Spell Themeatics- What can it do and where do you find it?

[Maho-Tsukai]

Yeah. One of the issues I have with most arcane spellcasters is, well, the lack options for magic that feels in any way "evil."(as appose to the cleric who gets plenty of "evil" spells.) They get few necromantic options and their some of their best spells have "girly" visuals such as sparkly dust, rainbow colored blasts ect...

Luckally, I have recently found out about a feat called spell themeatics which can change that. I however, have two questions reguarding the feat: A) What sourcebook is it in? and B) how liberal/open-ended can you be with your "theme?" I mainly ask because I was wondering if "evil" is actually a valid theme to choose for that feat?

Also, is there any way to get the [evil] describtor slapped on spells that do not normally have it? If so, can one tell me what it is?

[dextercorvia]

I'm fairly sure that that it is in PGtF. As far as theme goes, you would be more appearance based, so Evil is too broad. However, skulls, black smoke, snakes, etc. would probably be fine.

Tainted Scholar adds the [Evil] descriptor to a spell by paying a drop of blood (1HP sacrifice) he gets a CL and Saving throw bump out of the deal. Also there is the Corrupt Spell metamagic feat in Complete Divine (Not the earlier version).

[Yorae]

Yeah. One of the issues I have with most arcane spellcasters is, well, the lack options for magic that feels in any way "evil."(as appose to the cleric who gets plenty of "evil" spells.) They get few necromantic options and their some of their best spells have "girly" visuals such as sparkly dust, rainbow colored blasts ect...

Luckally, I have recently found out about a feat called spell themeatics which can change that. I however, have two questions reguarding the feat: A) What sourcebook is it in? and B) how liberal/open-ended can you be with your "theme?" I mainly ask because I was wondering if "evil" is actually a valid theme to choose for that feat?

Also, is there any way to get the [evil] describtor slapped on spells that do not normally have it? If so, can one tell me what it is?

I wouldn't advise taking Spell Thematics -- largely because it doesn't do anything. It literally has no mechanical effect whatsoever. (yes it does, I'm an idiot) It basically says "you can reflavor your spells", which is something you can already do anyway. It doesn't actually let you add any descriptors (like [Evil] or [Darkness]) to your spells.

Your Glitterdust that throws the crushed bones of orphaned children into the eyes of your enemies works just the same as the regular version that sprays particles of supershinyfabulous at people.

Edit: Oops, looks like I lied! Sorry, my recollection of Spell Thematics was apparently flawed - didn't realize that it also gives a CL boost.

[Amnestic]

Spell Thematics is located in the Player's Guide to Faerun. It states in the feat description that "nearly any theme is possible, as long as you can describe a visual link for unification." In other words, it's only limited by how well you can state your unification case to your DM.

As for getting the Evil descriptor, there's the Corrupt Spell Metamagic in Book of Vile Darkness. Adds Evil descriptor, makes half the damage 'Unholy' type and takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal. Downside is that each take only applies to a single spell, so it's far too feat intensive if you want to apply it to a number of spells.

Edit: Violate Spell metamagic from the same book too, changes half the damage to Vile instead of the Unholy of corrupt spell, but otherwise the same.

[Psyren]

1) Spell Thematics is in PGtF.

2) It lets you retheme your spells, but they must all have a visual link in common. For instance, you could pick "lightning" and have all your spells (even, say, fireball) be covered in electrical sparks, or have your haste spell take the form of an energizing current.

3) Mechanically, it makes your spells harder to identify and lets you pick one spell/level to get a +1 CL boost. (Yorae is incorrect, it is not fluff-only.)

4) "Evil" is a valid theme I'd say, but your DM may want you to be more specific. "Skulls" "screams" "shadows" or similar themes would convey an Evil vibe while being less open-ended.

5) You can make any of your spells [Evil] with the Corrupt Spell and Violate Spell metamagic feats in BoVD.

partial ninja

[Maho-Tsukai]

Yeah, dose corrupt spell(Or vile spell?) do anything else or dose it simply add the [evil] describtor and thats it? I ask because if it alters damage then that means it only works on blasty-spells, and I kinda wanted to slap the evil describtor on non-blasty spells as well.

EDIT: Darn, looks like Tainted Scholar is the only way to get non-blasty spells made [evil]. *sighs* Good luck getting that class approved by a DM.

[Psyren]

Both Corrupt Spell and Violate Spell say "IF the spell deals damage." You can apply it to non-damaging spells just fine, it just won't have any other benefits besides getting the descriptor.

