User talk:MisterSinister

This is my talk page.

Spell Requests

Just thought I'd post this here from you from the old wiki, the first request was by (I think) Havvy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsThsWhdBls (at around 3 minutes). It doesn't show all of it, like the image here: http://avatarofang.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar-last-air-bender-sozins-comet.html . Basically the caster surrounds itself with a sphere of air allowing flight, along with rings of stone, fire, and water, which it can turn tentacle-like to harm the opponent.

A spell (preferably swift action) which changes the material composition of a weapon or natural weapon. Also a water dragon, like the one kakashi and zabusa use in naruto. A spell which applies a dose of poison to your weapon, and a spell which makes the next spell you cast empowered or the like. -Idkwhatmynameis 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TOToM Template

Currently, the template links the sphere entry to homebrew spheres. Since it looks like you're going to need to redo the spheres anyway, did you want them to link elsewhere? Similarly the definition links in the spell header links to SRD pages instead of your rules pages. Did you want that changed? - Tarkisflux 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. I haven't written up any spheres yet, so I'm not quite sure where to direct them, but I guess the Sphere section in SRP4 would be best. MisterSinister 21:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

4e Style Template

Once I get your okay, I'll move the TOToM Spell template on my userpage to the template domain. The test/example page is here: TOTOM Example.

TOToM [Suppressible]

I get the first part of this tag, you can turn any number of them on or off as a swift action. What's the second part for? - Tarkisflux 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For abilities like this: Breath of the Dragon (TOToM_Spell). Basically, it replaces the need to say 'wait 1d4+1 rounds'. --Havvy 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I had assumed it had something to do with having your at-will stuff dispelled temporarily, but thought I was missing something. Since you want a different DC on that setup (which I think is a good idea since it's rather random), why don't we just say that it's suppressed until recovered and use the same recovery roll mechanic as everything else? - Tarkisflux 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Havvy - you might also wanna consider what the DC would be for abilities that lack levels - such as dragon's breath under normal circumstances. - MisterSinister 20:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I pass on figuring out good DCs for this to TarkisFlux. --Havvy 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Will be merged into recovery mechanics then, where "this ability is not available" is the thing that you recover from, since they currently provide a decent range of "wait X rounds". Need to bring that up later as well since my proposal has what looks a lot like inverted duration tracking and I'm unclear on if that is acceptable or not. :-/ - Tarkisflux 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

At-Will Justification Request

Example for reference: Breath of the Dragon (TOToM Spell) is a spell you can use to AoE blast for non-piddly shit all day long (subject to recovery breaks) while bypassing any annoying resistances that happened to pop up, starting at level 3. You could just cast it 4 times, leave your slots used up, and use it almost every round if you wanted to. Even aside from the bug/feature that is stacking slot duration recovery-to-use-again abilities, this is a substantial upgrade from current wizard stuff. The damage upgrade is fine, of course, because it needs to compete with web and glitterdust and whatnot, but the at-will thing appears to go above and beyond competing.

There's certainly a level where you can spam spells like this all day long and I don't care. I'm just not sure it's level 3. I get the desire to increase the workday length, I'm not seeing giving otherwise balanced single use damage/incapacitation rate spike spells whenever you want them as a valid way to do that.

That said, I'm genuinely unsure whether this is just a "WTF OP!" moment or an actual concern. It certainly feels wrong at this level though. I'd appreciate being set straight if I'm out in the field on this. - Tarkisflux 20:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read the spell again (and corrected a hideously stupid error), I think I hear where you're coming from. While what you're suggesting requires extreme slot burn, I think I agree that level 3 might be a bit premature. Would pulling the damage back a bit be OK by you? - MisterSinister 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, you can slot the same ability more than once? That shouldn't be possible, via stacking rules. --Havvy 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not slotting the same thing more than once in the same slot, but slotting it in 4 different slots and checking each for a separate recharge. If there's rules that prohibit that I haven't seen them, and they also need to specifically exempt transferable spells that you've put on other people as long as mass-buffing is intended since that's basically the same spell in multiple slots setup.

Regarding the actual spell's damage, I actually have the same problem with Eldritch Blast (TOToM Spell) and every damage balanced but also at-will now spell. So a simple damage fix would probably not address my concerns without making the damage so low that no one would care about it until such level as the at-will meta we've discussed comes on line (i.e. similar to non-caster damage output with the same action cost since there aren't any substantial usage restrictions). But I think we're getting lost in examples at this point, so I'm going to generalize things up.

