NT's HBSC Chat Thread

[NikolaTesla]

This here is the Chat thread for NikolaTesla's Home Brew Spell Competitions (NT's HBSCs). Post suggestions, criticisms, banter; this is the place for it if it's in relation to the competition.

Active:
NT's Home Brew Spell Competition 3, Special Edition: Acid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15799294#post15799294)
NT's Home Brew Spell Competition 2 Voting Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15799250#post15799250)

Finished:
NT's HBSC 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292904)
NT's HBSC 1 voting thread with winners announced. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295648)

Winners of NT's HBSC 1:
Originality: Invoking the Worst Day, by the mighty Xefas!
Utility:Rewind, by the amazing AttilaTheGeek!
Awesomeness:Shadow Puppet, by the powerful Vadskye!
Jennu Levethix:Vadskye, with the spell Shadow Puppet!

[AttilaTheGeek]

Oh my god, this seems awesome. How often will it run? Weekly?

Edit to add: In the OP, I'd also include an unparsed version of the format for convenience.
*Spell Name*
School: Spell School X
Level: X
Components: XYZ components
Casting Time: X action/rounds/minutes
Range: Xft+Xft/level
Effect: Effect X
Duration: instantaneous, permanant or X rounds/minutes/hours/days
Saving Throw: None or X negate/partial
Spell Resistance: Yes/No

Description:
Describe your spell!

[NikolaTesla]

Roughly every two weeks, and thanks for the copiable format!

[inuyasha]

I'll contribute >:D! Also, I translated the latin in the OP, nice slaad talk ;)

[NikolaTesla]

@Xefas: I have to say, your spell certainly would make it someone's absolute worst day ever...

@inuyasha: Your second spell reminds me of a cantrip a relative of mine once came up with; I think I'll post it. However, I think I'd place your spell at level 1 just because of the vast number of things that can happen that are each cantrip levelish.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Time Hop was an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a while, but only now did I get around to writing it down. Because of its complex effect, I had to spend a while working on the wording. Does it make sense as written?

I also wanted to ask why there's no entry limit. It encourages putting up two or three or five or ten spells to have a better shot at the trophy. I do understand that you do want to incentivize writing up more spells (and that writing up a spell takes significantly less time than a class, race, or monster), so my suggestion would be to run two week-long competitions that are staggered by a week and limit entries to one per person per week. That way, one would always be running, and the other would always be voting.

[Vadskye]

I know for a fact that I have seen "Invoking the worst day" in a different format before. Where is it from?

[Debihuman]

Considering that the spells I've seen are among the worst puns, I could not resist throwing in one of my own.

Debby

[Xefas]

@Xefas: I have to say, your spell certainly would make it someone's absolute worst day ever...

I know, right? I think I'd prefer just getting hit with your standard fireball/lighting bolt/etc.


I know for a fact that I have seen "Invoking the worst day" in a different format before. Where is it from?

It's an idea I've had for a long while, and have iterated on over the years. You've probably seen an earlier version with a different name, but still by me.

[Arcanist]

SURE... Can we make more than one spell?

Can we make a new Homebrew Spell Compendium!? :smallbiggrin:

[Vadskye]

It's an idea I've had for a long while, and have iterated on over the years. You've probably seen an earlier version with a different name, but still by me.
Ah, got it. I had seen it as "Smite Infidel". It is a rather... memorable spell.

[NikolaTesla]

Technically, you can post as many spells as you want; I don't want to squash peoples creativity when they suddenly have a new idea for a really cool spell and can't post it because they've already posted the maximum number of spells. HOWEVER, I strongly recommend posting no more than 3 spells.

Speaking of a spell book compendium, I thought I might mention how the voting will work:

Everyone will have a first, second, and third place vote to cast for each category of judging except legality. 1st place is worth 10 points, 2nd place is worth 6 points, and 3rd place is worth 3 points. Highest score in each category wins, and the maker of the spell with the most points over all will be named the Jennu Levethix, which translated from draconic means Great Wizard.

The legality scoring brings up penalties. Each spell gets a maximum of 5 legality points from each voter, with 5 being downright absolutely hardcore broken. Legality points act as a penalty to each of the other 3 categories.

At the end of each HBSC, all spells that recieved an average legality score of 2 or better will be posted in NT's Master Homebrew Spellbook for community reference and enjoyment.

[NikolaTesla]

Time Hop was an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a while, but only now did I get around to writing it down. Because of its complex effect, I had to spend a while working on the wording. Does it make sense as written?

I also wanted to ask why there's no entry limit. It encourages putting up two or three or five or ten spells to have a better shot at the trophy. I do understand that you do want to incentivize writing up more spells (and that writing up a spell takes significantly less time than a class, race, or monster), so my suggestion would be to run two week-long competitions that are staggered by a week and limit entries to one per person per week. That way, one would always be running, and the other would always be voting.

The spell is pretty clear except for two things:

1) When you jump back in time for three rounds and take the damage taken by your futrue version, are you missing from the normal time stream for three rounds, or do you instantaneously take the damage from the 3 rounds you were called forward and move on as normal?

2) Can the future you communicate with the old you to warn you about certain attacks/ provide general advice, and how would that be played?

[Arcanist]

Technically, you can post as many spells as you want; I don't want to squash peoples creativity when they suddenly have a new idea for a really cool spell and can't post it because they've already posted the maximum number of spells. HOWEVER, I strongly recommend posting no more than 3 spells.

[...]Everyone will have a first, second, and third place vote to cast for each category of judging except legality. 1st place is worth 10 points, 2nd place is worth 6 points, and 3rd place is worth 3 points. Highest score in each category wins, and the maker of the spell with the most points over all will be named the Jennu Levethix, which translated from draconic means Great Wizard.

I don't really intend to become wer levethix hastras di vi darastrix, but I'll gladly contribute anything I get floating around in my head to the compendium. :smalltongue:

[AttilaTheGeek]

The spell is pretty clear except for two things:

1) When you jump back in time for three rounds and take the damage taken by your futrue version, are you missing from the normal time stream for three rounds, or do you instantaneously take the damage from the 3 rounds you were called forward and move on as normal?

2) Can the future you communicate with the old you to warn you about certain attacks/ provide general advice, and how would that be played?

1) You take all the damage instantaneously. You're not missing from the time stream at all, because you've already lived through that time. Twice.

2) That's a very difficult question. It seems wrong to say no, but it could be gamebreaking if not restricted. What do you think?

I'm going to completely redo the spell so that it makes more sense. When I'm done, I'll edit the new version into this post as well.

Edit: I realized there was no way I could have the spell make sense and also prevent paradoxes. Instead, it's been replaced with Rewind.

Rewind
School: Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 8
Components: V, S, F (A clockwork timepiece, if appropriate for the setting)
Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: unlimited and personal (see text)
Duration: 1d4+2 rounds

Description: This spell anchors you in time, allowing you to return to this moment later. The spell does nothing immediately, but any time during its duration you can activate the spell to return to your current position, hit points, spell slots, conditions, and uses per day or per encounter of any items or abilites. Activating the spell is an immediate action that has verbal and somatic components.

This spell cannot be cast while under the effects of Time Stop.

[Arcanist]

*snip*

Atilla's version

Time Jump
School: Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Effect: The caster (see text)
Range: Close (25 feet+5 feet/2 levels) and personal (see text)
Duration: Instantaneous and 3 rounds; (see text)

Description: This spell tears the fabric of time itself, calling your own self from the near future to aid you. Throughout this spell's text, the summoned version of yourself is referred to as a duplicate for clarity, but it is a future version of yourself. The duplicate appears anywhere within close range and acts on your initiative count. It can take a full round of actions immediately after it arrives and is under the control of this spell's caster's player.

When the duplicate casts spells, they are expended just as if you had cast them. Keep track of only what spells have been cast, not by whom they were cast. Spell slots expended by the duplicate are not regained after the spell's duration.

If the duplicate takes damage, keep track of it but do not lose that many hit points.

At the end of the spell's 3-round duration, you must jump back in time to where you first summoned yourself. You go back in time three rounds and become the duplicate. Take damage equal to the total damage the duplicate took over the spell's duration. The time stream returns to normal, and you live on as the duplicate.

