Difference between revisions of "Talk:Binding Pact (3.5e Spell)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
(→Evil) |
(→Unendable: new section) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::What do you suggest? [[User:The Dire Reverend|The Dire Reverend]] 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | :::What do you suggest? [[User:The Dire Reverend|The Dire Reverend]] 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::If anything, this seems like a lawful thing. Could call it "Binding Pact" or something.--[[User:Quey|Quey]] 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | ::::If anything, this seems like a lawful thing. Could call it "Binding Pact" or something.--[[User:Quey|Quey]] 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Unendable == | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems strange for a third level spell to be undispellable and completely immune to AMF. At the very least, I would mention that a disjunction should get it, and you might consider break enchantment or something. AMF could go either way, but it might be interesting flavor if the spell is suppressed while a pact member is inside, but everyone is instantly aware of the AMF, and everyone is updated to what happened inside the AMF once the member is removed from it, since likely any plans they made inside the field are still present.--[[User:Quey|Quey]] 19:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:55, 11 September 2012
Evil
Nothing about this spell seems particularly evil. Surgo 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, I made it for evil people, because good people don't tend to backstab each other. Should I drop the evil descriptor, and rename it? The Dire Reverend 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Surgo 18:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? The Dire Reverend 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- If anything, this seems like a lawful thing. Could call it "Binding Pact" or something.--Quey 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? The Dire Reverend 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Surgo 18:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Unendable
It seems strange for a third level spell to be undispellable and completely immune to AMF. At the very least, I would mention that a disjunction should get it, and you might consider break enchantment or something. AMF could go either way, but it might be interesting flavor if the spell is suppressed while a pact member is inside, but everyone is instantly aware of the AMF, and everyone is updated to what happened inside the AMF once the member is removed from it, since likely any plans they made inside the field are still present.--Quey 19:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
