User talk:Luigifan18/Words of the Witch (3.5e Spell)

The Poor Poor RNG

+2 and -8 adds up to a spell that is essentially an automatic kill against people who are normally fairly resistant to Fortitude-based attacks. Generally speaking, making spells harder to save against than average is the worst way to make a spell stronger against some targets. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a death effect. How else am I supposed to make it stronger? --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I originally had the penalty at −4, and then decided that the list of potential victims was so narrow that −4 wasn't good enough. (Lolwut?) Anyways, the penalty's back at −4. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Give it damage or lesser status effects that apply whether or not the target saves? A difference of 6 is still really serious. --Foxwarrior (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I really want this to be devastating to creatures that make a habit of attacking arcane spellcasters. It's supposed to be the arcane spellcaster's revenge. When it comes time to strike down the wizard-hating tyrant who killed the party wizard's entire family (and, to add insult to injury, for no other reason than sheer paranoia), this is supposed to be the spell to use for the job. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Your turn: what do you do?"

"I walk 30 feet, then I get revenge"

"Okay, you've gotten your revenge. What now?"

This sounds somehow anticlimactic to me. Maybe that was your objective? --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, most of the challenge is supposed to be in getting up to a high enough level to cast this spell, then getting to the target and getting the spell off. Nobody said the DM had to make that easy - your target could have a lot of guards to body-block you with. Or perhaps the target is a high level and thus actually has a decent chance of making the Fortitude save even with a penalty. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the spell was originally meant to do something along the lines of 10d6 per turn. Which wouldn't stop until the target died or got a remove curse cast on them. In other words, a curse burning the soul. (You have clicked the hyperlink, yes?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, as it is now, this spell is a lite version of wail of the banshee. Is wail of the banshee anticlimactic? --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Undead_Knave (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Also, as it is now, this spell is a lite version of wail of the banshee." It's not "wail of the banshee lite" edition, it's "wail of the banshee senseless mechanics" edition. Fluffykittens (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yahwhut

This feels nit-picky to say when I feel like the whole article needs a drastic overhaul, but I'm not happy with your mention of Yahweh. It's an odd call-out to make, since we (appropriately) don't have an entry for Yahweh on the wiki. It's in poor taste to bring real religion into game articles, especially when casting them in a negative light. You should remove the reference.

Secondary question out of idle curiosity: does anyone know of D&D deities that hate arcane spellcasters on general principle, and not just because of opposing alignments? I can't think of any. Spanambula (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm Catholic myself, so presenting God in a negative light couldn't be further from my intentions. Now, those who take His Word way, way, way too psychotically far, on the other hand... --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "bigoted" or "presenting god in a bad light", it's malaprops. YHWH and any concept of him doesn't exist in most DND settings, and neither do most other real-world deities or religions, and there is no fantastic equivalent. Certainly, DND religions use elements of real-world religions, but the core principles are all completely different. Furthermore, a religious order that persecutes arcane casters on principle is going to wind up very, very dead very, very fast. The reason religious orders hunted "magicians" historically is to punish political dissidents, provide a cassus belli, or steal property. Also, in real life, an accused witch can't just go "you and everyone around you is paralyzed and on fire". Fluffykittens (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ratings

Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

This is just weird. Ignoring the fact that it's wave OP (seriously that's a 9th level spell at 6th, "restriction" or no), or the fact that it starts out with some cringe worthy quotes, the spell itself is difficult to determine. Who has committed crimes against arcane casters? What counts as a crime? A crime to who, when, and where? Did they have to be aware this person was a caster at all? What if the arcane caster was Badwrong, the Evil Lich, and it is a good thing they did? I mean, Badwrong may have been eating babies but he also paid his taxes and donated to the girl scouts, you just committed breaking and entering, murder, and probably a few other things, just think of his poor undead family! Too many questions and a overall bad effect makes this a stinker. Also, -10 points from House Luigi for unnecessary Yahweh namedrop. It's like me making a reference to politics out of nowhere; it's gonna rile someone's panties.

Spanambula opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

I thought I'd disliked this spell already, but I guess I hadn't. I'm amused that an adventuring party hired to clear a lich out of its tower is totally a fair target for the spell. I suppose you could add "avenge wrongs done to someone else incapable of avenging the wrong on their own" to solve that problem. But on the other hand, if your spell contains a laundry list of exemptions and an odd subjective moral framework where each target's true intentions have to be examined and debated as to whether or not they constitute "reasonable justification" for the spell to work, then your spell sucks anyway. EDIT: Oh hey, changes were made, maybe I need to change my rati- oh. Now there's an XP cost. It's like you're actively trying to make this spell worse than it already was. And for God's sake, lose the stupid song quotes. This spell still sucks. Both the mechanics and the idea behind it are just not good for the game. Changing my dislike to an oppose.

It's really mostly about who drew first blood. If the wizard was going around smiting innocents, then taking him down is totally justified. If he was just minding his own business? Not so much. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And the song lyrics were what inspired the spell in the first place. --Luigifan18 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (MST)

	Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	A mass SoD that's harder to save against than most? No thank you. As an aside, isn't magic that's subsidized when used to enforce some twisted justice more of a Divine thing?

Maybe it is, but this spell is anti-divine — as the description states, arcane and divine spellcasters sometimes fail to get along. Also, it's only more difficult to save against for its intended targets, which is basically the whole point. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are other spells that have "intended targets", and they represent this by giving unintended targets immunity, or sometimes just a bonus to their saves. Generally speaking, the default DC for a spell is high enough. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

SRD:Feeblemind would seem a clear counter example on intended target screwing Fox. It isn't asking you to track multiple categories of tiny modifiers like this is though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

	Undead Knave opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	The only upside is it's a [Death] effect, so everyone but the dickish Wizard is already immune. EDIT: You didn't subtantially change anything, my explanation was sufficiently explained, and blocking ratings just because you don't like them isn't okay.

If you're going to deride an article by saying it has only one upside, you should list a few downsides as well. Also, your reason as stated makes no sense — lots of characters lack immunity to [Death] effects. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly my point; everyone else is immune, so only the caster won't be. Everything else about this is terrible, and other people have already talked about why. --Undead_Knave (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your rating. --Luigifan18 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (MST)

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Pointlessly complicated mechanics -1 Poor balance -1 XP cost -1

Wait, what's wrong with having an XP cost? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Rating	HarrowedMind opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.Yup, this bonus and moreso this penalty stack waaaay too high! Especially considering the effect, which is instant death in a 40 foot radius! I oppose!