Ratings[edit]
|
Dragonexx favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
|
| Hilarious
|
|
Ghostwheel is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
|
| What Jota said. "It's magic" becomes an excuse to do ANYTHING.
|
|
Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
|
| It's wonderful.
But to be more true to the source material, the caster is supposed to be like, really powerful, so surely if this was just a first level spell it wouldn't have been worth writing about. You should clearly change it to 6th level or so.
|
|
|
Sulacu likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
|
| If only the Z-fighters had access to this spell in the Tree of Might movie. That could have saved everybody involved a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
|
| God hates figs. That's why fig newtons are the devil's food!
|
|
|
Spanambula likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
|
| It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Figs!
|
|
|
Undead Knave likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
|
| Dat target, though.
|
|
|
Jota is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
|
| In terms of power, I'd probably put this with the rest of the cantrips, which is one point of contention. The other stems from the ever-burgeoning cleric spell list. Does something so specific really merit its own spell that a Dungeon Master need to be cognizant of? It's not a problematic spell by any stretch of the imagination, it just compounds a pre-existing problem of relevancy with n+1 splatbooks to choose from.
|
I'd say it's somewhere between 0 and 1st level, myself. But if I understand you correctly, you're complaining that there's too many overly specific cleric spells in existence so that's why you don't like an APRIL FOOLS DAY spell? Seriously? Spanambula (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. The tag is subjective in any case and it should not exempt consideration of how the article must interact with the rest of the game and its players. -- Jota (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- "subjective: (adj.) based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." April Fools tag: "...should be mechanically functional but is not intended to be taken seriously." By definition, the tag is not subjective. At all. It categorically states without room for debate that this is a frivolous, joking, flippant, lighthearted article that technically CAN be used within the rules of D&D but was never intended to see the light of an actual game. It PRECISELY "exempts consideration of how the article must interact with the rest of the game and its players." I do not see how a sane person could interpret this any other way. There are 126 April Fools articles on the wiki at last count, many of which are intentionally and farcically game-breaking, which is more or less the point. Which means you have so utterly and completely missed said point that I half-expect you to be making some kind of meta-April Fools joke by taking this so wrongly and seriously. And this doesn't even address your initial grudge, in which you complain that there are too many cleric spells on a wiki dedicated to creating homebrew material. Spanambula (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point isn't that the spell list of clerics becomes too big. That's going to happen when you have splatplosion. The point is that you get magic so specialized that it can do anything to the point where if you need ANYTHING done out of combat, you tell the wizard or cleric to spend a day re-memorizing and then they fix the problem all on their own, as opposed to the whole party going on a quest to retrieve the Seed of Irreparable Fruition Denial from the Crags of The Grim Mont if they need to make a specific tree never bear fruit again, yet can't destroy it due to special restrictions of some kind.
- That's my problem with it. Magic becoming so specialized that it becomes the answer to everything. That's not to say that problem isn't inherent in the core rulebook, but that doesn't change the fact that I dislike it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I.... actually agree with that. On the other hand, specialized spells made for a specialized class isn't unreasonable, as there are only so many ways to rearrange existing spell lists to make them seem new. I'm not saying I have a good answer to the problem, I'm saying that downvoting a silly April Fools article because it conflicts with your design philosophy is a really odd place to take a stand on the issue, and makes you look petty. Spanambula (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- And that's why it has neutrals. That said, I could wholeheartedly see it working as a Ritual, which are meant for this kind of esoteric, highly specific ability. Heck, the trip to Mount Morgul-Doom Fthagn could be to retrieve said ritual so they might use it on said tree. --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Not intended to be taken seriously" is a function of the author's opinion. There are articles bearing the tag like the radioactive gem, shoop da whoop, or seeker of the lost wizard traditions that are considered to be April Fools' articles for one reason or another but could be used in a serious campaign outside the context of their fluff with no one batting an eye. It comes down to what aspect of the article earn it the April Fools' tag. If the fluff earns the article the tag then it can be reflavored for use in a serious campaign, and as such a reader may choose to take it seriously on that basis (subjective). On the other end of the spectrum you having things like drop dead, talk like a pirate, and quadrimurfractiphobia, where the fluff is inseparable from the mechanics. If anything, the fact that an article must still be mechanically functionally means precisely that it must take into account how it interacts with the rest of game. If there are any farcical, game-breaking articles floating around, they should be tagged as such and modified or removed/sandboxed. As far as the last quip, homebrew is hardly a strictly additive venture. Yes, you have to write to homebrew, adding a new element, but that homebrew can have subtractive effects or modify existing features instead of only continually expanding the options available to the players. -- Jota (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine keeping this as a spell simply to make the joke more "accessible". Yes, a ritual is probably the more "correct" way, mechanically, for such a specific magical effect, but that would require the reader to have to read up on the ritual homebrew material. Really though, the effect is so useless that its not really contributing in any serious way to the cleric/druid splatbook problem. I'd say the splatbook problem is even much less of an issue with homebrew since pretty much any DM will look over any homebrew material a player wants to bring into a game.
- I picked level 1 for the spell because a permanent effect seemed like something that shouldn't be level 0. I think the lowest level permanent effect I've seen is level 2, so I feel like I'm pushing the envelope with the spell level already. Since the effect is basically worthless, Low power was the right fit for balance level. This being said, I'm going to do a small rejig. I don't think it would break anything to make it a level 0 spell, which typically contain all the "worthless" magic anyways. I'm going to clarify that the tree has to be a "normal" tree (so no magical/special trees either -- you can just make that fig tree stop bearing fruit). And I'm going to add a not that DMs that actually want to use this in a game should probably make it a ritual instead. --Aarnott (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That Figures[edit]
How come no access for druids? --Ganteka Future (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't really think of Jesus as a druid, but I added it anyways :). --Aarnott (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- It just reads like it would be a druidy spell was the reasoning. --Ganteka Future (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
