holylink718's page

My DM actually let me create a half-drow in his Shackled City adventure path. Basically he's a half-elf with darkvision 60' instead of low-light vision. Also, he is discriminated against (though this is a role-playing disadvantage, not a roll-playing one).

I love getting creative with races and classes. It can be a lot of fun to play something unusual, even if it's not better. For example, it would have been better for me to play a half-orc or a dwarven ranger (to get the darkvision instead of low-light vision), but I thought it would be a fun race to try out. I've never played one before.

Edit: I'm not sure light sensitivity would be appropriate. If you retained some of the other drow abilities, perhaps that would be a good way to balance it, but you are just trading low-light for darkvision and light skin for dark...with a crap load of predudice.

Just my 2 cents.

holylink718 wrote:

I appreciate the thought, but I really don't care if everyone jumps to use my spell. As I said earlier, I wasn't trying to make a bad@$$ spell that was the new staple to all mages (or even most). I was just trying to create a cool spell that may have some use from time to time.

I think you kinda missed the point about my post. You claimed that you wanted to develop "flavor" for your mage, but I found the spell very "vanilla" without the benefit of little flecks of actual bean mixed in.

Try looking at my post again, but this time think "flavor" rather than a mechanical review.

R.

Okay, perhaps you misunderstand me. I was not asking for advice on how to add flavor to my character. I was asking for mechanical help. I only brought the flavor up because I was saying that it was not meant to be a super duper spell that causes my enemies to quake with fear at the mere thought of facing. Just an original spell. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see no point in continuing this part of the conversation. I think I got what I came for but if anyone has any input on the mechanics of the spell itself (and not the flavor), then I am all ears. Otherwise, I am not interested. I mean no disrespect, but that is what I came here for.

Funny ... when I first read the Thread Subject my thought was "just use a gust of wind" :-) Guess I missed the "-ing" part.

I think the Spell Compendium has a dispelling screen that achieves the basic effect you want at a lower level.

By the time you're casting 9th level spells you also have permanency and plenty of other options. You shouldn't need something like this to "defend your lair" because you should already have plenty of other defenses, both static and dynamic, in place. Traps, wards, dispelling screens and guards & wards along with similar things for defenses. You wouldn't want to waste a spell slot on something like this, but rather prepare a spell that will rip your opponents asunder.

Sorry, I guess folks are underwhelmed.

If you want to give "flavor" to your mage, start with their personality and grow something out from there, rather than just a new, random "trick" spell. Bigby did force-hands, Otiluke did energy and other spheres, Leomund did shelters and protections. Figure out what your guy is "about" and what is his personality and then work a variety of spells from there, basically every other level.

Give us a Kinlyhol's Mighty BLANK of BLANK series of spells at 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th levels that are related, thematic and yet not entirely derivative or simple upgrades of one another. Tie the development of these spells to his backstory and personality in such a way that we can see why an otherwise perhaps predictable progression did not take place and the chain went one direction instead of another.

That would be interesting. This spell won't get more than a yawn from the RPG Superstar judges.

Imagine that you are developing your Wizard as an NPC for the RPGS contest ... think about his background and personality and the formative episodes of his life, and then build spells around and influenced by his needs, circumstances and desires.

HTH,

Rez

I appreciate the thought, but I really don't care if everyone jumps to use my spell. As I said earlier, I wasn't trying to make a bad@$$ spell that was the new staple to all mages (or even most). I was just trying to create a cool spell that may have some use from time to time.

And I would never, ever care what the RPG Superstar judges thought about my spell. No offense, of course, but I don't waste one second wondering if my stuff is "RPG Superstar" material. I have seen too many awesome submissions get trashed by the judges and crap get praise to waste my time trying to please them. :)

I think it's a neat idea (an AoE, persistent Dispeller), but it could probably use some tweaking. I would make it like Dispel Magic, affecting only 1 spell per target, and I would make it so the caster only has to make 1 Dispel check per round, applied to all targets in the AoE. Remember, in Pathfinder, Dispel Magic doesn't max out at 10th level, so it would still be viable at higher levels.