[Amnestic]

Yeah, dose corrupt spell(Or vile spell?) do anything else or dose it simply add the [evil] describtor and thats it? I ask because if it alters damage then that means it only works on blasty-spells, and I kinda wanted to slap the evil describtor on non-blasty spells as well.

Changes the damage type, but it states that "Furthermore, if the spell does damage, it changes it", implying that you can freely apply it to spells which do not do damage if you so wish.

Heh, ninja'd in reverse :P

[Maho-Tsukai]

Then that is pretty crappy. Guess I won't be able to make my evil spellcaster as evil as I thought. Is there any PrCs(OTHER then tainted scholar) that have a distinct "evil" flavor and are not related to fiend binding/summoning(provides too few minions) or necromancy(all arcanists except DNs suck at this) that I can take to play up my "evil" theme? Perhaps there is one that will allow me to be better at political manipulation/manipulating others or something that can give me some degree of divine casting as well?(besideds the obvious Ur-Priest/MT build.)

[Vladislav]

I wouldn't advise taking Spell Thematics -- largely because it doesn't do anything. It literally has no mechanical effect whatsoever.ORLY?


Due to the unusual appearance of your spells, the DC of any Spellcraft check made to identify a spell you have cast increases by +4. In addition, you may designate one spell you know per spell level as a thematic spell and cast it at +1 caster level. As you gain access to new spell levels, you can designate new thematic spells; you don't need to select this feat again to acquire new thematic spells. Nearly any theme is possible, so long as you can describe a visual link for unifi cation. For example, your theme might be "lightning," " spheres," o r " screaming s k ulls." I f you choose spheres as your theme, your magic missiles might take the form of glowing spheres of light, and your summoned monsters might emerge from mysterious rainbow-colored globes. If your theme is "lightning," your haste spell might manifest as a bright green spark that leaps from ally to ally. You can't use this feat to make your spell manifestations invisible, nor do your spell thematics change the type of damage a spell deals, regardless of its appearance.
Sounds like two mechanical effects to me.

[Psyren]

Why do you want your spells to be [Evil] anyway? There's no inherent mechanical benefit to doing so, it only changes how they interact with other things.

As for Spell Thematics, I do agree with Yorae that if the vibe is really what you want, you should rely on roleplay fluff and save yourself a feat, unless your DM is adamant that you take it. I already listed the mechanical benefits but they don't seem to be what you're looking for.

[Yorae]

Then that is pretty crappy. Guess I won't be able to make my evil spellcaster as evil as I thought. Is there any PrCs(OTHER then tainted scholar) that have a distinct "evil" flavor and are not related to fiend binding/summoning(provides too few minions) or necromancy(all arcanists except DNs suck at this) that I can take to play up my "evil" theme? Perhaps there is one that will allow me to be better at political manipulation/manipulating others or something that can give me some degree of divine casting as well?(besideds the obvious Ur-Priest/MT build.)

Hmm..

Diabolist (BoVD) actually has Corrupt Spell as a prereq anyway if you were going to use that.

Edit: Yeah, yeah, I know, I fail. Sorry, I misremembered the feat.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Actually, the CL boost could be useful on certain spells, Simlacrum, mainly..and if I'm going to make a Solar army as a villain I want them to look like evil fallen angels, not sparkely nice ones anyway. Though this is more a way to bypass needing DM approvle for refluffing then anything else.

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, the CL boost could be useful on certain spells, Simlacrum, mainly..and if I'm going to make a Solar army as a villain I want them to look like evil fallen angels, not sparkely nice ones anyway. Though this is more a way to bypass needing DM approvle for refluffing then anything else.

In case you weren't aware, you need DM approval for absolutely everything on your sheet. :smalltongue:

[Vladislav]

If you're in it just for the CL boost, Arcane Thesis (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-104-arcane-thesis.html) boosts CL by +2 (albeit only for one spell, not 1 spell per level). Or, you can go for broke and combine Spell Thematics and Arcane Thesis, and Spellgifted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#spellgifted), for a total boost of +4 CL for a particular spell.

Very useful for Holy Word (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyWord.htm) and other heavily level-dependant spells.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Of course, but chances are if there is a mechanical foundation for what your doing it has a higher likelyhood of getting past the DM. A DM is more likely to allow you to refluff if you have a mechanical excuse for it(a feat) then if you just went up to them and ask "hay, can I refluff my spells?"

[Psyren]

Edit: Yeah, yeah, I know, I fail. Sorry, I misremembered the feat.