When Frank said [CL]d6 fireballs at level 1 was balanced, he meant balanced within the standard usage limitation paradigm that you're also abolishing / revising with respect to them. The damage spells that you've tagged at-will thus far appear to have been brought up to very near the level of the SoDs at the same level. It looks like a double power-up where only a single was necessary. Why is it ok to allow a caster to cast some single use spells basically at will, as long as they don't refill the slot that originally held it, but not other spells? What quality of the spell makes this arrangement acceptable? - Tarkisflux 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If a more specific example would be useful, consider the following apparent imbalance: Breath of the Dragon (TOToM Spell) will deal enough damage on average to very nearly kill an equal hit die foe (in that level range that's probably also an equal CR foe) on a failed save and leave them near half health on a successful save. Against lower hit die foes you probably just murder everyone. If you cast it you can use it all day, subject to a recharge period. Colour Spray (TOToM Spell) affects the same size area, will only stun creatures of your CR for 1 round instead of almost murder them on a failed save and will do nothing to them on a successful save. Against foes of a substantially lower CR it either incaps them for most of the fight (basically dead) or does nothing if they save. In terms of simple foe reduction, it appears to be worse than BotD. And you only get to use it once per slot at the level you acquire it. Why do you get to use the more powerful encounter ending spell more often? - Tarkisflux 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tarkis - I agree, and will be amending things to get them back in line. BotD needs a damage pull in any case. - MisterSinister 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point I'm arguing that any at-will spell in this level range needs to be something akin to what a non-caster could accomplish with the same action cost. So magic missile could be an at-will if it only gave you 1 missile as a standard action and 2 as a full-action, and it didn't scale in any other fashion, ever. Or throw bolt where you just used magic to fire a crossbow bolt (and so skipped the reloading part). Any single use balanced spell, like the ones mentioned so far, should probably be dealt with in an at-will way by the metamagic feat (that is an augment on color spray and detonation), whenever that comes on line. I should just go write that metamagic feat already... - Tarkisflux 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think you're likely right. - MisterSinister 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LD Spell Category

Instead of Category:LD Spell, if there isn't a good reason not to I'd prefer that you just make a general Category:Liber Dominicus where all the LD stuff would go. If you want to check for only spells, you'd just do an intersection of Category:Spell and Category:Liber Dominicus. Surgo 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Surgo. Will correct to such. - MisterSinister 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Acid Rain

I wrote up that spell, so the Acid domain is done. If you have any issues with it, contact me. - TG Cid 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Breadcrumbing Hollow Nymph

Thank you! - Viatos 08:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. - MisterSinister 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tome of Battle II: Temple of Sublime Warfare

I had a sudden idea (which I will now copy pasta to all the owners of various homebrew disciplines). What if we made a sourcebook, we certainly have enough classes and disciplines to do so. Maybe we can get together on my user page and talk about a unifying theme like the whole Temple of Nine Swords thing. The title, I just made up... Temple of Sublime Warfare, or maybe Battlefield of the Sublime Blade, or whatever. Contact me and give me your thoughts. -- Eiji-kun 08:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

It's not ready to go live yet. I need to do maintenance/updates on existing ratings first, and there's extra steps in rating that haven't been written up in the directions yet. Can you pull your ratings for now please? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My mistake, sorry. - MisterSinister 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

... and now it is. You'll want to check the directions on Project:Rating Articles for extra steps. I'm porting over all of the old favor lines right now, so if you can hold off on rating articles with legacy ratings until tomorrow I'd appreciate it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If, or when, the rating kinks are worked out, I would be most grateful if you looked a few of the following articles: Judge of Existence (3.5e Class), Kisalli (3.5e Race) or Teknolojia (3.5e Racial Paragon Class). Thank you --Franken Kesey 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like af few people loking and maybe rating, but at least commenting on these two so I can learn from my work Zen Warrior (3.5e Feat), Soul-Rage Skald (3.5e Class). Wildmage ^Talk 08:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As per both of your requests, I have rated this shit. And I won't lie - I haven't been kind. But you did ask for it, and I am the Yelling Bird of this wiki, so I suppose it comes with the territory. - MisterSinister 11:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you update your Judge rating? Much has changed since you last reviewed it. --Franken Kesey 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WHAT

WHAT? --TK-Squared 08:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Liber Demonica

Left a design question on the talk page of the sourcebook, and one of the ravaged classes is missing a spell list (pale night I think, it's tagged). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because the domains for Pale Night have yet to be made. We've been lazy. - TG Cid 20:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Suppressing Fire

I do understand your sentiments. At least with the mass function the penalty IS useless. Though I didn't come to talk about that actually, I just had an idea while musing how I may have approached the issue. Take a look at this:

You take X penalty (up to your BAB) on attack rolls and aim in a cone shape. Make an attack roll. If it hits, targets in area take damage as if hit by one arrow. Regardless if it hits or misses, targets take X penalty on attacks for 1 round. Even mooks who can't hit the tarrasque can at least harass it by spraying fire wildly at maximum penalty, which seems to achieve the point of suppressive fire while giving the threat of actually being hit.

