User talk:Luigifan18/Edge of Seventeen (3.5e Spell)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedOppose.png Spanambula opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
AF articles get a bit of leeway because they're not supposed to be completely serious, but this is still pretty bad. The problem is your usual one: you have a clever idea, and you try shoehorn D&D mechanics into your idea rather than adapting your idea to D&D mechanics, often involving needless complications so that all aspects of your idea are accounted for, then performing the damage control of "wait how can I keep my clever idea from breaking the game because of it's awkwardness."

In light of that criticism, here's how I'd fix this: "This spell curses the subject and ages them either forward or backwards to young adulthood (about 17 for humans, other species as appropriate), and hold them at that age forever, or until the curse is broken. The subject loses any age-related benefits or penalties it may have accrued as a result of the age modification. The spell also instills a nearly-cliched amount of immaturity in the subject. The subject's Wisdom score permanently drops to 8 (unless it would normally be lower) and takes a -5 penalty on all social checks and saves against charms and compulsions. If the curse is removed (via break enchantment, wish or miracle), the creature returns to it's previous age PLUS all time spent as a permanent youth, which may kill the subject if it exceeds the normal lifespan for the species. The wisdom loss is also removed."

There. You can even keep the song lyrics.

RatedOppose.png Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
To save myself the trouble of reading it myself, I had my computer do it for me in the voice of a pleasant Scottish woman. Thanks Fiona! Unfortunately I forgot to time her reading. Even for a machine, automated to her task, there were really awkward bits in there she had trouble with. Anyway, misusing accessibility features aside, this spell is bad. The idea behind it really isn't functional beyond DM fiat and McGuff'nry. It's an interesting meta-idea for a "What-if" scenario, but it just doesn't work in the context of a living, cooperative storytelling experience. That the article itself is rife with mocking tone toward the reader, includes lovely bits that make you ask questions like "Wait, if it de-levels you to your 17 year old self, how could you die from that? Obviously you were alive when you were 17. This doesn't even do what it advertises to do"... and that's terrible. Sandbox this and keep it for your own amusement, but note that it doesn't belong in the main space. Fanboyism has gotten the better of you again on this one.
RatedOppose.png Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
Oh yeah, I didn't rate this. Again, see the Talk page. In addition to that, it suffers from the typical length issues, sticking on point, rambling, and unintended consequences as normal.
RatedOppose.png Undead Knave opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
I was really surprised to find out this was unrated. The reasons have been discussed in other portions of the Talk page.

Seeing the future

I'm not convinced that a spell that lets you get knowledge about things that will probably happen 16 years from now is entirely appropriate for a 7th level spell. --Foxwarrior (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge of things that the subject could feasibly witness, assuming that they can adjust to being dragged in from the future (and therefore being able to "remember" things that haven't even happened yet) and be taken seriously by other people when talking about said future events. Also, casting this spell on a one-year-old seems kinda silly. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, as a Paladette, you could cast this spell on every one-year-old, converting a preschool into an army of the highest-level NPCs in town.
Also, I think you'd probably take someone seriously if you'd just magicked up the knowledge you wanted them to tell you. Cassandra's curse makes no sense when the person listening to you created your power of prophecy. --Foxwarrior (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It's still just memory, not actual precognition; it's subject to all the same limitations that actual memories are. This makes it a bit unreliable. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, knowledge of the future isn't the main issue here. This spell is an eternal youth spell that actually works, just in a corrupted fashion of questionable usefulness (the older the subject is, the more they lose). It does indeed grant immortality to the subject, by permanently locking them at the age of 17, which probably wouldn't be that bad (for races that have some degree of competence at the age of 17, at least; stuff like elves and dragons are just all-around screwed by being forced to remain that young) if not for the fact that it affects the mind in addition to the body. (I do like how this spell can be both helpful and harmful at the same time; you don't see many effects like that.) Still, it's an eternal youth spell that actually works. That might not be appropriate for a 7th-level spell. Thoughts? --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sixteen years of relatively true memories of the future per casting is fantastic; even deities can only see a few weeks into the future. And you probably really want to know about the big plots and conspiracies and such, so you just have to pick people who would have paid attention in history class.
Immortality is a novelty which WotC made some effort to make expensive to acquire, but they didn't even include reincarnate (or Necropolitans), so it's actually not that big a deal. Well, when you give this to a Paladette, they can turn literally everyone 17 forever with a practical amount of work, which upheaves society and such, so there's that I guess. --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
They teach you about plots and conspiracies in history class?!? In elementary or middle school?!? You realize that unless something is a globe-changing iconic event of history, it doesn't get into textbooks other than college-level ones, right? And also that what does get into school history books is subject to a lot of politicking, so a lot of the information is the sort of thing that you might want to take with a grain of salt. Even then, while the truth does tend to come to light eventually, no matter how hard someone tries to hide it, it does require somebody to go digging for it, and that can take a while. If today's highly secretive conspiracy is common knowledge 17 years in the future, there's some crazy causality crap going on. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, this is memories, not scrying. If you believe that people can somehow remember things that they've never been made aware of in any way, I have a bridge to sell you. You seem to be assuming that your average preteen NPC is going to give enough of a crap about things that PCs give a crap about, or have some means of bearing witness to them, by the time they're 17. Who in their right mind sends children dungeon-crawling?!? I know child soldiers are a thing and labor laws exist for a reason, but come on, how do you think you have any idea what you're going to get out of casting this spell on a given person until you actually do it?!? You're severely overestimating the life experience of the average 17-year-old! --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, riddle me this; if you pull someone into the past, then change the events that made them who they are, will they remain the same? I don't think so. Memory and time travel are a volatile combination, and this spell pulls a subject's 17-year-old self out of the time they occupy and basically overwrites the subject's present-day self with said 17-year-old self (at least until the curse is lifted). If you pull a 17-year-old back in time with this spell and then change events that are linked to their memories and experiences, you're going to alter that creature by doing so. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
To answer your riddle, if the creature was continuously updated based on the consequences of your actions somehow (are your future actions not already incorporated into their memories? Who specifically is excluded?), I wouldn't expect them to act like a 17 year old at all. I would expect them to twitch uncontrollably and then die. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Your future actions should already be accounted for in their memories, but how the hell is the DM going to keep that straight?!? And who's excluded? Well, everyone the subject doesn't come across, for one thing. Remember that it's memory, so if the memory would never be formed in the first place, then it doesn't exist. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
"How the hell is the DM going to keep that straight?" Hey, that's my line! --Foxwarrior (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I was pointed back at this spell, so I looked it over again. It occurs to me that there's a pretty simple way to greatly increase the likelihood of this hypothetical kid learns what you want it to know. Commit to guiding it. "I commit to taking in this random orphan, caring for it, and guiding its interest in knowledge in general and current and recent events in particular. I'm also going to try to instill a great deal of respect for the truth into it."
Then cast the spell. It won't be too many castings until you actually get what you're looking for.
Just sayin'. --Undead_Knave (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

the goblin menance[edit]

So the day a single goblin wizard hits level 13 or goblin sorcerer hits level 14, the world ballance change. the breed like rabbits and as soon as they are born pling level 3. All first level adventures are gonna get wiped and only races that start out with 3+ HD will survive the arms race. Now goblins start of one day after birth as 3rd lvl adults ready to breed and kill, oh yes almost forgot they never dies of old age! Thats not a 7 lvl spell. (even do casting area dispell on a goblin army would be hillarius) Wildmage Talk 20:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Polymorph Any Object is pretty great too. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)