Talk:Read In My Voice (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Undead Knave favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I like the number of options this spell gives.

	Spanambula favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	This is the most delightful and hilarious spell I've read in a while. So many ways to have fun with this spell....

Spell Level

So, it's a self-targeting temporal stasis with a contingent release clause and no expensive component... at 4 levels lower? I'm honestly not sure if the contingent release part is worth raising or lowering in level, but the self-targeting drop and expensive component removal probably cancel each other out. Which still makes it seem a bit under-leveled to my mind. Can you expound upon your level decision a bit? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. The concept originally came to me as a cheap method of teleportation by literally sending yourself in the mail to be read by your ally afar (or pulling off the wizard-in-a-bag-of-holding-with-bottle-of-air trick). This amused me, and I recognized it to be less useful as an actual teleport, so a lower level it would be. Then I mused on other options for doing so. There's using it for immortality, but not really. Immortality you can't experience isn't really immortality much at all. Then, you could use it to escape. Being pursued? Write some graffiti on the wall, the cops will run by you without notice. This is where I decided to have the contingency and the risk of being trapped like this forever (as you don't want "on read" only, the cops will read it if its noticed and your cover is blown) while balancing it out so that you will be released somehow.

So I figure, if it's under 5, but still a pretty good disguise-on-command, it probably should be 4. We've got greater invisibility tricks, and this seemed more potent than something found on 3rd level or below.

Actually I didn't even think about temporal stasis while making this. Though to be fair, I think temporal stasis is a tad overleveled anyways. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit overleveled and would peg it closer to 6 myself, but I forget who agrees with what spell level around here.

Anyway, I think the comparison between this and that is strong enough that a 2 level difference doesn't really work. Yeah, this is potentially less useful than teleport for transport (also, delayed blast fireballs + ablative blast catchers are worse for transport, yay Project Orion), but it's not a teleport variant so who cares? It being worse just means that you don't use it for those purposes most of the time. There's a lot more to this spell than transport after all, like it being a great for ambush purposes. You can load yourself up with buffs, go hide in a book or whatever, and then wait until triggered with your nigh infinite durations (if they pass while you effectively don't exist, you want to write that in I guess). There's probably a lot of other fun things to do with it too. Even if there weren't, you still need to pay for your fluff/effect budget though, and level 4 doesn't pay for "indefinite invulnerable* immortal non-existence with triggered escape clause" IMO. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oooo, pre-buffed wizards. I didn't think of that at all. I could write in a clause spell durations continue to pass without you, or that spells don't come with you (after all, there is no longer a target, you don't exist). But ambush is totally something I see, the aforementioned wizard-in-a-bag.

Perhaps if I add in a dazing clause regardless of violent removal or not, it would remove its ambush opportunities. Popping up in battle pre-buffed isn't so canny if you can't act for a round (or more if you think its needed). -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Tarkisflux: “the self-targeting drop and expensive component removal probably cancel each other out”

Mantissa's Ostrich Flight seems balanced at 1st level to me. I wouldn’t add 7 levels for dumping the expensive material component, either. What am I missing?

"indefinite invulnerable*”

Indefinite even-more-invulnerable comes on line at 1st level. Without magic. It’s called suicide. This spell is more useful than committing suicide, but that seems appropriate.

“immortal "

I don’t think CR 3 cockatrices confer immortality as an attack, and am not seeing that any of the differences between this and petrification make one immortality and the other not.

Eiji-kun: ”Perhaps if I add in a dazing clause regardless of violent removal or not”

Other possible nerfs, should such be needed, include increasing the casting time and/or having damage to the writing damage the caster.--Ideasmith (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ideasmith - Mantissa's Ostrich is not balanced at 1 for a few reasons (the most glaring is "potion"), but it's also not worth an 8 or 9 slot either IMO. I might discuss it more on the spell's page later. Weaponizing and counter spell concerns aside, I'd say that just like this one the actual in-world effect of the spell is stronger than you can pull off with spells of that level, whether or not the actual functional utility of that effect is something you could more easily achieve with a dagger.

Suicide is not indefinite invulnerability. You can't be hurt after that because you've already been hurt as much as you possibly can be, rather than being actually immune to most things. And it has a much higher cost associated with it than this, as it requires a 5+ level spell, expensive components, and potentially a level/con point to recover from. In short, it's a terrible point of comparison for this spell and yours (if for different reasons).

