Talk:Forever Forgotten (3.5e Epic Spell)
Ratings[edit]
|
Planterobloon is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I like the idea, but there shouldn't be a DC or material components. I imagine this really only being used by powerful NPCs far in the past; is this really appropriate for PCs? |
|
|
Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| The puzzle this presents is diverting, but ultimately flawed. Partly because it can be trivially destroyed with a longbow, and partly because both of your suggested game uses for it are terrible (the first because it implies that players should use it, when they could be having more fun figuring out how to build a vault this tough for a tenth the cost; the second because it's not much of a puzzle if you're recommending that DMs should only use it in situations where the DM doesn't want it to be solved at all) |
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| No death/miracle/wish can reverse the effect? Insanity not well explained? Needs to be clarified more before it should be published IMO. |
|
|
The-Marksman opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Wow! … I dont even know where to start with this. First off, even dispite the fact that this is an epic level spell (I get that), some of the numbers, ideas and conditions in this spell are ridiculous. Firstly the Spellcraft on this is "462"?! Wtf, is that even a thing?! Second the "effect" line says "A nigh impenetrable wall of stone with every conceivable protection". I would prefer for clarity and accuracy purposes that you actually list what protections are used/created. Next is the entry requirements are a little on the crazy side. I could see a 30th+ level wizards head … odd, but sure. But PER CREATURE ENTERING?! So if I have 4 people with me we need 5 wizards heads?! O.o
Then theres the insanity, I love the use of the insanity here in-and-of itself, but I dislike the permanent no remove thing. You should say something like it takes Wish/Miracle cast as an 11th or 12th level spell slot or something like that to remove, or cast by a deity or something. The redundancy of saying "Should this fail" gets old fast. Then theres the disjunction, which again, I like! But the execution is again flawed. Just because an artifact gets destroyed a character shouldn't permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. Either make it for a duration, or put another sentence specifying that they can be regained with wish/miracle. I kind of like the locks thing, except where it retriggers things you already bypassed, the spell is complicated and contrived already as it is without having to take 2 steps back every time something happens. Not to mention triggering the disjunction a dozen times is a little over kill. It was good by itself the first time, you dont need to go back to it SO often. I agree with the others, this doesn't feel at all like something that's meant to be played in game, it's meant as a plot device, and as it stands in its current form I don't see that it needs to be on the public wiki. |
Comments[edit]
- The reason no death/miracle/wish can reverse the effect are that [A] those effects are too weak in comparison (A higher level spell with a similar function may be effective.) and [B] it was a willing tribute paid only by those who would determine that to be a willing sacrifice. As for being not well explained, is the issue that I did not include a chart detailing the % rolls upon which each effect takes place? That is easily fixed, though I thought it to be well-described. Maninorange (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- So make it only undoable by a caster of equal or higher level. There should NEVER be effects that can't be removed no matter what--it's really bad for the game.
- Second, the insanity isn't explicitly explained. What does it do? How does it qualify as insanity? Is it the insanity spell? Etc etc etc. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Plot Device[edit]
I only ever see this being used as a plot device by DMs. It isn't bad, but who agrees with me? 174.27.17.169 21:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and feel that that's the entire point. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
