Talk:Spell Void (3.5e Spell)

Examples

Example: Magina the level 18 wizard uses Spell void on Pugna the level 20 Sorcerer causing Pugnas available spells per day to feedback starting with the highest available (level 9) dealing (54d6 for 6 lvl 9 spells + 48d6 for 6 lvl 8 spells + 21d6 for 3 lvl 7 spells) 123d6 untyped damage to Pugna. Snafusam (talk)

Do you really expect ANYONE to play with this ******* level of damage!!??? Let alone no save, typeless damage? REALLY? This better be a joke... -HarrowedMind (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Let not forget a 100% chance to destroy ARTIFACTS at caster level 20th... --Leziad (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

i created the "example" to see for myself just how much damage it could do MAX. most spellcasters would have used many of their spells per day so it would be less. but fact said, yes i need to make other nerfs, any ideas instead of just straight complaints? or ideas on a type of damage for that fact, i can't think of one that would fit. (still working this spell around) ... also good to know that somebody's actually looking over the crazy shit i have been adding recently, the lack of comments had me worried...

Example2: Magina the level 18 wizard uses Spell void on Pugna the level 20 Sorcerer causing Pugnas available spells per day to feedback randomly (i will be rolling a d10 to descide on spell level 0+1+1+2+3+3+4+5+5+5+6+6+6+8+9=64) dealing 64d6 untyped damage to Pugna.

Example3:Magina the level 18 wizard uses Spell void on Pugna the level 20 Sorcerer causing Pugnas available spells per day to feedback randomly (i will be rolling a d10 to descide on spell level 1+2+2+3+3+4+4+6+7+8+8+8+8+9+9=82x2) dealing 164 untyped damage to Pugna.

im wanting to add some kind of Requirement for this spell but can't think of one that would fit... Snafusam (talk)

The artifact Destruction is just as troublesome, especially if it cause absolutely no problem for the caster. I disagree with it even in Mages's Disruption, which is considered a badly designed spell. --Leziad (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, no save Mage's Disjunction. No thank you. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Address Problems, Work Toward Solutions

For later reference, spell names are generally lower case and italicized when used within sentences, such as fireball or lickety speed. Also, the Copyright Disclaimer goes below the breadcrumb.

A list of problems first:

1. This is really clunky to read.

2. Is not comparable in power to other "these are useful and usable" 9th level spells.

3. Power is all over the place in terms of it likely being either overkill or you get nothing.

4. Fails to define what "deadmagic energy" is.

5. Fails to define what "magical-based creature" is.

6. Makes us stop and add up a bunch of numbers, slowing down combat horribly.

7. Is listed as both the Universal school (technically not really a school) and Evocation school.

8. Doesn't really explain how targeting works with it. It seems that it sorta works like magic missile, though it doesn't actually say.

Let's examine the core of this to determine what it is and what we want it to do. Okay, it creates a ball the caster holds and can throw when he wants. This ball is thrown without an attack roll/magically appears at and impacts/unerringly homes in on the target at long range. It offers no save, but does offer spell resistance. The ball screws with the target's spellcasting/items. It deals damage based on the target's spellcasting abilities.

Okay, so we've got a big list of problems. Some of which reach down to the core design plan of the spell. When you've got a flaw there, you've got some work ahead of you. Now, let's go through that list.

1. Simplify the effect. Have it do Thing A and Thing B with Thing C on a save. No complex math. No looking up stuff. Perhaps just a single set of extra dice rolls for damage and a side effect. Thing C here might be "you still take half damage and the side effect only lasts half as long".

2. For straight untyped damage, you can look at something like a crazy maxed-out metamagic disintegrate as a comparison (I guess, not sure what else it really compares to) as far as untyped basic damage is concerned. Then, you don't want to step on the toes of something that already exists, because if it already exists then there is no need to write it up again here and now.

3. Have it affect everyone, just certain targets better than others.

4. Dungeons and Dragons has dead magic in the form of dead magic zones. In these zones, magic simply doesn't function. Summoned creatures wink out within them. If your spell here is something similar to that, then lean toward having the spell deal damage and then have the target's magic (including items worn and held) stop functioning as a dead magic zone holds onto them. Then, you've got damage and suddenly the target is now immune to magic for however long.

5. Ditch any reference to "magical-based creature". Since the spell now affects everyone, we don't need that at all. If you insist on keeping it for whatever reason, define it tightly, like "creatures with spellcasting or spell-like abilities as well as all outsiders, elementals and fey" or whatever.

6. Don't have us have to check spell levels and add up a bunch of crap. That's annoying and no one wants to do it. It doesn't make you feel like a cool near-epic caster. It makes you feel like you're in a 2nd grade math class.

7. Stick to it being just Evocation.

8. Explain how you attack with it. If you want a ranged touch attack, say so. If it just automatically hits the target, ignoring cover, going around corners and through walls (magical or otherwise), say so.

There's probably more to it than this, but that's all I've got for now. Fix this spell. --Ganteka Future (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't i get this much attention on the other stuff... rofl... for a note this was supposed to be like the "Mana void" an spell from the 'Anti-mage of Warcraft 3 DotA' Magina. it is a basic mana feedback spell, however trying to get it to work without the mana variant rulings... sorry if this is any trouble and thank you all for your feedback.

this changes it completely away from what it was initially supposed to be. but your ideas Ganteka Future, "make me smile!" Snafusam (talk)00:55, 18 May 2013

Red Links and Odd Footers

Spell aside, we got some red links in here and a footer... is this supposed to be aping something else? Where is it even from? What is DotA? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (MDT)