And I'd call petrification immortality, though I suppose "timelessness" might be a more accurate term that we disagree less about the connotations of. Unlike this spell, you are still subject to damage while petrified and it requires a 6th level spell to recover from and you don't have control over that recovery... so I'm not seeing how that's an argument for the level of this one being lower.

@Eiji - I think this is closer to 5 or 6 honestly, particularly given your ability to set conditions like "when read after 100 years" to send yourself forward a minimum amount of time. If you want to keep comparing with teleport, that one lets you go places with some degree of failure and this one lets you go to other times with some degree of failure (that can largely be mitigated by planning). So 5 with some anti-ambush stuff (my preference would be the "dazed or stunned for a bit" plan, so that contingencies and stuff can be employed by higher level guys), and 6 otherwise. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering some of your points, though before I talk about them (when I get time), the 100 years thing you can't do. Contingency requirements is based on who is reading rather then when, its not that wide. Admittedly, the language may not be entirely clear on that so I'll tighten that up now. Does this change your opinions any? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That change probably also blocks alternate formulations like putting yourself into a holiday book and escaping on the 100th read, and I'm pretty sure it blocks things like "4th generation descendant of X" as well, which makes it pretty difficult to time your release properly (unless you're using some wacky divination to describe a specific person in your future I guess). So it's much less useful for time skipping now, difficult to weaponize, will likely be difficult to ambush effectively with... I'm less inclined to go with 6 but I still think it's a bit much for 4. Could probably get there with a longer cast time though, a minute or 10. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Aye, which is why the trick of course would be "He who bears the Sword of Ondore" rather than "the 4th generation son of Ondore". Now, I'm fairly comfy for 4th since this is something I could see being cast in an E8 game without unbalancing effects. I'm still mulling over my anti-buff nerf and I think I'm gonna go with "spell buff durations continue and expire as normal", with the idea that you ARE text for the duration, and therefore either continue to expire or aren't a valid target anymore in the first place. I'll get back to that. Still good to see the number lowering. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Tarkisflux – “I might discuss it more on the spell's page later.”

I hope so.

”you've already been hurt as much as you possibly can be,”

Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person, either in the real world or, more relevantly, in D&D. The rule preventing “Revivification against One's Will” is there for a reason.

“it requires a 5+ level spell, expensive components, and potentially a level/con point to recover from.”

While death is harder for your friends to get you out of, it is also harder/impossible for your enemies to get you out of. Death, as a D&D condition, has that handy ‘can’t be removed without your permission’ going for it.

”And I'd call petrification immortality, though I suppose "timelessness" might be a more accurate term that we disagree less about the connotations of.”

Timelessness will do. Whatever we call it, it’s available to 3rd level characters in standard play via the previously mentioned CR 3 cockatrice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasmith (talk • contribs) at

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I'm really not sure where you're going with this Ideasmith. While some of the individual components are available at earlier levels by finding something to do it to you (which is not the same as being able to do it yourself), the part where you come back from it is not. Those are all options where the undoing takes a higher level spell than the level of the one presented here, and this one has its own undoing built in.

And on the cockatrice, are you suggesting that it would be ok to just let casters turn themselves to stone at level 3 because they could spend some time tracking down a cockatrice instead? Or that they should be able to die and make themselves unraisable (because death effect) at level 7 because they could have tracked down a CR 6 catoblepas? Or that they should be able to turn themselves into a bodak at level 9 because they could track down a CR 8 one? Aside from that being rather obviously biased in favor of casters despite the fact that anyone can track those down, it's outside of the current scope of spell effects at those levels. The latter is largely a matter of precedent though and could maybe work thematically (sacrifice to boost magic is a big theme after all), subject to setting considerations and setting themes. But using "a monster at this level could remove you from game in a non-stabby way before you could do similar to other people" as justification for you being able to do it to yourself with magic falls a bit flat to me without further explanation. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tarkisflux - "I'm really not sure where you're going with this Ideasmith."

That's a good question, though not worded as a question. Here's what I think the answer is: I'm attempting understand your objections to this spell, and am gaining more information about them by presenting things that fit what you say you object to.