I think with the changes I proposed, it would be a 5th level spell.

I did not notice that. I made this back in 3.5 and have not played a mage at high enough level to notice the difference in Pathfinder. That's interesting.

Now that's the kind of assistance I was looking for. :)

Edit:

Dispelling Fog
Abjuration/Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Fog spread in 20 ft. radius, 20 ft. high
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell functions like Solid Fog except that, in addition to the normal effects of Solid Fog, creatures within the fog are targeted by a dispel via Dispel Magic, as if cast by the caster of Dispelling Fog, each round they remain in the fog. The caster makes one dispel check per round and compares that result against all affected spell effects. This spell cannot be used as a normal Dispel Magic for purposes of counterspell.

How's that? I'm most concerned with the last line. It can still be used to counterspell another Dispelling Fog, it just cannot be used to counterspell anything like a normal Dispel Magic can be used.

Or...not. Hmm. Tough crowd.

What about lowering the level from 9 to 7 or 8? It's defiantly not as powerful as Mage's Disjunction, as it is not an automatic dispel (and it doesn't negate magic items, antimagic fields, or artifacts, however slight of a chance it's counterpart might have, it's still a chance).

Well, okay.

It's going to be very slow at the table. It's AOE greater dispel, every turn. The only time you'd want to cast that is when there's lots to dispel, and that's going to bog the game down something fierce.

3e doesn't actually have rules for mixed-school spells. What happens when a conjuration specialist who's forbidden abjuration wants to learn this? What happens when he wants to prep it?

When are you going to take this instead of disjunction? It's disjunction that doesn't negate magic items but leaves behind a solid fog. Since solid fog is pretty weak in PF and negating magic items is really strong, this is only situationally better than a staple 9th-level spell and is usually situationally worse.

Ninth-level spells don't come up much, so people don't tend to get too excited about them.

Well I wasn't really worried about bogging down the game because it doesn't seem to take that long to me. Unless every single square of the AOE is occupied, and they all have multiple spells to take down. At higher level one tends to buff less, as magic items take a more dominant role (such has been my experience, anyway).

I want to say it was PH2 that introduced two schools of magic to one spell. I think it counts as either/or in terms of school specialization/forbidden. I think, anyway. It's been a while since I made this.

I was more thinking of a defensive spell. Like when someone is invading your lair you drop it in the first room from the safety of invisibility or by magic trap. Soften up the invaders, make them buff again (or just force them to continue without it).

I wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel (or the wish spell), I was just trying to come up with a unique idea to add flavor to my mage.

Anyone? Any input at all?

Shameless bump.

I started developing a custom spell for a Wizard I was playing way back but never finished. I recently found it again and started playing with it. I think it's balanced and a cool spell, but I thought a few extra pairs of eyes wouldn't hurt. Let me know what you think. Constructive criticism only, please. :)

Dispelling Fog
Abjuration/Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Fog spread in 20 ft. radius, 20 ft. high
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell functions like Solid Fog except that, in addition to the normal effects of Solid Fog creatures within the fog are targeted by a dispel via Greater Dispel Magic, as if cast by the caster of Dispelling Fog, each round they remain in the fog.

I originally picked level 7, but bumped it up to 8 and again to 9 in hindsight. But perhaps I'm being paranoid. And I may need to work on the wording a bit. English isn't my strong point. :)

Saradoc wrote:

Listen. DUDE. Get a grip on reality. Everyone here has a different level of involvement in the game. I simply needed help. Gary helped. End of story. No need for me to let it go when you are the one keeping it going.

Really, the end of the story (if it has happened yet) is a contestant doing his best to demonstrate to his audience of voters what an arrogant boor he is. And yeah, it takes one to know one.

Show some humility and contriteness about how much your error - yes your error - nearly cost you. Your continued contention in this thread reflects more poorly on you than on anyone else.