If you cannot jump back in time, make a DC 10 Fortitude save. If you fail, you are erased from time. You leave no remains and cannot be resurrected by any mortal magic other than a carefully worded Wish or Miracle. Each round you cannot complete the time loop, the Fortitude DC increases by 10 until you complete the time loop or die.


Arcanist's (My) Version

Time Jump
Conjuration (Summoning)
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 9
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: Swift Action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One Summoned Creature
Duration: 3 rounds (see text)

This spell tears the fabric of time itself, calling your own self from three rounds into the future; This future self is only one of the possible future versions that might occur, but calling that version of yourself effectively ends all possibility of that future occurring for you and the possible future becomes the definite future for you.

The future self has all the statistics that the caster had upon the completion of this spell including spell slots, magical items, hit points, ability scores and any other features the caster might have. As the Future self is only from one possible future, any information they might be able to provide is only a possibility. Altering time and space is risky business and can be a little complicated, so here is a round-by-round of what occurs:

Round 1, 2 & 3
The Caster cast Time Jump and the future self from round four arrives, and both act normally for both rounds.

Round 4
The character gets gets pulled back in time to aid the past self. During this round, only the Future self is present.

Round 5
The character rejoins the time stream. The character arrives in the same location and condition that the future self ended with at the end of the first round. Any resources (spells, damage, staff charges) the future self used up in round 1, 2 & 3 are gone for real. Record them now.

Focus Component:
A solid gold pocket watch that you had to have made personally using components costing 5,000gp

You were effectively trying to make a non-epic, STRONGER version of Time Duplicate. It would honestly be easier to keep track of lost single round of combat, which is exactly why the Time Duplicate spell states:


more powerful versions of time duplicate are not possible.

This is not an actually rule, this is advice stating that it is pretty much too much of a headache to keep track of this sort of spell.

Making the spell a Full-round action, might seem like a good idea to nerf it a little bit, but it's not really helping anything since ultimately you are still left with the resource of a swift action which a spellcaster should be more reserved with using instead of standard actions and move actions. Adding a Focus, however? I like that! I don't believe that a spells focus should cost less than 1gp to overcome the problem of the friken Spell Component pouch. All in all? This spell is high powered and it sends the action economy into pieces, but it is grandiose and really captures the feel and power that magic should contain... I suppose I should leave a quite from Dumbledore about how Wizard's shouldn't meddle in Time, but I feel it would be pointless :smalltongue:

[AttilaTheGeek]

You were effectively trying to make a non-epic, STRONGER version of Time Duplicate. It would honestly be easier to keep track of lost single round of combat, which is exactly why the Time Duplicate spell states:

I don't own the Epic-Level Handbook; I didn't know the spell Time Duplicate existed.


Making the spell a Full-round action, might seem like a good idea to nerf it a little bit, but it's not really helping anything since ultimately you are still left with the resource of a swift action which a spellcaster should be more reserved with using instead of standard actions and move actions. Adding a Focus, however? I like that! I don't believe that a spells focus should cost less than 1gp to overcome the problem of the friken Spell Component pouch. All in all? This spell is high powered and it sends the action economy into pieces, but it is grandiose and really captures the feel and power that magic should contain... I suppose I should leave a quite from Dumbledore about how Wizard's shouldn't meddle in Time, but I feel it would be pointless :smalltongue:

These are good points, but they're also moot. I came to the same conclusions and scrapped the spell entirely. It has been replaced it with Rewind.

[Arcanist]

I don't own the Epic-Level Handbook; I didn't know the spell Time Duplicate existed.

It's in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/timeDuplicate.htm) :smallconfused:


These are good points, but they're also moot. I came to the same conclusions and scrapped the spell entirely. It has been replaced it with Rewind.

I'm aware that you scrapped it, but the spell was not entirely un-salvageable.

[AttilaTheGeek]

It's in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/timeDuplicate.htm) :smallconfused:

I'm also a Pathfinder player. :smalltongue:


I'm aware that you scrapped it, but the spell was not entirely un-salvageable.

Appreciated! Perhaps I'll rewrite it later. Maybe even for a future iteration of this competition.

[NikolaTesla]

Trophies are up in the OP of the competition thread!

[AttilaTheGeek]

Excellent mspaint skills you got there, NT :smallamused:

My third and final spell is up: Invigorate.

Invigorate
School: Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Cleric 6, Druid 7, Witch 7 (Pathfinder)*
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 feet+5 feet/2 levels)
Area: 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Description: You unleash a powerful burst of positive energy, rejuvenating everyone in the area. Every living creature is healed for half of the hit points they have lost. The healing prioritizes those at the lowest health, greatly improving their chances of survival while doing minimal healing to those not in need. For example, a creature who has 10 remaining hit points out of a total of 100 has lost 90 hit points and therefore heals for 45, but another creature in the area who has 80 hit points remaining out of a total of 100 has only lost 20, so only heals for 10.

Any undead in the area instead lose half their hit points. A successful Will save by an undead reduces the damage by half.

The single-target version of this spell, Lesser Invigorate, is on the following lists: Cleric 4, Paladin 4, Druid 5, Witch 5 (Pathfinder), and Inquisitor 4 (Pathfinder). It acts exactly the same, but affects only one target within close range. Lesser Invigorate is not an entry. I chose to enter the multi-target version of the spell to better show how it prioritizes the targets with the least health.

Edit: Are my spells the only ones that aren't puns?

[Arcanist]

Are my spells the only ones that aren't puns?

I detest using puns for spells. Takes the level of seriousness all out of it for me :smallsigh:

[AttilaTheGeek]

I detest using puns for spells. Takes the level of seriousness all out of it for me :smallsigh:

Exactly! I'm all for puns (in fact, my name would be AttilaThePun if it wasn't taken), but I just can't see them being taken seriously.

[NikolaTesla]

Exactly! I'm all for puns (in fact, my name would be AttilaThePun if it wasn't taken), but I just can't see them being taken seriously.

Heh, there's even an AttilaTheNUN on here. :biggrin:

[Xefas]

Edit: Are my spells the only ones that aren't puns?

Only the Shawarma and Hideous Daughter ones are puns, right? :smallconfused:

[Arcanist]

Heh, there's even an AttilaTheNUN on here. :biggrin:

*Groan of disgust* :smallsigh:

I should make a spell titled that... :smallconfused:

[ShriekingDrake]

Sorry about the double post. I hadn't realized that no one else had posted. I do hope we see some more spells. I'll try to come up with a few others.

[Morcleon]

Hehe... posted my first ever homebrew spell. :smallcool:

[Arcanist]

Hehe... posted my first ever homebrew spell. :smallcool:


Even plotanium.

I get a feeling that you're not referring to Plutonium :smallconfused:

[Morcleon]

I get a feeling that you're not referring to Plutonium :smallconfused:

Nah... (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Plotanium) If I was talking about a radioactive substance, I would have spelled it correctly. :smallwink:


Refers to any DM fiat material without even a hint of mechanical basis.

It's more because I don't like DMs just being like "what? oh, you can't burn these walls even with that spell because it's made of a super special material." If they don't want their walls burnt/destroyed in general, they should make it out of a stronger material. :smallwink:

[NikolaTesla]

Pretty cool spells coming in people! A lot of them seem to have no spell resistance where one would expect it though :smallconfused:

[AttilaTheGeek]

Also, the "effect" line is optional. It means "something that is created by this spell". For example, the effect line of Summon Monster I says "one summoned creature", but Fireball, Fly, Dimension Door, and Charm Person (just to give counterexamples) don't have "Effect" lines.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Remember, everyone, the contest ends tomorrow! There's still time to do some last-minute touch-ups, or even write another spell or two.

[NikolaTesla]

Last day for spell submissions everyone! Submissions will close tonight and I'll have the voting thread up tomorrow. Everyone can vote, even if you did not make a submission. And don't forget to cook up some spells for NT's HomeBrew Spell Competition 2, opening tomorrow!