"the part where you come back from it is not." "and this one has its own undoing built in. "

Since you wrote "I'm honestly not sure if the contingent release part is worth raising or lowering in level" above, I figured that the influence over what would end the spell wasn't a big deal. Since it turns out it is, I present this nerf to rope trick::

Nerfed Rope Trick

This spell functions as rope trick except as stated below.

Any creature who has spent at least 10 rounds in the extradimensional space is transformed into a small figurine. They effectively cease to exist and in their place is the figurine. They remain in this state until the spell ends. As they don't exist while in figurine form, they can persist until the spell ends and do not age or hunger while in this state.

Touching or attacking any of these figurines ends the spell violently, releasing the space's inhabitants in the nearest valid space and dealing 5d6 points of damage and dazing them for 1 round.

This window is visible in both directions, although it still cannot be seen through. Touching the window can release the inhabitants as described below:

Conditions on which toucher can release the inhabitants can be specified, such as the window being touched by a specific creature or any conditions based on physical description (including race, gender and appearance but not on ambiguous factors such as level, alignment, or class). Being released in this manner does not damage or daze the inhabitants. Nor does it prevent the inhabitants from returning to the extradimensional space, which will remain until the end of the spell.

"are you suggesting that it would be ok to just let casters turn themselves to stone at level 3 because they could spend some time tracking down a cockatrice instead?"

I put Mantissa's Beautiful Sculpture at 1st level.

"Or that they should be able to die and make themselves unraisable (because death effect) at level 7 because they could have tracked down a CR 6 catoblepas?"

I put Mantissa's Theft Avenger at 0th level.

"Or that they should be able to turn themselves into a bodak at level 9 because they could track down a CR 8 one?"

If you mean 'Would I allow a 9th level Cleric or Wizard to research a spell that killed the caster and after 3 days turned the corpse into an untemplated NPC bodak?' then -- assuming an evil party prone to random destruction, or I otherwise concluded that it wouldn't be spoiling the other players' fun -- certainly.

I'm not saying that effects inflicted by monsters are always appropriate for an equivalent-level caster to inflict on him/her self. I'm saying that a four-level margin is ample.

Eiji-kun - Might I suggest making the duration proportionate to the host-object's fragility, so that a old, dry sheet of paper might hold the caster for a century, while a Colossal-sized adamantium monolith might only hold the caster for 1 round.

I'm not jumping in between you and Tarkis quite yet, so this will be short, but in reply to your suggestion it shouldn't be needed. The most common substance will be a stone wall (hardness 8, lots of hp) which is effectively strong enough to stand the test of time anyways. Someone purposefully seeking to use the stasis function of the spell probably will go out and buy an adamantine monolith for themselves, but its mostly overkill once you get past "wood". As a result I go in expecting the surface to stand the test of time, short of direct intervention trying to break it. Even with the adamantine, if someone wants to break it, someone will break it eventually. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A more likely purchase might be an adamantine sling bullet (Cost: a hair over 60 gp, within the gp limit of the standard hamlet).--Ideasmith (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ideasmith - I think you misunderstood the "I'm honestly not sure if the contingent release part is worth raising or lowering in level" comment above. I meant it in relation to the original level of the compared to effect (6) and whether it justified a difference from that level rather than the current spell level. Sorry if that was unclear.

I wouldn't call your version of Rope Trick nerfed aside from the visible window part. I'd certainly call it worse, but it's doing so much more than the original spell did that I can't call it a nerf overall. That it's not doing things useful to you seems pretty irrelevant to me, because it is still doing things that require magic to do. Transmutation to figure, timelessness, and so on are bolt-ons to the spell despite not helping you very much, and I'd want those costs paid for. That might just come down to a difference in how we view magic though. You seem to want a world where it takes x watts to microwave an enemy to death at 15 feet, but only x/16 watts (or whatever) to microwave yourself to death at 15 feet because you could slit your wrists instead. And while that's a perfectly valid way to treat magic (because you can write your own rules for it), it's not one I particularly like.

Actually, that strikes me as perhaps the core of our disagreement. You want to place spells at a level based on their utility to you, and I want to place spells at a level based on their function regardless of their utility to you. A spell that caused everything in the universe to pause for 10 minutes would have basically no effect on anything or anyone anywhere, but I still wouldn't put it anywhere south of epic because that's a ridiculously large and powerful effect regardless of its utility to yourself. I'd much rather place spells at a base level based on their effect, and then adjust up or down based on cast time, targeting, and so forth.