Perhaps he's like me, in which case he will not kiss up to people who are rude, no matter what the consequences. If I have to kiss up to someone to get their vote, then I do not want their vote. Even if it means I don't win.

Elric's Avenger wrote:

It's not like he posted past the deadline and is whining to be considered anyway.

Errr... actually...

Saradoc wrote:

I will be inaccessible for the rest of afternoon and only able to re-submit this evening. I am hoping that the contest will accept this submission since I did submit the item in time. Thank you for your help and I hope the system works this evening.

In the original post he did indeed ask for his submission to be allowed in past the deadline.

Yes, because of a system error. Do we need to go through this again?

holylink718 wrote:

NSpicer wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Clark, please quit while you are ahead.

Dude. You're arguing with a judge. Publicly! If anyone should quit while they're ahead...well, look in the mirror. Please. For your own sake.

And this means what? That he will reject the entry because the contestant disagreed with him about something completely different? I doubt even Clark would go that far, but I guess you never know...*shrugs*

Absolutely not. All submissions are anonymous from the judges' point-of-view. But go back and re-read Yoda's earlier admonition in the same thread. His point is quite valid. The voting public will form an opinion of everyone based on their visible interaction on the messageboards.

P.S. The reason your earlier post "disappeared" is because of a commonly known problem on the messageboards. Sometimes posts "ghost" out for a bit. I found it simply by looking up your "Recent Posts" in your profile and it was still there. So I referenced it here for you since you were responding directly to me.

Was just wondering what your point was.

Edit: Ah, that would explain it.

Saradoc wrote:

Clark, please quit while you are ahead.

Dude. You're arguing with a judge. Publicly! If anyone should quit while they're ahead...well, look in the mirror. Please. For your own sake.

And this means what? That he will reject the entry because the contestant disagreed with him about something completely different? I doubt even Clark would go that far, but I guess you never know...*shrugs*

Clark, please quit while you are ahead.

He cannot it seems. Less than 24 hours later, he has done it again...

Clark Peterson, I have to say the last few posts of yours are some of the most ignorant things I have seen posted on the internet in a long time (and I've seen some ridiculous crap, especially around election times...).

I am sad to hear that you would enjoy auto-rejecting submissions...are you that drunk on the prospect of power that you would flaunt the little tiny bit that you have like you are more important than the rest of us? It's one thing to do it because you feel it needs to be done. But to take pleasure out of it and flaunt that fact to everyone on the board? That is downright ignorant and childish.

I'm sure you and the rest of Paizo's staff (and the kiss ups on this site) will all enjoy a laugh about me and my post, and I invite you to do just that. Just know this: You reap what you sow.

I for one will NOT ever submit one single thing to this site ever again for one reason and one reason only: People like you. It's not enough that you don't think one's submission isn't good enough to make it to the next round...you are going to insult the said person's intelligence while you're at it...that's just terrible.

I think the worst part is that nobody ever says anything. But I will say something. Your title of "Publisher, Necromancer Games" does NOT impress me one iota. And I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

I wonder how long before my post is deleted...

>_<

Coridan wrote:

I'm pretty darn certain those boxes weren't just sitting around waiting to go out while nothing else was. They were constantly packing and shipping boxes for a solid week and a half to two weeks. The faster shippers were just a bit lower on the queue because the hope was for everyone who preordered to get theirs on the 13th or as close to as possible.

And that's the crux.

It was not randomly determined: Those who paid for faster shipment were handled last. Not by sheer coincidence, but because they paid for faster shipment. And that is the issue.

They were not informed that contrary to normal proceedings, they would hold up shipments with faster delivery. The OP, and I'd wager others, too, paid extra to get that stuff sooner, believing that just like any other time, a faster shipment option would not have a negative impact on the shipping date.

This ^. It is not right to put the fast shippers lower on the list to make everything "fair". If they want the package on or as close to the 13th as possible, then they should've paid for better shipping. Period.

So every single book should ship on the same day?