[AttilaTheGeek]

I strongly suggest decreasing the time of the second competition to a single week, and running further competitions weekly instead of bi-weekly. There was only one submission in the last week of the competition, in contrast to 20 in the first week. Shortening the competition to a single week would prevent a negligible number of entries and keep it moving more quickly, resulting in more spells posted total.

[NikolaTesla]

@Attilla: I think you're right.

Sorry for the delay on the voting thread, I'm currently stuck with a device that's terrible for formatting. I will have it up sometime this afternoon.

[Palanan]

So, voting thread?

:smalltongue:

[NikolaTesla]

And here it is! The voting thread!

Vote Here! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15739728#post15739728)

[Palanan]

Great to see the voting thread's up, and I know you put in some work on the scorecard...but the scorecard is a little daunting, in terms of time and analysis.

:smalleek:

[NikolaTesla]

Yeah, I know. Couldn't really think of a better way to do it though...

[AttilaTheGeek]

The most common way is 'list your favorite/second favorite/third favorite for each category".

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by AttilaTheGeek
The most common way is 'list your favorite/second favorite/third favorite for each category".

This is what I've seen before, which seems to work pretty well, such as in this recent contest. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15523753) Just seems simpler and more intuitive to me.

[Arcanist]

Hmm... I feel that Vadskye's lack of knowledge about the mechanics of contingency and Epic spells bruised my ego :smallamused: Ah well :smalltongue:

[Vadskye]

Hmm... I feel that Vadskye's lack of knowledge about the mechanics of contingency and Epic spells bruised my ego :smallamused: Ah well :smalltongue:

I know the mechanics of Contingency - but the spell description never actually referenced Contingency in any way. It said "This spell functions as a Simulacrum spell, except...". If you want it to use the Contingency mechanic, you would have to say "This spell functions like Contingency, except..." and then go on to specify that it always triggers a modified Simulacrum effect. If it was worded that way, I'd have downgraded the penalty to -1 (since it still creates a better version of a broken spell).

As far as epic spells go... I also know how they work. The whole system is incredibly broken. But I'd rather not argue about the merits of epic spells here.

[Arcanist]

As far as epic spells go... I also know how they work. The whole system is incredibly broken. But I'd rather not argue about the merits of epic spells here.

We can discuss this further in PM if you desire :smallsmile:

[Palanan]

For my part, I'm a little irked at a penalty for a theoretical use of the spell in a situation it was never intended for. It's a low-level spell, meant to be used against low-level opponents. I was thinking boneclaws and owlbear skeletons.

Fact is, I've never been in a campaign where a CR 20 opponent was remotely likely, and I've always assumed that PCs at those levels would have long since graduated to more effective methods. Penalizing a deliberately humble spell for the mere possibility of obscure abuse...just doesn't sit well.

:smallannoyed:

[AttilaTheGeek]

NT, you said Discharge was "a far better spell than Fireball", and Vadskye called it "insanely powerful", but I'm here with MATH™ to prove you wrong. These tests are run against the average pathfinder monster (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Agyi5tgUTatCdHFjS05Kb18xVGd2bTZhak5YaGQtM FE#gid=3) of a CR equal to the caster's level plus one, because no mid- or high-op party fights enemies with CR=ECL.

At third level,the wizard has a reasonable attack bonus of +3: one from BAB +1, one from DEX 12, and one from either DEX 14, Weapon Focus: Ray, or something else. I'm trying to be general here. Against the average CR 4 enemy's Touch AC of 12, that hits 12/20 of the time, which nicely simplifies to 3/5.

Scorching Ray deals 4d6, averaging 14, multiplied by 3/5 chance to hit is 8.4 damage per cast.

Discharge is a little more complicated: I'm assuming a DC of 16 (spell level 2, +4 from an 18 in INT, and no Spell Focus: Evocation), which goes up against the average CR 4 monster's fort save of +6 for a 50% chance to make the save. Full damage half the time plus half damage the other half of the time equates to 75% damage all around. 0.75 (save reduction) times 5 dice times 3.5 damage per die is 13.125 damage, on average, per hit. On a single target, Discharge does 3/5 (chance to hit) times 13.125 (damage per hit) equals 7.875 damage per cast- less than Scorching Ray.

However, there may be multiple targets. We can assume the second target and every target thereafter is the same as the first, but it's less likely to hit future targets because it has to hit each of them in order. The number of hits can be determined with a series: (3/5) chance to hit the first target plus (3/5)^2 chance to hit the second plus (3/5)^3 to hit the third (where it maxes out) averages to 0.96 hits on two targets or 1.176 hits on three targets. 0.96 hits on two targets times 13.125 damage per hit multiplies to 12.6 damage per cast on two targets. 1.176 hits times 13.125 damage per hit multiplies to 15.435 damage per cast. on three targets.

Note that it's supposed to be better than Scorching Ray on multiple targets; it's an area-of-effect spell. The most difficult fights with the highest chance of TPK are against a single enemy several levels higher than the party, and that's a situation in which Discharge is far weaker.

At 5th level, when our wizard can cast fireball, they will probably have a headband of +2 INT and Spell Focus: Evocation if they're preparing multiple evocation spells. This raises the DC of Discharge to 18 (10+2 level+5 INT+1 spell focus) and Fireball's DC to 19. The wizard's attack bonus has also increased to +4 (+2 BAB, +1 DEX, +1 something else), and against the CR 6 monster's touch AC of also 12, so it has a 13/20 (0.65) chance to hit because the wizard needs to roll at least an 8.

The average fort save of a CR 6 monster is +8 against Discharge's DC 18, so they have a 55% chance to make the save (by rolling at least 10) and a 45% chance to take full damage. 0.55*0.5+0.45*1=72.5% damage taken. Discharge's 7d6 averages 24.5, and 24.5*0.725=17.7625 damage per hit.

The same monster has a Reflex save of +7 against Fireball's DC 19, so they have a 9/20 chance to take half damage (if they roll at least 11) and an 11/20 chance to take full. 0.45*0.5+0.55=77.5% damage taken. 5d6 averages 17.5, and 0.775*17.5=13.5625 damage per target.

Now, Fireball does the same amount of damage per target no matter how many there are in the radius. It's damage is just 13.5625 times the number of enemies in the radius. Discharge, on the other hand, is less likely to hit each consecutive target. The results are summarized in the table below.
{table=head]Targets|Fireball damage|Discharge hits|Discharge damage
1|13.5625|0.65|11.5456
2|27.125|1.0725|19.0503
3|40.6875|1.3473|23.9283
4|54.25|1.5256|27.099
5|67.8125|1.6416|29.16
6|81.375|1.717|30.4996[/table]
Discharge doesn't ever out-damage Fireball, not even on a single target. An Empowered Discharge at CL 5 on two targets would barely out-damage Fireball by a fraction of a point of damage in addition to using a 4th-level spell slot, but that's about it.

I can run another sim at higher level if you like, but they're rather time-consuming and I think I've proven my point. Discharge is not excessively powerful. I'm hoping that, by realizing you've penalized it for being overpowered, but it's not, you'll revoke your huge legality penalties for balance.

[Palanan]

I'm finding the current style of scorecard to be really difficult to read, owing to the text in every cell--most of it simply indicating that there's "No Score Uti" or the like.

So, could I suggest an alternate version of the scorecard? I find this a lot easier to take in at a glance:



{table=head]
Spell Name|
Wizard|
Originality|
Utility|
Awesomeness|
Legality Penalty

Rewind|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Discharge|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invigorate|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Lightning Spear|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Flatulence|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Revelation|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Shadow Puppet|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invoking the Worst Day|
Xefas|
- |
- |
- |
-

Form of Sorrow|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Uh-oh|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Summon Elemental Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Meatier Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hideous Daughter|
Debihuman|
- |
- |
- |
-

Create Scion of Evil|
3WhiteFox3|
- |
- |
- |
-

Worldweave|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Earthfast|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Contingent Duplicant|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Portal Beyond the Planes|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hold Your Horses|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Cynosure|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Sacred Mist|
Palanan|
- |
- |
- |
-

Aura of Inherent Combustibility|
Morcleon|
- |
- |
- |
-

Combustible Fruit|
Xuldarinar|
- |
- |
- |
-
[/table]

[AttilaTheGeek]

I'm finding the current style of scorecard to be really difficult to read, owing to the text in every cell--most of it simply indicating that there's "No Score Uti" or the like.