I am discarding the monster argument a bit, but the that one doesn't strike me as an argument that you should be able to magic it to yourself. At best it's an argument that you should be able to magic it to anyone... but you don't seem to be making that argument.

I had more to write, and Eiji seems willing to let this conversation continue here rather than go elsewhere, but I'm out of time for now so it will have to wait. Sorry :-( - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"I wouldn't call your version of Rope Trick nerfed aside from the visible window part. I'd certainly call it worse, but it's doing so much more than the original spell did that I can't call it a nerf overall. That it's not doing things useful to you seems pretty irrelevant to me, because it is still doing things that require magic to do. Transmutation to figure, timelessness, and so on are bolt-ons to the spell despite not helping you very much, and I'd want those costs paid for."

Oddly, you didn't even mention the main reason I consider this a nerf. The difference between three or more hours to prepare in safety having 10 rounds to do so is rather sharp. It's "not very helpful" the same way being late to an appointment is "not very helpful".

"That might just come down to a difference in how we view magic though. You seem to want a world where it takes x watts to microwave an enemy to death at 15 feet, but only x/16 watts (or whatever) to microwave yourself to death at 15 feet"

(I would be dubious about a spell with the word microwave in it. It seems to invite applying real-world physics.)

I do figure that aura compatibility or some such can make self-only lower level than willing-only lower level than effects-anyone. (What level would you put a touch-range read magic?). I also tend to regard the D&D magic rules as an extreme simplification of absurdly complicated gameworld magic which even the most knowledgeable and talented spellcasters sometimes find bizarre. (Also, I'm sure that a spell that made a copy of the caster 15 feet away could be abused somehow, even if it killed one of the copies; was that a typo?)

"Actually, that strikes me as perhaps the core of our disagreement. You want to place spells at a level based on their utility to you, and I want to place spells at a level based on their function regardless of their utility to you."

I am not sure where you are getting that from.

I am also not sure how you are using the word function here. Are 'destroying one's enemies' and 'committing suicide' the same function?

"A spell that caused everything in the universe to pause for 10 minutes would have basically no effect on anything or anyone anywhere, but I still wouldn't put it anywhere south of epic because that's a ridiculously large and powerful effect regardless of its utility to yourself."

I think I might put it as low as 9th.

By "the universe" do you mean the entire multiverse or just one plane? Either way, I'm not buying the "no effect on anything or anyone anywhere" claim, at least not as described.

"I'd much rather place spells at a base level based on their effect, and then adjust up or down based on cast time, targeting, and so forth."

I'm not seeing the usefulness of assigning levels to effects. Especially not if 'entomb creature underground' is the same 'effect' as 'turn self into writing'. --Ideasmith (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally getting back around to this.

@Eiji - On the subject of this spell (before I get to long stuff that isn't super relevant to this spell), I've found two other items to compare it to - shrink item (for the transmute to tiny thing part) and sepia snake sigil (for an even lower level timeless benefit, we'll drop the trap part and can then lose the component and really really long cast time parts). Both of those have a duration of "day / level or until discharged", and going with a duration along those lines instead of just "until discharged" seems like a better fit for the level, though I'd still be happier with a 1 minute or 1 round cast time.

@Ideasmith - The microwave thing was meant as a comparison and example for illustrative purposes only, not as an actual spell suggestion. A more complete/detailed form would be "you build a single use microwave death beam with a 15' range. If you put someone else in front of it, it uses X watts to kill them. If you put yourself in front of it, it uses X/16 watts to kill you". That said, if the real world context bothers you or you don't think it applies because magic can just work that way, you can replace "15' microwave beam" with "touch attack death spell" and get basically the same thing. I think the line between touch and self range is very small, maybe worth half a spell level (for those cases where you don't care about restricting something to self only for thematic / world-building or perceived balance / class synergy reasons anyway), and that's probably not enough to drop a spell a level. I wouldn't give anything for willing only, since that's only a justification for removing a save without level boost or other mitigating factor IMO (even if the save actually remains around for some reason). And self + willing is basically only worth self, since casting a self only spell implies willing.