For the most part, yes. I do believe there should be some delay if the amount ordered was very large, but the person who paid for overnight should NOT get it the same day that the person who paid 7-10 days. Certainly not.

That is absurd.

No, it's not. You know what's absurd? Your argument. *See below*

Again, show me where a *SHIP* date was promised?

I would think it is implied that it ships on or right before the release date, so you would then get it depending on WHAT TYPE OF SHIPPING YOU PAID FOR. If you paid for next day, you should have it in hand the day after the release date (or the day after that in some situations) guaranteed. That is, after all, why you paid for NEXT DAY shipping. So you could have it within a DAY or so of it's release. Not a day or so after they decide to ship it a week after it is released.

Customer A is NOT BEING HELD UP!!!! A few other people got lucky in that their stuff was shipped early

I beg to differ. Customer A is indeed being held up. He paid for 2 day shipping and got it after the guy who paid 7 day shipping. Assuming, of course, they live relatively close to each other, that is absurd. If I were Customer A in this example, I would DEMAND a full refund for my 2 day shipping. End. Of. Story.

You've got to sort through Paizo's daily blog and find them day-by-day. If you type in "iconics" in the search bar, scroll down to half way to the bottom of the results page, under "pages", and you should find the list of months that they were posted.

Thanks for the help. For some reason, this topic took a few hours to actually post, and in that time, I realized what I did wrong. I was searching in the messageboard section rather than Everything (or something like that).

I appreciate the answer, though.

Sorry if this isn't the right place, but can anyone direct me to the "meet the iconics" page where you can click on the picture to get a close up of the character? I'm not too familiar with the site and have been unable to find them myself, despite using the search function (it's probably user error).

Thanks for any help.

The way I've always done it is first, any obvious wielders get first dips. For example, the fighter gets the magic sword, the wizard gets the scroll, the cleric gets the mace, etc, etc. Sometimes someone gets two items in a row, but that's just the luck of the adventure.

After that, for items that could be of benefit to any (I.E. ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, etc, etc), we roll for it, highest number claims it. One person can't get two pieces of treasure this way in a row until everyone gets one (the exception being things no one else can use or wants).

Anything left over (that no one wants or needs) is sold if possible. The money is then split as evenly as possible between the party.

I've never had a problem with doing it this way, but it takes mature people to shut up when they don't get an "equal" amount of treasure with certain adventures. Life isn't always equal, though we do our best to make it so.

Coins, however, are always split up evenly.

holylink718 wrote:

I just noticed something, Hal. He's an evil cleric, so therefore wouldn't he be able to spontaneously cast inflict spells? That would give him a few extra spells to work with.

I don't know if I can answer that one and stay within the rules of the contest :)

Really? What rule would you be violating (if you can answer that without violating a rule)?

I just noticed something, Hal. He's an evil cleric, so therefore wouldn't he be able to spontaneously cast inflict spells? That would give him a few extra spells to work with.

I'm not sure I like the story, but you get kudos for making the nightmare the villain...I would've never guessed that the dudes mount is the one I was looking for. The kudos is enough to get you on my top 4, actually. Congrats, dude, for the highly original idea.

As already said, the stat block needs work, but I LOVE the basic idea. Who would suspect that that crazy hermit running around town is really a ghoul using a hat of disguise? And I love the whole "suicide bombing" thing. All in all, I think it's good idea, even if it needs a little work.

This is going on my top 4.

This is the first one I've looked at, so I'm not ready to decide just yet, but, even if I don't vote for it, VERY well written, Joseph. As said [several] times already, it actually makes psionics pretty damn cool looking.

And on another note, even if someone didn't like the psionics portion, I've found that sorcerers make good substitutions for psionic characters. I've cracked a few pre-made adventures and changed psionic NPCs to sorcerers, as I don't have any of the psionic books. Anyway, the point is, even if I wouldn't use the psionics portion, the basic story is AWESOME. I've always loved aboleths, so it was a pleasent surprise to see that you used them.