So, could I suggest an alternate version of the scorecard? I find this a lot easier to take in at a glance:



{table=head]
Spell Name|
Wizard|
Originality|
Utility|
Awesomeness|
Legality Penalty

Rewind|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Discharge|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invigorate|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Lightning Spear|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Flatulence|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Revelation|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Shadow Puppet|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invoking the Worst Day|
Xefas|
- |
- |
- |
-

Form of Sorrow|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Uh-oh|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Summon Elemental Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Meatier Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hideous Daughter|
Debihuman|
- |
- |
- |
-

Create Scion of Evil|
3WhiteFox3|
- |
- |
- |
-

Worldweave|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Earthfast|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Contingent Duplicant|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Portal Beyond the Planes|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hold Your Horses|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Cynosure|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Sacred Mist|
Palanan|
- |
- |
- |
-

Aura of Inherent Combustibility|
Morcleon|
- |
- |
- |
-

Combustible Fruit|
Xuldarinar|
- |
- |
- |
-
[/table]

That's a very good idea.

On the topic of scoring, I think that for future competitions each spell should be scored subjectively, from 1 to 5, for each of the categories, and a Likely To See Play category should be added. The average of all scores for each category minus the average legality penalty (also 1 to 5) is the spell's Total Score. Then each spell with a total score above 4 gets included in the compendium. This would also allows someone to judge some of the entries without having to take the time to do all of them, which I can see becoming a problem as the competition grows. Let me give an example: Say I write a spell, and since I'm unoriginal, I call it Spell.

For simplicity's sake, you give it a 4 in every category and a -1 legality penalty. Someone else comes along and thinks it's awesome, so they give it 5s across the board but with a -2 legality penalty. The average score in all categories is 4.5 and the average legality penalty is -1.5, so the spell's Total Score is 3.

[Tanuki Tales]

As an outsider looking in and who just even learned about the existence of this contest within the last five minutes: Aren't the voting protocols for this contest a little too complex?

[AttilaTheGeek]

As an outsider looking in and who just even learned about the existence of this contest within the last five minutes: Aren't the voting protocols for this contest a little too complex?

That's why I wanted to simplify it to a system in which someone just like you could see the competition thread and rate as many or as few spells as they like without having to read all of them.

[Vadskye]

NikolaTesla:

Vadskye: Revelation is a cool spell, but I think you could actually take it down to 6th level.
Definitely not 6th level! +5 to everything as an insight bonus is awesome - not to mention that it's a material component-free True Seeing.
Palanan:

For my part, I'm a little irked at a penalty for a theoretical use of the spell in a situation it was never intended for. It's a low-level spell, meant to be used against low-level opponents. I was thinking boneclaws and owlbear skeletons.

I empathize with that, believe me. But if you only want a spell to be used in a particular circumstance, write it so it is only useful then! Unintended consequences and not considering how a spell applies outside of how the designer intended it are a huge part of why 3.5 spells are as broken as they are. This spell has good fluff and would be easy to revise to make it work as intended. But it does need that revision.
Atilla:

I don't understand why one would use Shadow Puppet. Shadow Walk (at least in Pathfinder) says it is "impossible to judge distances" and even explicitly says it's "useless for scouting and spying". It also doesn't say anything about reducing damage. I'd give a -2 or -3 legality penalty, but you may be implicitly using the 3.5 version, so the penalty is reduced to -1 because you didn't say so.
Because it mimics the Project Image spell, it explicitly includes the following: "You can see through its eyes and hear through its ears as if you were standing where it is, and during your turn you can switch from using its senses to using your own, or back again, as a free action. While you are using its senses, your body is considered blinded and deafened." You are correct that your actual body cannot see the Material Plane. However, you can see through the image perfectly. If I were writing the spell again, I would add a note to make this effect more obvious, but it works perfectly as written.

Also, what do you mean about reducing damage? When you Shadow Walk, you are transported to the Plane of Shadow and are no longer on the Material Plane. You are as invincible as you would be on the Ethereal Plane, except more so, since force effects don't transfer to the Plane of Shadow.


NT, you said Discharge was "a far better spell than Fireball", and Vadskye called it "insanely powerful", but I'm here with MATH™ to prove you wrong. These tests are run against the average pathfinder monster (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Agyi5tgUTatCdHFjS05Kb18xVGd2bTZhak5YaGQtM FE#gid=3) of a CR equal to the caster's level plus one, because no mid- or high-op party fights enemies with CR=ECL.
I like you already. This sort of consideration is exactly what I enjoy seeing.


Math math math
I agree with your assumptions and your damage values.


Note that it's supposed to be better than Scorching Ray on multiple targets; it's an area-of-effect spell. The most difficult fights with the highest chance of TPK are against a single enemy several levels higher than the party, and that's a situation in which Discharge is far weaker.
Here's where I have an issue. Discharge is only weaker than Scorching Ray by less than one point of damage. Not bad - Scorching Ray is basically the pinnacle of single-target damage spells. Also, Scorching Ray has some of the most bizarre scaling anywhere; at 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th level, Discharge will probably do more damage than the Scorching Ray (depending on how fast monster Fort saves scale relative to your DC). If Discharge didn't jump to other targets, it would be borderline, given that it's an improvement to Scorching Ray at most levels.

The jumping to the other targets, however, pushes it into an entirely different league. The huge downside of Scorching Ray is that, despite its unparalleled damage potential, it only affects a single target. Discharge blows Scorching Ray out of the water - therefore, it is clearly overpowered. I'm curious about the comparison at 10th level, actually; that's when you first can Maximize this spell.
Save DC: 20 (2 higher than at 5th level, from levelups and +4 Int)
Mean Fort save: 12
Chance to save: 65%
Damage multiplier from Fort half: 0.675
Attack bonus: +7 (just BAB increases)
Mean Touch AC: 12
Chance to hit: 80%
Scorching Ray damage: 8d6*0.8 = 22.4
Discharge damage (1st): 12d6*0.8*.675 = 22.68

In other words, it deals more damage on a single target and can chain. Also, note how easy chaining gets at high levels; touch AC actually decreases at higher levels, but attack bonus keeps increasing!

At 12th level, Scorching Ray will do more damage on a single target and will stay that way, but Discharge will basically always chain until it runs out of creatures. Still significantly better.


Math math math
Sounds reasonable.


Discharge doesn't ever out-damage Fireball, not even on a single target. An Empowered Discharge at CL 5 on two targets would barely out-damage Fireball by a fraction of a point of damage in addition to using a 4th-level spell slot, but that's about it.

I can run another sim at higher level if you like, but they're rather time-consuming and I think I've proven my point. Discharge is not excessively powerful. I'm hoping that, by realizing you've penalized it for being overpowered, but it's not, you'll revoke your huge legality penalties for balance.
This is a more balanced comparison. If you will forgive me for a moment, I'm curious how it scales to 10th. Let's equalize the levels by Maximizing Discharge and Empowering Fireball (a little unfair because Empower is better than Maximize, but close enough).
Maximized Discharge: 39
10th level Empowered Fireball damage:
Save DC: 21
Mean Reflex save: 10
Chance to save: 50% (well that's easy.)
Damage multiplier from Ref half: 0.75
Damage: 10d6*.75*1.5 = 39.375

Overall, Fireball consistently does equivalent damage to a single target, and vastly more if it can hit many targets. However, Discharge has one huge advantage: you can choose the targets individually. At high levels, when enemies are larger, touch ACs are trivial, and Evasion is more common, I think Discharge would see significant use as a pseudo-Fireball that is significantly more flexible, while admittedly lacking the potential to do a zillion damage if you target it in the middle of an army.

Overall, I'll revise my legality penalty down to 2 (it's not in the same league as Rewind), but I still believe it is overpowered - primarily because of the degree to which it renders Scorching Ray nearly obsolete.