And while I agree with you that magic is bizarre and complex for residents of the world and its rules (which are basically the physics of that world) are certainly different from our own world, it can still be learnable, predictable, consistent, and exploitable (or not, but that conflicts with the idea of predetermined spells). The form of those rules is up in the air, but my strong preference is for them to occupy a less utility centered position and a more function / effect position (sorry for the confusion before, I will use 'effect' in place of 'function' henceforth). The slaying of an enemy or the slaying of yourself is basically the same effect with a different target, and not a targeting difference that I think worth a difference in spell power cost. That one is vastly more useful to you than the other is not relevant IMO. That one could be replicated in effect, if not in method, with the expenditure of much less power is also not relevant IMO. If a touch range death spell is 5th level for you to kill an enemy with a save, it's not going to drop to a 4 if you make it self only and it's certainly not going to drop to well below that. I'd probably put a touch range read magic at 1 btw.

You don't see what that position would get you - it's mostly world metaphysics stuff. But it's not as bad as you're making it out to be because you're conflating things or reducing them too much, or maybe both. Turning yourself into writing isn't the same as entombing yourself underground... but we're discussing temporal stasis here (a 6th level spell by my reckoning) and not imprisonment (a 9th level spell). The turn yourself into writing is a lot like stasising someone else above ground. You can still be divined, the effect can be dispelled or otherwise ended with mid-low level magic, you're visible to detect magic, and so on. The fluff is different, and causes you to add in some personal transmutation / camouflage, but the effects of timelessness and mostly invulnerable with unbounded duration are pretty similar. Is it as useful as regular temporal stasis? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't cost you about as much as regular temporal stasis

That is admittedly a position held entirely on preference (the other part of that preference is to make higher levels more obviously magical than lower ones, which cheap self targeting breaks). There's nothing really wrong balance wise with dropping it a willing self-only death spell to 1 (other than relatively cheap death potions supplanting the ingested poison market, and maybe not even that if 'willing' means more than 'chooses to drink this thing / had this thing poured down throat'), it just doesn't do things to the game world that I want. My thinking that our disagreement was based on you wanting to put spells at a level based on their utility to you rather than their effect was based entirely on your mantissa line; if you feel that's not a fair characterization feel free to justify why you put them at those levels (perhaps on their talk pages) but that's what it looks like based on the spells themselves, your justifications to date, and other things you've written.

Which I think only leaves the pause everything spell example to discuss, though it doesn't seem as important now. The idea behind that spell was that I could have cast it 10 times in a row, just now, and that nothing anywhere (people, electrons, whatever) would have noticed during that time. It would be a spell that would be entirely impossible to measure the effects of in universe (or multiverse if you prefer); aka a 10 minute long time stop in which you didn't get to act or think or even notice. I really meant it as a "nothing happens, you just did a bunch of really strong but ultimately useless magic" spell for comparison purposes. And if you don't buy that effect as actually unmeasurable, replace it with something else that you think is basically unmeasurable and useless but multiverse spanning and powerful. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Assigning set values to ‘spell disads’ is not reconcilable with the 3.5 spell list. Looking at the Sor./Wiz. List, hold person & monster are 2 levels apart, while dominate person & monster are 4 levels apart. Just because you can get a single-target/no-range mass bear’s endurance for 4 levels lower does not mean you can or should do the same with confusion, haste, or animal growth. Finding such discrepancies in the spell list I am keeping my homebrew consistent with, I see no reason to avoid such discrepancies in said homebrew. In fact, my homebrew is probably more consistent with the existing spell list than if I was avoiding them. Any RPG magic system will need handwaving. D&D probably more than average. There are worse things than having to tell a player that his character knows far more than he about gameworld magic.

I apologize for my imprisonment/temporal stasis confusion.

Flesh to stone does not strike me as more obviously magical than summon monster I, enlarge person, erase, or reduce person.

Since the rules for making potions say “Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.”, I don’t see where the “cheap death potions” are coming from.

”nothing anywhere (people, electrons, whatever) would have noticed” Unless the universe/multiverse has fewer than a thousand people and/or is oddly unrelated to its deities’ portfolios, every deity of at least demigod rank would have noticed. As for your main point, I grant that there are effects that should have a minimum level regardless of utility – I’ll give negating a deities’ portfolio sense as an example – but I’m not seeing this spell as below the minimum for timelessness.--Ideasmith (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)