchantment would be appropriate.
Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought.No problem. One of the main reasons I frequent this board is to see the homebrew spells people present for concideration. :)
I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying.I think it would be cool for players, though DMs would likely get more use out of it, as PCs always work together (well, at least in theory ;)). Still, it just doesnt strike me as evil. Selfish actions arent necessarily indicative of evil. After all, a neutral character who wants nothing more than to take care of himself can be quite selfish. IMO, you have to step over to being wantenly cruel and malicious to warrent the evil descriptor, but thats really just my take on the alignment system, which is notoriously subjective. As such, YMMV.
Vaalingrade Ashland
12-02-05, 02:09 AM Its certainly a nice spell, but it's not evil.

In a sense, it makes you much less helpful to everyone else, and you have to think about yourself in the fight.It's the hidden evil of it. The caring cleric and the defending knight would act differently, more self centered than usual. I thought that's an evil philosephy. But you might be right, and it might not be enough... That's a thing I would love to have more opinions on.
It doesn't stop them from trying, it just makes them suck at it.

It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide.
But ideally, a good person would still try. They wouldn't just say 'screw it' because its hard.

Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought.
I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying.
To be honest, this is a PC spell. In fact, a bard only spell somewhere in the 4-5 range. DMs have much better ways to control than a single targeted spell (for example, staging the combat in a muddy jungle with uneven footing).

From a DM's point of view, I don't see much use in this spell when, by the time I can cast that as an enemy, I can Dominate or heightened suggest for a better result.

But as a player, I can see a lot of good mileage out of this.
DeadEye19
12-02-05, 11:01 AM I missed the fact that it doesnt have the mind affecting descriptor. It really should have one, as enchantment spells are inherently mind-affecting. And since this spell changes the way one thinks, I dont think anything but enchantment would be appropriate.

You are right about 5th level. I will update it. But, again, I would like to
emphasize that it does not change the way one thinks. If he will give up on helping his friends and take care of himself, it's because circumstances led to that, because he realized he's more effective this way.

You may noticed, but I'm not happy about the spell's school. The spell, as I want it to be, doesn't sound right as an enchantment. Perhaps there is a better, more fitting school to it?