Tanuki Tales:


As an outsider looking in and who just even learned about the existence of this contest within the last five minutes: Aren't the voting protocols for this contest a little too complex?
Yes, I believe so. There will almost certainly be a different system next time.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Atilla:
I like you already. This sort of consideration is exactly what I enjoy seeing.

:smallbiggrin:

Spoilered for length.
Here's where I have an issue. Discharge is only weaker than Scorching Ray by less than one point of damage. Not bad - Scorching Ray is basically the pinnacle of single-target damage spells. Also, Scorching Ray has some of the most bizarre scaling anywhere; at 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th level, Discharge will probably do more damage than the Scorching Ray (depending on how fast monster Fort saves scale relative to your DC). If Discharge didn't jump to other targets, it would be borderline, given that it's an improvement to Scorching Ray at most levels.

You raise valid points. I do agree that Scorching Ray's scaling is wonky- what else scales with (level-3)/4? I was worried that if I lowered its damage, it wouldn't be worth using at all at low levels.

The jumping to the other targets, however, pushes it into an entirely different league. The huge downside of Scorching Ray is that, despite its unparalleled damage potential, it only affects a single target. Discharge blows Scorching Ray out of the water - therefore, it is clearly overpowered. I'm curious about the comparison at 10th level, actually; that's when you first can Maximize this spell.
Save DC: 20 (2 higher than at 5th level, from levelups and +4 Int)
Mean Fort save: 12
Chance to save: 65%
Damage multiplier from Fort half: 0.675
Attack bonus: +7 (just BAB increases)
Mean Touch AC: 12
Chance to hit: 80%
Scorching Ray damage: 8d6*0.8 = 22.4
Discharge damage (1st): 12d6*0.8*.675 = 22.68


Also, note how easy chaining gets at high levels; touch AC actually decreases at higher levels, but attack bonus keeps increasing!

It was my hope that the fort save, which doesn't increase (unless you heighten it, but that's a whole other story) would counteract that, but you are correct.


This is a more balanced comparison. If you will forgive me for a moment, I'm curious how it scales to 10th. Let's equalize the levels by Maximizing Discharge and Empowering Fireball (a little unfair because Empower is better than Maximize, but close enough).

Actually, of your analysis, this is what I'm going to comment on first. What makes you say Empower is better? It multiplies damage by 1.5 for the increase of two levels, so the multiplier per spell level increase is the square root of 1.5, or 1.225. Maximize doubles damage at the cost of three levels, so its multiplier per spell level increase is the cube root of 2, or 1.260. They're almost equivalent (so much so that I've always wanted to write a +1 metamagic feat that adds 25% damage), but Maximize is marginally more efficient.


Maximized Discharge: 39
You didn't say how you got 39, so I'll work through it as well to check your work.

The CR 11 average monster also has touch AC 12, and the Wizard has BAB 5 and probably DEX +3 for a 75% chance to hit. The DC is 20, taking a DC of one lower than the Fireball, but the average monster of that level has fort +13. They make the save 60% of the time, so 0.4*1+0.6*0.5=70% damage taken because of saves. 10d6 maximizes to 60. 0.75 chance to hit * 0.7 save reduction * 60 damage multiplies out to only 31.5 damage per cast. It's roughly 20% weaker than Fireball on a single target.


Overall, Fireball consistently does equivalent damage to a single target, and vastly more if it can hit many targets. However, Discharge has one huge advantage: you can choose the targets individually. At high levels, when enemies are larger, touch ACs are trivial, and Evasion is more common, I think Discharge would see significant use as a pseudo-Fireball that is significantly more flexible, while admittedly lacking the potential to do a zillion damage if you target it in the middle of an army.

It's not quite powerful enough to consistently do single-target damage equal to Fireball, but a pseudo-fireball whose flexibility counteracts its lack of damage is how I wanted it to be used. Can we agree that it should be nerfed by 1d6?

Edit for your edit:
Because it mimics the Project Image spell, it explicitly includes the following: "You can see through its eyes and hear through its ears as if you were standing where it is, and during your turn you can switch from using its senses to using your own, or back again, as a free action. While you are using its senses, your body is considered blinded and deafened." You are correct that your actual body cannot see the Material Plane. However, you can see through the image perfectly. If I were writing the spell again, I would add a note to make this effect more obvious, but it works perfectly as written.

Also, what do you mean about reducing damage? When you Shadow Walk, you are transported to the Plane of Shadow and are no longer on the Material Plane. You are as invincible as you would be on the Ethereal Plane, except more so, since force effects don't transfer to the Plane of Shadow.

To both paragraphs: Right, that makes sense, it just wasn't clear and I didn't realize it. I'll remove the legality penalty

[Vadskye]

Atilla:

You raise valid points. I do agree that Scorching Ray's scaling is wonky- what else scales with (level-3)/4? I was worried that if I lowered its damage, it wouldn't be worth using at all at low levels.
To be fair, Scorching Ray isn't all that good at low levels either; it is only at higher levels that it really grows into its own. Touch attack spells scale weirdly with level. My preferred scaling for Discharge would be 4d6 + d6 per two levels above 4th - that keeps it useful at low levels while preventing it from overpowering Scorching Ray at high levels.


It was my hope that the fort save, which doesn't increase (unless you heighten it, but that's a whole other story) would counteract that, but you are correct.
I also expected it to nerf the damage more than it did, actually. Save DCs are just pretty darn high all around.


Actually, of your analysis, this is what I'm going to comment on first. What makes you say Empower is better? It multiplies damage by 1.5 for the increase of two levels, so the multiplier per spell level increase is the square root of 1.5, or 1.225. Maximize doubles damage at the cost of three levels, so its multiplier per spell level increase is the cube root of 2, or 1.260. They're almost equivalent (so much so that I've always wanted to write a +1 metamagic feat that adds 25% damage), but Maximize is marginally more efficient.
More efficient? Look at it this way:
Empowered d6 is 5.25 damage. That's +1.75 damage for 2 spell levels, or +0.875/level.
Hypothetical +25% damage spell on a d6 is 4.375 damage. That's +0.875/level.
Twinning a d6 is 7 damage. That's +3.5 for 4 spell levels, or +0.875/level.
In contrast, maximizing a d6 is 6 damage. That's +2.5 for 3 spell levels, or +0.8333.../level. Maximizing is less efficient.

Maximizing is more efficient for d8s (empower is +1.125/level, maximize is 1.166.../level), and significantly more efficient for d10s. However, the vast majority of spells use d6s, so empowering is typically more efficient - and much more efficient for d4s. (Beware of Maximized Poison, though.)


You didn't say how you got 39, so I'll work through it as well to check your work.
That's cause the math for 10th level Discharge was already done for the comparison to Scorching Ray. I just used 72*0.8*0.675 instead of 12d6*0.8*0.675.


The CR 11 average monster also has touch AC 12, and the Wizard has BAB 5 and probably DEX +3 for a 75% chance to hit. The DC is 20, taking a DC of one lower than the Fireball, but the average monster of that level has fort +13. They make the save 60% of the time, so 0.4*1+0.6*0.5=70% damage taken because of saves. 10d6 maximizes to 60. 0.75 chance to hit * 0.7 save reduction * 60 damage multiplies out to only 31.5 damage per cast. It's roughly 20% weaker than Fireball on a single target.
Oh, I see where I got confused. I mentally treated only the caster level-based damage as capping at 10d6, and added the initial 2d6 on top of that. You're right; at 10th level, Fireball would be significantly more damaging. I'll revise the legality penalty to -1 for being superior to Scorching Ray, but in no way obsoleting Fireball.


It's not quite powerful enough to consistently do single-target damage equal to Fireball, but a pseudo-fireball whose flexibility counteracts its lack of damage is how I wanted it to be used. Can we agree that it should be nerfed by 1d6?
I'd have to think about whether 1d6 is exactly the change that I want, but it would definitely help.


Edit for your edit:

To both paragraphs: Right, that makes sense, it just wasn't clear and I didn't realize it. I'll remove the legality penalty.
Yay! And I'll be more clear in the future. I was too enamored with the elegance of representing a complex effect with so few words.

