Talk:Mantissa's Superquintessential Archdweomer (3.5e Spell)

Ratings
==Ineffectual==

I don't feel like this actually does anything as written. The closest thing to a mechanical rule is what "may" happen. I feel like this would be an interesting concept if it made the person a hypochondriac and then they actually acted as though under a different mind-affecting effect because they are fooled into thinking they are under it. I'm not really sure what separates that from putting them under the actual effect, except maybe that you could use this spell to simulated multiple effects, but it seemed like a decent idea. - TG Cid (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * At the very least, specify when there's a bonus and how big it is. Leaving 100% of a spell's effect up to DM discretion is not likely to motivate a player to use it. --DanielDraco (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Some clarification does seem in order. How about "Given appropriate DC and components, this can change 'way out there' to 'a little hard to believe' or 'hard to believe' to 'believable' when a Bluff is made concerning the nature or effects of the spell the caster just cast."--Ideasmith (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ThunderGod Cid's idea for a 'shadow enchantment' spell does not seem related to this spell, beyond both being illusion school.)--Ideasmith (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not really related, no. I was just kind of thinking out loud and trying to suggest some more tangential mechanic that I thought of due to the spell's name and text. - TG Cid (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dramatic Zoom
"Well this is a complex name. I wonder what this is." Click "Hmm, not all that impressive, but it looks ok. Not sure what it does but I'm sure i-"

If the caster chooses to spend XP during casting, the DC of the mantissa's superquintesssential archdweomer is increased by one per XP spent.

...

the DC of the mantissa's superquintesssential archdweomer is increased by one per XP spent.

...

increased by one per XP spent.

!!!

NOPE.avi! -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was comparing a 50% chance of charming an opponent with a 95% chance of convincing multiple opponents that a spell had been cast on them. Would it be less of a concern if I reworded the bonus as illusory DC and someone making the save, but not well enough would only think the spell worked?--Ideasmith (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A different idea. Make the spell give a bonus to bluff and have you bluff them into thinking something happened.  Not only does this set up Sense Motive-heavy types as having a defense and reward those who already have ranks, but it also makes sense as a fluff perspective.  If you do, you could remove a save entirely. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just +X to Bluff checks against target for the purposes of suchandsuch. Maybe make the bluff check as part of casting the spell. Removing the save, in that case, is also, as Eiji says, a good idea -- they already have the defense of Sense motive, and also Spellcraft. ("Bullshit! That wasn't a curse -- I know the spell well, it was Mantissa's Superquintessential Archdweomer.") --DanielDraco (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly want Sense Motive and Spellcraft to be defenses against this spell (although the material component would disappear regardless). However, the lack of a saving throw would provide information the targets shouldn't have. Also, pretty much anyone who thinks to do so should be able to Bluff about what the spell effects are. --Ideasmith (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)