Not sure what to do with the idea. Feat, maneuver, class feature, dunno. Just thought you'd like to know. -- Eiji-kun 09:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a maneuver, methinks. A high enough level one that mooks probably wouldn't have access to it, honestly... --Undead_Knave 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

At its present scaling, I could see it as a feat, but I would agree with UK that a maneuver is better. I'd also scale the penalty somewhat differently - it seems a bit steep, given that it auto-succeeds on the penalty part. - MisterSinister 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 1/2 progression? I figure unlike Ghostwheel's this is a standard or full round, since has the attack built into it rather than being in addition to a possible attack. I figure either you take a small penalty in hopes of doing the same, or you go all out, dealing no damage but trying to make it impossible to attack back efficiently.

I did figure I was aiming at a higher power level though. Same concept but different modus operandi. -- Eiji-kun 10:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My name

Hey man, I just wanted to ask you something... Basically, did you mean to use my name in some of your material? Nerameshu 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If I have used it, I certainly don't remember where. Link me? If it is there, I'm certain it wasn't intentional. - MisterSinister 04:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be here. - TG Cid 05:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, how the hell did that slide by? If you object, I can change it to something else. - MisterSinister 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I would object, because I use this name for forum RPs. So, please, if you can think of something else. I hate to be picky, but I just don't want someone to think I stole my name from you, lol. I have been using it since 2005. Nerameshu 00:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I propose an alternate solution - would you be OK with having a contribution credit? That way, no theft could possibly be perceived there. If you're still not good with that, of course I will change it. - MisterSinister 21:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your incomplete article, Demon Weapon, Least (3.5e Equipment), is about to expire

MisterSinister, the article Demon Weapon, Least (3.5e Equipment) is incomplete and will be deleted in 2 days as outlined in the wiki's Incomplete Homebrew Article policy. If you would like to keep the article, but cannot finish it in time, please sandbox it. If you need any assistance, ask one of the wiki administrators.

Your incomplete article, Demon Weapon, Lesser (3.5e Equipment), is about to expire

MisterSinister, the article Demon Weapon, Lesser (3.5e Equipment) is incomplete and will be deleted in 2 days as outlined in the wiki's Incomplete Homebrew Article policy. If you would like to keep the article, but cannot finish it in time, please sandbox it. If you need any assistance, ask one of the wiki administrators.

Rawr

Just noticed your comments on the Grimoire Necromancer. I responded: can you take a look when you have a chance? --Aarnott 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology

While this is certainly coming later than it should have, I would like to apologize for how I responded to you. I should have, before even thinking about acting as an admin, acted as a community member and simply asked you to be a little less aggressive. That would have been the proper way to handle the conflict. By throwing out the ultimatum straightaway, I escalated the situation to a power struggle when it need only have been a conversation. I am sorry for that. --DanielDraco 09:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. I can be rather harsh, and I often escalate disagreements far above what is needed. In that particular situation, I definitely overshot, and thus, I hope you can accept my apology too. We don't have to agree, but that doesn't mean we should be douchey to each other either. - MisterSinister 09:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To Be

How disappointing. I have continued to depend on your point advice, and acute criticism, on just my own articles – also as an assistant to reviewing others. Could I possibly request an exception on at least my own? The yellow bird will be sorely missed. --Franken Kesey 02:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, FrankenKesey - I'm not gonna stop reviewing. This is something that I will continue to do, and hopefully, I will continue to do it well.

What I am putting behind me are the endless put-downs, the anger, the hateful rages, and most especially, the ad hominems. I don't wanna be the guy who yells at the world, and wonders why it starts yelling back. Because of several people (you all know who you are), I've been shown that my way of doing things is not helping anyone, and especially not me. I'm turning over a new leaf on the way I critique - not the fact I do so.

So don't worry. Ratings will flow again soon. Just not of the sort that yells at everyone and makes endless dick jokes. Well, at least not angry ones. - MisterSinister 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Spells Needing Responses

Here is a convenient list of the spells that I asked questions / made complaints / wahtever about that are missing a response:

• Acid Sheath (3.5e Spell)
• Apocalypse From The Sky (3.5e Spell) (ok, that one was waiting on me I guess, but I have added to it again, unless I forgot after making this list...)
• Detect Alignment (3.5e Spell)
• Elush's Elemental Extraction (3.5e Spell)
• Erzebet's Soul-Flensing Ligature (3.5e Spell)
• Flaying Wind (3.5e Spell)
• Ishara's Enticing Directive (3.5e Spell)
• Invigoration (3.5e Spell)
• Norton's Bone-Freezing Explosion (3.5e Spell)
• Power Word Catatonia (3.5e Spell)
• Shadows of the Mage-Lords (3.5e Spell)
• Torn From Within (3.5e Spell)
• Winds of Memory (3.5e Spell)

I hope you enjoys this lovely list. Feel free to edit my items here as tehy are no longer applicable. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've covered your notes on all of them now. - MisterSinister (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Spell You Requested

Can be found hurr. - TG Cid (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)