Bottom line: Definately going to my "top 4" list this round.

holylink718 wrote:

I did NOT like The Elemental Quiver, but I LOVED The Prison Colony of Saran. I did not have enough time to go through all 32 entries, but, of the ones I did read, I didn't find anything spectacular, so I didn't vote for any. Let me say that, if I had seen this, it would've had my vote.

Great job, Joseph!

Thanks, here's hoping I don't disappoint you with my villain. Its a shame you hadn't read it sooner.

'Tis a shame, to be sure. I look foward to seeing what you've got next.

I did NOT like The Elemental Quiver, but I LOVED The Prison Colony of Saran. I did not have enough time to go through all 32 entries, but, of the ones I did read, I didn't find anything spectacular, so I didn't vote for any. Let me say that, if I had seen this, it would've had my vote.

Great job, Joseph!

holylink718 wrote:

1) Hmm...I've read and re-read my post, and I can't seem to find the part where I did that.

Technically no, you never came out and said it. However you directly imply it and you know it. Please. We're all smart enough here to read between the lines. (And no, you haven't "won" because I'm not responding on point #2. I'm just not continuing the argument.)

I'll never understand the human tendency to tell others that "you know what they were thinking" because, quite frankly, you don't. I was by NO means saying, suggesting, implying, or thinking what you told me I was. I shall keep my opinion to myself in the future. No hard feelings, I'm just tired of being called a "sour grape" or whatnot just because I disagree with the judges.

Good day to you all.

Clark Peterson wrote:

I absolutely cannot believe I like this. It is a real creative solution to behirs and purple worms and things that like to swallow whole. Its fun. I hated the name though.

I surprisingly vote keep.

*In a hushed voice* Most "swallow whole" beings, even those you mentioned, are unlikely to ever fail their Fort saves here though.

My point exactly. In theory, it's a good idea, it just doesn't work with a save DC as low as it is.

Oh please. You say you're mature enough to move on, and then 1) you point the finger at someone who has a good idea and say "you're immature?". The point of Round One is the price of entry. The next round is going to cut the advance by half. And so on. 2) Joe's got a good item, can we all please get over it and get back to watching for the next thing?

1) Hmm...I've read and re-read my post, and I can't seem to find the part where I did that.

2) I beg to differ. It would be a great item if it was completely original. The contestant already said he didn't know that the Quiver of Energy (the orginal item) existed when he made the Elemental Quiver. Assuming that he's telling the truth (which I am), he made a mistake. No biggie. But he shouldn't be recognized for something that wasn't original.

Well, in design, this item seems kind of cool, but mechanically, I don't like it. DC 15 Fort save? Just about anything that is big enough to swallow you will make that hands down. I read a purple worm and behir example earlier (I think), and I took the liberty of looking them up. The purple worm could only miss a DC 15 Fort save on a natural 1, and a behir needs a 4. Granted, a behir has a 20% chance of failure, but the purple worm has a 5% chace of failure, but it doesn't even seem worth it, even with a behir.

It just doesn't seem to be worth it.

Again, the judges do not have superhuman knowledge of every item ever invented for D&D ever.

Sorry! :)

IMO, the judges of ANYTHING should be able to tell if a submission is VERY similar to anything ALREADY published, but that's not the point, as mistakes happen. The point is that, even if it escaped your (by your I mean all the judges, I'm not picking on anyone) attention, once someone pointed it out, you should DO something about it.

I lost. I'm mature enough to except that and move on. I'm not being a sore loser, I just hate to know that a person who DID win won with an item that is SO similar to another that is already published, intentionally or not. The designer claims that he didn't have MIC at the time. That's fine. He may not have, but the fact remains the same that he came up with an idea that was almost EXACTLY like another.

I don't expect to be playing 4E at all it will more likely 4.999 by the time they get it right! The group I DM for are the target audience for WOTC and they are already hostile to them. They save their money to buy the books and now WoTC want them to spend again. my group already no way. They're happy and I am too. Paizo give me 3.5 till death us do part.

AMEN!