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)