Bottom line: We both misunderstood the spell at first. Whee! -1 legality penalty it is.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Yay! And I'll be more clear in the future. I was too enamored with the elegance of representing a complex effect with so few words.

Oh, believe me, I know the feeling :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Edit because I meant to respond but forgot:

Empowered d6 is 5.25 damage. That's +1.75 damage for 2 spell levels, or +0.875/level.
Hypothetical +25% damage spell on a d6 is 4.375 damage. That's +0.875/level.
Twinning a d6 is 7 damage. That's +3.5 for 4 spell levels, or +0.875/level.
In contrast, maximizing a d6 is 6 damage. That's +2.5 for 3 spell levels, or +0.8333.../level. Maximizing is less efficient.

Oh, you're right. I was so caught up in the elegance of representing a complex feat with so few mathematical operations... So Maximize is very marginally more efficient than Empower for a spell that says "I do X damage" , but you're right in that any dice-based spell is better Empowered. Huh. You learn something new every day.

[Vadskye]

Oh, you're right. I was so caught up in the elegance of representing a complex feat with so few mathematical operations...
ಠ_ಠ


So Maximize is very marginally more efficient than Empower for a spell that says "I do X damage" , but you're right in that any dice-based spell is better Empowered. Huh. You learn something new every day.
Huh? No, d8 or larger spells are better Maximized, and d6 or smaller spells are better Empowered. Spells that say "I do X damage" typically can't be empowered or maximized...

[AttilaTheGeek]

Huh? No, d8 or larger spells are better Maximized, and d6 or smaller spells are better Empowered. Spells that say "I do X damage" typically can't be empowered or maximized...

Right, yes, I misspoke mistyped. You can Empower X spells, though, like Finger of Death for 15 damage per level. 10 damage/level is still a "variable, numeric effect". That is, unless you thought I meant "X non-scaling" damage, but I don't know of any spells that do a constant amount of damage and never ever change.

[Vadskye]

Right, yes, I misspoke mistyped. You can Empower X spells, though, like Finger of Death for 15 damage per level. 10 damage/level is still a "variable, numeric effect". That is, unless you thought I meant "X non-scaling" damage, but I don't know of any spells that do a constant amount of damage and never ever change.

Interesting. Pathfinder must have changed that rule. 3.5 interprets "variable" as "involving a die roll"; no Empowering a Harm, for example.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Interesting. Pathfinder must have changed that rule. 3.5 interprets "variable" as "involving a die roll"; no Empowering a Harm, for example.

Googling has revealed that there's been no official ruling from Paizo. Now, I didn't exactly take 20 on the Use Computer check, but I would have thought that "of course it would be variable, it scales with caster level". However, now that you bring up the 3.5 ruling, I'm not so sure.

[Palanan]

Vadskye:


Originally Posted by Vadskye
...if you only want a spell to be used in a particular circumstance, write it so it is only useful then!

If there's a design oversight involving fringe situations, then fair enough, but I still don't see how this is a question of legality per se.

Ultimately it seems to be an issue of local playstyle--would your group consciously push it farther than it was intended?--rather than any conflict with the game rules.

AttilaTheGeek:


Originally Posted by AttilaTheGeek
Sacred Mist is a solidly playable spell.

Thank you very much indeed! That's exactly what I was going for--something that would be a boon for low-level characters. Thanks for the awesome points.

[AttilaTheGeek]

AttilaTheGeek:



Thank you very much indeed! That's exactly what I was going for--something that would be a boon for low-level characters. Thanks for the awesome points.

A big part of the reason I'm trying to push for a Most Likely To See Play award (or Likely To See Play category) is to that spells like yours- non-joke, well-balanced spells that would be right at home in an official rulebook- are recognized.

[Vadskye]

Googling has revealed that there's been no official ruling from Paizo. Now, I didn't exactly take 20 on the Use Computer check, but I would have thought that "of course it would be variable, it scales with caster level". However, now that you bring up the 3.5 ruling, I'm not so sure.

It appears that Pathfinder originally changed Empower so it only affected the random parts of a spell (so, for example, Empowered Magic Missile would empower the d4s, but not the +1 added to each d4). It was later errata'd to affect numerical additions to the variable part of the spell, but with no official clarification on how it interacts with Harm-type effects.


Ultimately it seems to be an issue of local playstyle--would your group consciously push it farther than it was intended?--rather than any conflict with the game rules.
"Intended" is in the eye of the beholder. I had no idea what you intended until you explained it. That's why the rules matter.


A big part of the reason I'm trying to push for a Most Likely To See Play award (or Likely To See Play category) is to that spells like yours- non-joke, well-balanced spells that would be right at home in an official rulebook- are recognized.

I agree on principle, though I disagree on the specific example.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I agree on principle, though I disagree on the specific example.

I don't disagree that it should have had a save or HD cap or something, but it is still far more likely to be played in an actual game than, say, Meatier Schwarma. No offense to Meatier Schwarma, but I can't see most DMs allowing a 100,000-cubic-foot pile of meat that one has to swim through.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Vadskye
"Intended" is in the eye of the beholder. I had no idea what you intended until you explained it. That's why the rules matter.

Speaking of intentions, I think the term "legality" is being used here in a different way than I'd been assuming all along. When I think "rules legal," I don't see anything off-kilter with that. However, since the term may be used in a different context here, I'll drop it.

Just posted my scorecard in the voting thread. On account of this issue above, I haven't scored anything for legality.

[Vadskye]

I don't disagree that it should have had a save or HD cap or something, but it is still far more likely to be played in an actual game than, say, Meatier Schwarma. No offense to Meatier Schwarma, but I can't see most DMs allowing a 100,000-cubic-foot pile of meat that one has to swim through.
Heh. Very true.


Speaking of intentions, I think the term "legality" is being used here in a different way than I'd been assuming all along. When I think "rules legal," I don't see anything off-kilter with that. However, since the term may be used in a different context here, I'll drop it.

Just posted my scorecard in the voting thread. On account of this issue above, I haven't scored anything for legality.

The original explanation of Legality that I understood was "Would this spell be allowed in most games?". I think being overpowered (relative to existing spells) is a very important part of that consideration. More clear voting instructions wouldn't be bad for the future, though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Vadskye
The original explanation of Legality that I understood was "Would this spell be allowed in most games?". ...More clear voting instructions wouldn't be bad for the future, though.

Well, pretty sure I misunderstood how the term is used in this thread. And definitely agreed on the latter point.



EDIT: Also, for NikolaTesla, I would suggest a closing post in the actual submission thread itself. It's fallen pretty far through the pages since the last spell was added, and we'll get more votes (i.e., from outside the contestant circle) if the submission thread is visible at the top again.

.

[AttilaTheGeek]

EDIT: Also, for NikolaTesla, I would suggest a closing post in the actual submission thread itself. It's fallen pretty far through the pages since the last spell was added, and we'll get more votes (i.e., from outside the contestant circle) if the submission thread is visible at the top again.

And links in the OP of the voting, chat, and competition threads to each other.

Edit: What about a "Most Likely To See Play" category for the second competition?

[NikolaTesla]

I'm finding the current style of scorecard to be really difficult to read, owing to the text in every cell--most of it simply indicating that there's "No Score Uti" or the like.

So, could I suggest an alternate version of the scorecard? I find this a lot easier to take in at a glance:



{table=head]
Spell Name|
Wizard|
Originality|
Utility|
Awesomeness|
Legality Penalty

Rewind|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Discharge|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invigorate|
AttilaTheGeek|
- |
- |
- |
-

Lightning Spear|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Flatulence|
NikolaTesla|
- |
- |
- |
-

Revelation|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Shadow Puppet|
Vadskye|
- |
- |
- |
-

Invoking the Worst Day|
Xefas|
- |
- |
- |
-

Form of Sorrow|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Uh-oh|
inuyasha|
- |
- |
- |
-

Summon Elemental Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Meatier Shawarma|
Rolep|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hideous Daughter|
Debihuman|
- |
- |
- |
-

Create Scion of Evil|
3WhiteFox3|
- |
- |
- |
-

Worldweave|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Earthfast|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Contingent Duplicant|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Portal Beyond the Planes|
Arcanist|
- |
- |
- |
-

Hold Your Horses|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Cynosure|
ShriekingDrake|
- |
- |
- |
-

Sacred Mist|
Palanan|
- |
- |
- |
-

Aura of Inherent Combustibility|
Morcleon|
- |
- |
- |
-

Combustible Fruit|
Xuldarinar|
- |
- |
- |
-
[/table]

I am open to do doing it this way, I just selected the other way because its easy to lose track of which cell you're filling in. If there is some consensus that this method is preferred, I will change it.