I forget what feats do all the time, no biggie. :smalltongue:


In case you weren't aware, you need DM approval for absolutely everything on your sheet. :smalltongue:

While this is true, your chances of getting approval increase the more reasonable your requests are. Few DMs will argue with letting you blow a feat on something roleplay-related.

[Shadowknight12]

Of course, but chances are if there is a mechanical foundation for what your doing it has a higher likelyhood of getting past the DM. A DM is more likely to allow you to refluff if you have a mechanical excuse for it(a feat) then if you just went up to them and ask "hay, can I refluff my spells?"

Some DMs are the exact opposite. Why, every single DM I've known (myself included) would react the exact opposite way. We'd be far more likely to allow simple refluff changes than, say, actual mechanical stuff from outside our preferred sources.

EDIT:


While this is true, your chances of getting approval increase the more reasonable your requests are. Few DMs will argue with letting you blow a feat on something roleplay-related.

That's not quite what I was saying. I was saying that it's far easier to get a simple refluff approved than something from a whole 'nother setting.

[erikun]

What about Lord of the Uttercold, Fell Drain, and similar feats?

On a semi-related note, if you can't find a way to use your spells for evil, you aren't thinking hard enough. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

That's not quite what I was saying. I was saying that it's far easier to get a simple refluff approved than something from a whole 'nother setting.

Meh; it's in PGtF but there's really nothing setting-specific about it.

Also, the mechanical effects of the spell are a nice way to enhance verisimilitude. If my fireball takes the form of a flaming skull, or my Slay Living spell turns my hand skeletal for a brief second, it makes sense that an enemy caster might have trouble figuring it out right away.

But in any case, I do agree that a simple refluff is all that is required in this instance.

[Big Fau]

ORLY?


Sounds like two mechanical effects to me.

Two effects that are really not worth the feat slot (the CL boost applies to one spell/spell level, and CL is really easy to boost).


It should have been reprinted as a skill trick at most.

[Kenneth]

Actually Can't you do all of this already with your spells? I know the spell tematcis gives you in game bonuses, but seriosuly.. I had a wizard who's cone of cone resembled lancers on horseback, and my magic missle was pink orbs. our sorcers magic missles though where white bolts..


As a DM for this guy Id love tha fact that he would have to blow a feat to do somethnig that he can already do throgh roleplay. Id allow it everytime.


Its weird, you wants something to look evil.. make your fireball resne;be a black skull that explodes, that looks pretty evil to me.


but Hey, if you wanna go after a feat and prestige class to do the same thing you can do VIA roleplay, just to nab a few bonuses. more power to you my friend.

[Maho-Tsukai]

It's not so much the bonuses as it is the fact that a feat would be easier to get approved then a random refluff with absolutly no mechanical excuse or in game explination...or so I thought. Though it seems all of you totally defied my expectations and actually seem open and excepting to the idea of refluffs without taking that feat so I guess it's just a matter of finding a group that will allow me the refluff without the feat seeing as it appears people willing to allow such a thing, despite my assumptions, actually exsist.

[Kenneth]

well for me its not a refluff.. if every mages spells looked 100% identicly.. that would be boring.


to make it in even simpler terms. take the elven weaponsmith. now look at the longsword he just made. his stats are 15 gp 1d6dmg for small 1d8dmg for medium 19–20/x2 crit weighs 4 lbs. and is a Slashing weapon.

Now look at the human weaponsmith and take a gander at HIS longsowrd.. you are going to get teh exact same stats. the difference being the elven long sowrd might have a leaf and/or twisting vine motiff, while the human is a plain jane longsword build for duty, not so much looks.


you can do the same thing with spells as well, as one guy put it, YOUR glitterdust comes out as ashe and bone dust to blind everybody and make the invisible guys have an outline, while Missy goodielollipops has rainbows and flower petals do the same thing. as long as you are not actually altering any of teh mechanics its good to go.

idk about pathfinder or even 3rd edition, but I know for a fact this was suggested in 2nd edition.

[Zonugal]

I think it certaintly is a flavor-inspired feat but it works wonders for some characters if they are dedicated to a specific theme. I had a Vampire Lord Red Mage as a villain who had Spell Thematics (Blood) which led him to twisting normal spells into really scary stuff. Summon Water Elemental turned into him pulling blood from the ground until it became a living entity and Obscuring Mist became Bloody Mist.

You guys are right that any mage can re-flavor their spells but the feat goes the extra mile in cementing a themed-caster.