The advantages of this spell over dominate person/ suggestion are the will partial, it's relative simplicity (I wanted it to be DM friendly) and, if I will get it right- not being an enchantment/ mind effecting spell. Plus it has some flavor to it and it can make PC's adjust. I think it's very useful against clerics or other casters that tend to add buffs on their friends each fight.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DeadEye19 12-01-05, 03:26 AM	I have written this spell between classes... It's an evil spell that supposes to disturb good groups' cooperation, and make them less helpful to one another. I still don't have a level for it, and I would be grateful for some advice and opinions. I hope other DM's would like it and drop it on their surprised players. Unhelpful Friend Enchantment(?)[Evil?] Level :Bard(4),Sor/Wiz(5),[domain ?] Components: V,S Casting time: 1 Standard action Range: Close(25 ft.+5ft/2 levels) Target: One (good?) creature Duration:1 round/level Saving Throw: Will Partial Spell Resistance: Yes The subject of this spell greatly loses it's ability to help it's friends. All attack and damage rolls made by the subject against targets that have attacked it's allies in it's last turn, was attacked by an ally in the ally's last turn, or within melee range with an ally suffers a -5 penalty. Every skill check to aid an ally, such as a heal check to treat a dying friend, is likewise made with a -5 penalty. If the spell caster attempts to cast on his allies beneficial spells that grant bonuses of this types: Circumstance, Competence, (Deflection?-can be nice, too), Enhancement, Luck, Morale, and Resistance- will instead become penalties of the same type, so a Bull's Strength spell will inflict a -4 penalty upon an ally, for example. Sacred bonuses become penalties, doubled, from a Profane source. Any other beneficial spell ( Fly, Mage Armor, Cure Light Wounds, etc.) will simply be negated. If the subject successfully saves against the spells, the penalties to attack, damage and skill checks are instead -2.Upon casting a beneficial spell on an ally, the subject must make a caster level check (DC=10+caster level of the Unhelpful Friend ) for each allied target for the spell to effect the ally; Otherwise, it is merely negated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is my first spell I bought up here. Feel free to comment and please help me fill the (?)'s. Hope you'll find it to your liking. (P.S, to somewhat limit it, it's only working on good creatures. Neutral and evil can, of course, battle with allies and even true friends, yet this evil spell is aimed to prevent good creatures from helping others of their group, forcing them to be a bit more self centered in the ongoing battle )
DeadEye19 12-01-05, 05:12 PM	No comments? No help determing a level? Nothing?
smrtgmp 12-01-05, 06:39 PM	It generally takes at least a few hours to generate a response. I really like the idea you have here, but I dont think it should be evil. I would remove the cavet limiting to good targets and the [evil] descriptor. There is nothing inherently evil about this spell, IMO. Its certainly not nice, but that doesnt make it evil. IMO, the [evil] descriptor should be limited to truly vile spells. Re: its level: I would place it at 4th level for wizards and bards. I dont think this should be a standard cleric spell, but I could see it on a domain list. The will partial is fairly powerful, but the fact that it has a short range and is limited to a single tartet are good balancing factors. As the spell is forcing the target to act in a certain manner, I would also add the compusion descriptor to the spell. Again, nice spell. :)
DeadEye19 12-02-05, 01:28 AM	It generally takes at least a few hours to generate a response. Yeah, I know. But in those hours, managed to get to the seconed page... And I was not sure how many of the posters look at the seconed page. I was excited about this one, as it is an original idea made by me, and I didn't want it to go down with zero responses. I really like the idea you have here, but I dont think it should be evil. I would remove the cavet limiting to good targets and the [evil] descriptor. There is nothing inherently evil about this spell, IMO. Its certainly not nice, but that doesnt make it evil. IMO, the [evil] descriptor should be limited to truly vile spells. In a sense, it makes you much less helpful to everyone else, and you have to think about yourself in the fight.It's the hidden evil of it. The caring cleric and the defending knight would act differently, more self centered than usual. I thought that's an evil philosephy. But you might be right, and it might not be enough... That's a thing I would love to have more opinions on. Re: its level: I would place it at 4th level for wizards and bards. I dont think this should be a standard cleric spell, but I could see it on a domain list. The will partial is fairly powerful, but the fact that it has a short range and is limited to a single tartet are good balancing factors.With the will partitial I estimated it to be 5th or 6th... But your post made me reconsider. I limited it to a single target and short range for balance, as you said- good observation by your part. I put some effort into the wording of the spell, trying to make all aspects clear and leave as little room for questions as possible. Considering your post, it could be be 5th sor/wiz and 4th brd... and some domain, if I'll look into it. How about that? As the spell is forcing the target to act in a certain manner, I would also add the compusion descriptor to the spell. It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide. The spell weakens their attacks and twists thier spell casting, but never puts hard, solid, psychological barrier. I was actualy looking for a school that can alter one's spellcasting abilities in this way... And Enchantment looked much more appropriate than transmutation. Still, it's not mind effecting, and compulsions are all mind effecting, are they not? Again, nice spell. :) Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought. I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying.
smrtgmp 12-02-05, 01:37 AM	I suppose 5th might be appropriate, but I definately wouldnt place it at 6th. And honestly, I think 5th is too high, given that dominate person, which you could use to force someone to ignore their friends, is 5th. Just my 2cp on the matter. It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide. IIRC, all enchantment spells are either charms or compulsions. Even confusion and feeblemind are compuslsions. And, if you think about it, you are forcefully changing the way someone interacts with their environment. Sounds like a compulsion to me. The spell weakens their attacks and twists thier spell casting, but never puts hard, solid, psychological barrier. I was actualy looking for a school that can alter one's spellcasting abilities in this way... And Enchantment looked much more appropriate than transmutation. Still, it's not mind effecting, and compulsions are all mind effecting, are they not? I missed the fact that it doesnt have the mind affecting descriptor. It really should have one, as enchantment spells are inherently mind-affecting. And since this spell changes the way one thinks, I dont think anything but enchantment would be appropriate. Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought.No problem. One of the main reasons I frequent this board is to see the homebrew spells people present for concideration. :) I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying.I think it would be cool for players, though DMs would likely get more use out of it, as PCs always work together (well, at least in theory ;)). Still, it just doesnt strike me as evil. Selfish actions arent necessarily indicative of evil. After all, a neutral character who wants nothing more than to take care of himself can be quite selfish. IMO, you have to step over to being wantenly cruel and malicious to warrent the evil descriptor, but thats really just my take on the alignment system, which is notoriously subjective. As such, YMMV.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 02:09 AM	Its certainly a nice spell, but it's not evil. In a sense, it makes you much less helpful to everyone else, and you have to think about yourself in the fight.It's the hidden evil of it. The caring cleric and the defending knight would act differently, more self centered than usual. I thought that's an evil philosephy. But you might be right, and it might not be enough... That's a thing I would love to have more opinions on. It doesn't stop them from trying, it just makes them suck at it. It's not as much as forcing them acting so as it is making them less capable at being helpful to one another. Therefor, they may still try, but they are best accepting their limitations and taking care of their own hide. But ideally, a good person would still try. They wouldn't just say 'screw it' because its hard. Thanks and I truly appriciate you for taking some time giving it a thought. I'm not that much into playing evil, btw, it's more of a DM spell... Just saying. To be honest, this is a PC spell. In fact, a bard only spell somewhere in the 4-5 range. DMs have much better ways to control than a single targeted spell (for example, staging the combat in a muddy jungle with uneven footing). From a DM's point of view, I don't see much use in this spell when, by the time I can cast that as an enemy, I can Dominate or heightened suggest for a better result. But as a player, I can see a lot of good mileage out of this.
DeadEye19 12-02-05, 11:01 AM	I missed the fact that it doesnt have the mind affecting descriptor. It really should have one, as enchantment spells are inherently mind-affecting. And since this spell changes the way one thinks, I dont think anything but enchantment would be appropriate. You are right about 5th level. I will update it. But, again, I would like to emphasize that it does not change the way one thinks. If he will give up on helping his friends and take care of himself, it's because circumstances led to that, because he realized he's more effective this way. You may noticed, but I'm not happy about the spell's school. The spell, as I want it to be, doesn't sound right as an enchantment. Perhaps there is a better, more fitting school to it? The advantages of this spell over dominate person/ suggestion are the will partial, it's relative simplicity (I wanted it to be DM friendly) and, if I will get it right- not being an enchantment/ mind effecting spell. Plus it has some flavor to it and it can make PC's adjust. I think it's very useful against clerics or other casters that tend to add buffs on their friends each fight.