@Vadskye: You're right, 6th would be about right without the true seeing, but with it I still call it a 7th level spell.

@Attila: The Utility category is intended to include 'most likely to see play', because it's a measure of how useful a spell is. As for the closing post and links, I will put them up as soon as possible, but currently I'm stuck with a mobile browser that doesn't have an address bar to copy links from. But I promise I'll have those up as soon as I can.

Thankyou everyone that has voted so far! Also, your feedback is appreciated, and I will try to incorporate it into later incarnations of this competition.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Thank you everyone that has voted so far! Also, your feedback is appreciated, and I will try to incorporate it into later incarnations of this competition.

While on the topic of improving the competition, I strongly suggest a system in which spells are rated individually, because while it is meaningful to say "these are my three favorite classes in this category out of five entries", it's a lot less meaningful to say "these are my three favorite spells in this category out of twenty entries". An individual system would let each spell get a numeric rating from everyone, and it would also let each spell get feedback on its own merits rather than in comparison to the rest of that week's spells.

[Palanan]

Also, in addition to the above, could there be a separate category for the joke spells?

It's difficult for me to judge them on the same basis as more serious entries, and they're directly competing for votes even though they're rarely what I'd call playable. Some way of distinguishing them would allow like to be compared to like, which I think would be more equable all around.

[NikolaTesla]

While on the topic of improving the competition, I strongly suggest a system in which spells are rated individually, because while it is meaningful to say "these are my three favorite classes in this category out of five entries", it's a lot less meaningful to say "these are my three favorite spells in this category out of twenty entries". An individual system would let each spell get a numeric rating from everyone, and it would also let each spell get feedback on its own merits rather than in comparison to the rest of that week's spells.

Going to have to turn down that suggestion. Having to rate the legality of each spell is already time consuming. While perhaps the points could be rearranged a little to allow for 4th and 5th place points, requiring voters to rate every spell in every category would be entirely unworkable, IMO.

In other news, all important links will be in the OP of this thread shortly.

Good luck to everybody in the voting round!

[AttilaTheGeek]

Going to have to turn down that suggestion. Having to rate the legality of each spell is already time consuming. While perhaps the points could be rearranged a little to allow for 4th and 5th place points, requiring voters to rate every spell in every category would be entirely unworkable, IMO.

I don't think you understand- my proposed system would solve exactly the problem you're trying to avoid. In the current system, someone needs to read and review every single spell to pick their favorites. But if spells are rated individually, then someone can come in, only read one spell, and rate just that one. In the end, a spell's total score is determine by the average rating it got from people who rated it. That way, it doesn't matter how many people rate any given spell, all that matters is how highly it was rated.

[Palanan]

I also wonder if there's any way to tighten up the voting period, or better yet make it known to a wider audience on the Playground.

So far the voting thread has only received votes from four (4) contestants, and at this point the thread has fallen halfway down the second page in Homebrew. This may be out of our power, but it would be great to have some way for casual visitors to Homebrew--or even regulars who just haven't noticed it--to have some way of knowing what contests are active at any given point, and where to go to judge and vote on them.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I also wonder if there's any way to tighten up the voting period, or better yet make it known to a wider audience on the Playground.

So far the voting thread has only received votes from four (4) contestants, and at this point the thread has fallen halfway down the second page in Homebrew. This may be out of our power, but it would be great to have some way for casual visitors to Homebrew--or even regulars who just haven't noticed it--to have some way of knowing what contests are active at any given point, and where to go to judge and vote on them.

That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps a post on the Board/Site Issues forum would be in order?

In tangentially related news, I'm the only one who's made a post in the second competition thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15742412).

[Palanan]

Okay, I nominate AttilaTheGeek to post on the Board/Site Issues forum. I've got spells to brew.

:smallbiggrin:



EDIT: More seriously, there's one thing we could do that is within our power--or at least NT's--and that's to rename the thread titles to avoid the "HBSC" acronym. Probably a lot of people are passing right over that because they think it's a Pokemon club or whatever. Writing out "Homebrew" and "Spell" might attract more interested eyes.

Or ommatidia, or ocelli, or other photoreceptors. I'm not judgmental about that.

.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Okay, I nominate AttilaTheGeek to post on the Board/Site Issues forum. I've got spells to brew.

Bring it. :smallcool:

[Palanan]

...Okay, yes, Refraction ups the awesome quotient.

Humph. I still got utility on my side.

[AttilaTheGeek]

...Okay, yes, Refraction ups the awesome quotient.

:smallbiggrin: Thanks! But I've still got two more to come up with...

[AttilaTheGeek]

Okay, I nominate AttilaTheGeek to post on the Board/Site Issues forum. I've got spells to brew.

As I wrote up the post, I realized it seems kind of unethical to ask for increased emphasis on competitions. There was just a thing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295990) that went down about post counts in which the mods were insisting vigorously (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15750901&postcount=12) that there is no "rank" among playgrounders. Besides, even if it was in the spirit of maximizing creativity, I can't see a competition subforum being good for the giantitp community in the long run.


EDIT: More seriously, there's one thing we could do that is within our power--or at least NT's--and that's to rename the thread titles to avoid the "HBSC" acronym. Probably a lot of people are passing right over that because they think it's a Pokemon club or whatever. Writing out "Homebrew" and "Spell" might attract more interested eyes.

As the title of this post shows, the maximum title length is long enough for "NikolaTesla's Homebrew Spell Competition with a good 36 characters to spare. Writing it out will definitely add attention, and there's no reason not to.

[NikolaTesla]

I'll change them, see if it gets more people coming. As for promoting the competition to get more people to come, the only thing I can think of is for you guys to post links in your signatures.

[AttilaTheGeek]

It might also draw more attention if you take off your name. For example, calling it "Homebrew Spell Competition II" might be better than "NikolaTesla's..." because that's the first thing someone sees when they look at the thread, and the first impression should be descriptive.

[Morph Bark]

Is the competition going to stick to a completely open format in what kind of spells can be designed for it, or are you going to add a theme to it later on, as with the other competitions on this board?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by AttilaTheGeek
For example, calling it "Homebrew Spell Competition II" might be better than "NikolaTesla's..." because that's the first thing someone sees when they look at the thread....

In fact, I was thinking this exact same thing. Most of the other competitions don't have the host's name in the thread, and "NT's HBSC" is a lot of letters for people to work out.

Not that we don't appreciate your running the competitions, just thinking about how best to draw in a little more attention.

[Cheiromancer]

Is the competition going to stick to a completely open format in what kind of spells can be designed for it, or are you going to add a theme to it later on, as with the other competitions on this board?

This. I think that creativity needs constraints. The Iron Chef and Zinc Saucier contests are so good precisely because of the constraints. A thematic competition is also easier to judge, because you are, to some extent, comparing apples to apples.

[AttilaTheGeek]

This. I think that creativity needs constraints. The Iron Chef and Zinc Saucier contests are so good precisely because of the constraints. A thematic competition is also easier to judge, because you are, to some extent, comparing apples to apples.

I do like being able to come up with more freeform stuff, though I can see why a theme would give focus to the entries. I'm considering starting a homebrew spell competition myself; if this one becomes more focused and has prompts, then mine would be freeform, and vice versa.

Edit to add:
Hypnotic Stupor
School: Enchantment (Pattern) [Mind Affecting]
Level: Bard 5, Sor/Wiz 6, Summoner 6, Witch 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Round
Range: Close (25ft+5ft/2 levels)
Effect: A shadowy snake dazes foes.
Duration: 2d4 rounds
Saving Throw: Will Negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

Description:
A shadowy twisting snake appears in the 5ft x 5ft square that you designate. The writhing of the snake, combined with the ethereal energies swirling around it, creates a hypnotic effect that causes all foes within 30ft of the snake to fall into a daze for 2d4 rounds on a failed Will saving throw.