[Yorae]

I think it certaintly is a flavor-inspired feat but it works wonders for some characters if they are dedicated to a specific theme. I had a Vampire Lord Red Mage as a villain who had Spell Thematics (Blood) which led him to twisting normal spells into really scary stuff. Summon Water Elemental turned into him pulling blood from the ground until it became a living entity and Obscuring Mist became Bloody Mist.

You guys are right that any mage can re-flavor their spells but the feat goes the extra mile in cementing a themed-caster.

If you ever use him again, you should consider adding levels in the Blood Magus PrC (Complete Arcane) as well.

[Zonugal]

If you ever use him again, you should consider adding levels in the Blood Magus PrC (Complete Arcane) as well.

I've looked at it and thematically it works well but I almost never use villains higher than 12th level so...

EDIT: Which raises a question I have had for a while, does an undead (a Vampire for example) possess blood for the purposes of prestige classes like Blood Magus or Tainted Scholar?

[mint]

I honestly got angry the first time I read Spell Thematics. It does have mechanical benefits but whoever wrote the feat should be smacked for it.
It is for the best.

[Optimator]

Why do you want your spells to be [Evil] anyway? There's no inherent mechanical benefit to doing so, it only changes how they interact with other things.

Spell Focus: Evil? Might be useful for Ur-Priests.

[Analytica]

As for getting the Evil descriptor, there's the Corrupt Spell Metamagic in Book of Vile Darkness. Adds Evil descriptor, makes half the damage 'Unholy' type and takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal. Downside is that each take only applies to a single spell, so it's far too feat intensive if you want to apply it to a number of spells.

I think I saw errata on this. Some BoVD FAQ on the developer's website at least, said the specials text should be dropped on those, meaning they do not apply to just a single spell.

[dextercorvia]

I think I saw errata on this. Some BoVD FAQ on the developer's website at least, said the specials text should be dropped on those, meaning they do not apply to just a single spell.

I haven't seen BoVD, but Complete Divine doesn't have any such language about applying to a single spell.

[Prime32]

Core already has mentions of fluffing spells however you want. Paraphrasing:

Magic missile could be a fist-shaped blast of force, or could create a demonic head that spits energy. A fireball could be a bombardment of green sparks.An issue of Dragon dealing with the Umbragen says that their spells should be described as involving shadows.


If you want your spells to be mechanically evil, the closest thing I've seen was Tome's Fiend Cabalist feat. http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Spheres_and_Feats#The_Feats

[Alabenson]

Honestly, if you want your character to be seen as evil, I'd focus on how you roleplay the character and not worry about the visual elements of your spells. If you're roleplaying a really evil character well, you could take Spell Thematics (Cute Fluffy Bunnies) and still be terrifying. On the other hand, if you're not following through on the roleplay element, Spell Thematics (Skulls) just makes your character look like a goth kid seeking attention.

[Slipperychicken]

It's not so much the bonuses as it is the fact that a feat would be easier to get approved then a random refluff with absolutly no mechanical excuse or in game explination

Honestly, both DMs I've played with would think for half a second and say "Yeah, go for it. That's actually pretty awesome, actually, you mind if the BBEG's spells look like that too? Too late, they already do -No takebacks". It doesn't put any stress on the game's balance, and it means you're putting time and effort into roleplaying a concept (things which DMs love, and which can greatly enhance the experience). And about the in-game explanation; it's a fluff explanation for a fluff change. Other casters still make the check to identify your spells, and if everyone can customize his/her spells appearances, it doesn't really make a difference just say that's already accounted for in the Spellcraft DC.

Melee attacks can be as radically different ways of applying a pointy stick as you want, but as long as the attack bonus remains the same, there's often no real issue. A Gnomish Quickrazor can easily be the Hidden Blade from Assasin's Creed, it still draws and sheaths as a free action. You could say you're hitting the enemy with your **** rather than your fists for your Unarmed Strike (and by RAW that's actually legal... okay there might be an issue with that one). Barbarian's Rage can be fluffed as "battle-focus", being "in the zone", or any number of other things other than "Screaming Bloody Murder", it still gives +X Str +Y Con, and doesn't actually require you to scream your head off. My Bard could have wild, greasy hair or be immaculately clean-shaven, but he still gets to apply his full CHA bonus.



Tl;Dr: Purely flavor/fluff changes usually don't (and shouldn't IMO) have mechanical prerequisites. That's just silly. Ask your DM if you can do it without wasting the feat.

[Shadowknight12]

Tl;Dr: Purely flavor/fluff changes usually don't (and shouldn't IMO) have mechanical prerequisites. That's just silly. Ask your DM if you can do it without wasting the feat.

This, pretty much.