Sightless creatures are not affected by Hypnotic Stupor.

Talk about encounter-ending.

Edit two:
Competition ends August 7th, and voting will go for 10 days after that. Good Luck!

I just realized, that's tomorrow!

[Palanan]

Has there been any more voting on the first competition?



--Wait, what? The second one ends tomorrow already?!

*hustles*

[AttilaTheGeek]

Out Of Time
School: Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 3, Bard 3 Cleric 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Duration: Up to 1 minute/ 2 levels and instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: Will partial; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

Description:
The touched creature vanishes completely from the time stream. When you cast this spell, you choose a duration between one round and one minute per two levels. For the duration, the target has disappeared and is completely undetectable. Even True Seeing fails to perceive the target, but a carefully worded Wish or Miracle can reveal that they are missing from the time stream.

At the end of the duration, the target reappears in the same space. Since the target been taken directly out of time, they perceive no time to have passed. If the space where the target would reappear is occupied, they are pushed to the nearest space they fit. However, the target takes no damage from this redirection. If the target makes a Will save, they instead reappear at a random time before they were intended to. The target has no control over when they will appear, and neither do you.


Temporal Stasis
School: Transmutation (Chronomancy)
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: Standard
Range: Close (25 ft + 5ft/2 Levels)
Duration: up to 10 years/2 levels
Saving Throw: Reflex Negates
Spell Resistance: No

Description:
This spell places the target area and all creatures contained therein in an independent bubble of space-time. Once active, the bubble cannot be dispelled except by Wish, Miracle, Divine Intervention, or Mordenkainen's Disjunction. The area inside the bubble and all included creatures do not experience the effects of time. People don't age, food doesn't spoil, and metal doesn't rust. Passage into or out of the bubble is impossible by any means once the spell has been cast. In fact, when the spell ends (either because the duration expires or it gets dispelled) the area re-enters the time stream as if no time had passed. Thus a creature affected would feel as if no time had elapsed, because for it, no time had elapsed! A successful Reflex saving throw means that a creature managed to dive out of the affected area in time (pun absolutely intended) (making an immediate move out of the affected area by the shortest distance possible. This does not proc an attack of opportunity.)

You know, something sounds oddly familiar...

[ironwizard]

You know, something sounds oddly familiar...

Coincidence, my apologies. I wrote that spell several months ago as a 2e spell for my campaign, and didn't read through all of the spells before posting my own. I can remove it due to similarity if you wish.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Coincidence, my apologies. I wrote that spell several months ago as a 2e spell for my campaign, and didn't read through all of the spells before posting my own. I can remove it due to similarity if you wish.

Nah, it's cool if it was something you came up with independently. If you had been actually just taking my spell, then I'd be worried.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Burning Skin

School: Transmutation
Level: Drd 2, Nature 3, Slime 3
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Effect: recipient's skin exudes acid
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: none
Spell Resistance: No

Description:

Upon casting this spell, your skin exudes a caustic sweat that eats through clothing, metal, rope, and anything else in physical contact, dealing 1d2+1 points of acid damage per round. Although the effect is spread across your body, a DC 15 Concentration check allows you to focus the acid exudate in a particular region--most commonly the hands, but also wrists, ankles, etc. as required. Focused exudate deals 1d4+1 points of acid damage per round. Your own clothing, armor and other items are not immune to the acid, but focusing the exudate directs the acid away from clothed and/or armored portions of your body.

For the duration of the spell your unarmed attacks each deal 1d2+1 points of acid damage; a successful DC 15 concentration check to focus the exudate allows you to deal 1d4+1 points of acid damage per unarmed attack. The acid exudate can only be focused on surface areas of your skin; it cannot be focused on the mouth and then spit as a ranged attack. If you are rendered unconscious while the spell is active, the acid fades to normal sweat and the remainder of the spell's effect is lost. This spell has no effect if cast underwater.

Can this affect someone else? The "target" line says so, but the text says "you", implying it's a personal-only spell.

[Palanan]

Just posted my lone entry. It burns, precious, it burns....



EDIT: Crikey but that was fast, Attila!

It's meant to be transferable by touch; I wrote "you" because that felt a little more accessible than writing "spell recipient."

.

[Vadskye]

It's meant to be transferable by touch; I wrote "you" because that felt a little more accessible than writing "spell recipient
Use "The subject".

[AttilaTheGeek]

Use "The subject".

Isn't "the target" the correct subject? If not, I have some editing to do!

EDIT: Crikey but that was fast, Attila!

It's meant to be transferable by touch; I wrote "you" because that felt a little more accessible than writing "spell recipient."

I see your edit and raise you an edit: I get instant email notification on my phone whenever anyone responds to a thread I follow, and I type responses on my smartphone.

[Vadskye]

Isn't "the target" the correct subject? If not, I have some editing to do!

The PHB typically uses "target" is for instantaneous effects, and "subject" for duration effects. It's not a perfectly consistent pattern (it's about 75% accurate; sometimes it flips randomly between the two, as in Bestow Curse), but it's definitely there.

[Palanan]

The PalananHB has a rather more fluid approach to it all.

:smalltongue:

[AttilaTheGeek]

Competition ends August 7th, and voting will go for 10 days after that. Good Luck!

Voting thread?

[NikolaTesla]

Sorry I haven't been on guys, in the last 60 hours I've worked 24 hours, Whitewater rafted 16 hours, attended a wedding and reception 7 hours, and slept the rest. I'll have all threads updated and posted this evening.

[NikolaTesla]

Ah, at long last, I got it all up. I adopted AttilaTheGeek's idea for voting for the second competition; we'll see how it works. Also, though certainly not every competition will have one, I've decided to run the third competition with a theme: Acid. Also, due to my own schedule, I've decided to go back to two week long competitions, unless someone else wants to run this thing every other week.

Links are in OP of this thread.

Good Luck to everyone, and congratulations to the winners of the 1st competition!

[AttilaTheGeek]

Is it intentional that the three-spell limit has been removed, or was that a typo?

[Vadskye]

I won! :3 Thank you kindly. I'll review the entries for the second competition when I get a chance.

Attila, I have some comments on your review of Bloodbond. First, what makes you think the duration line should say "and" instead of "or"? There is no spell in the PHB that includes "and" in the Duration line, but several that use "or". In this case, I could see an argument for either wording, but I don't think that not using a wording which has never been used before makes it wrong.
Second, referencing a spell's name with italics instead of capitals is consistent with the way that the PHB and the SRD reference spells. Some people use capitals, and I use capitals when I'm in a hurry, but using italics is more correct. Not sure why you're saying that it's wrong.
Third, the blood shouldn't be a component, since it isn't consumed by the casting by the spell. I decided not to include it as a focus based on the wording of Magic Weapon and other effects which imbue the affected object with magic; such spells don't list the object as a focus.
Finally, as far as the power level goes, I'm confused by your reference to "a Dominate Person measured in weeks"; it has the same duration as Dominate Person. Also, the lack of a direct mental link drastically limits the usefulness of the duration, since you can't "remote control" the minion - you can only give it orders if it is in your presence.
Completely my bad on the "mind-effecting", though. And the spell would benefit from describing the damage required to create that much blood, though that isn't directly part of the spell's effect.

[NikolaTesla]

Is it intentional that the three-spell limit has been removed, or was that a typo?

Whoops, must have accidentally deleted that when I was figuring out where to best place the additional rules for this competition. Fixing...

[AttilaTheGeek]

Attila, I have some comments on your review of Bloodbond...(snip)

Good points all. When I get back to my computer, I'll take off the legality penalty.

[Vadskye]

Good points all. When I get back to my computer, I'll take off the legality penalty.
Cool, thanks.

Also, to everyone - I know I can be a bit of a curmudgeon sometimes. I've spent more time with spells than anyone has a right to. If you think I'm wrong about something, let me know! Attila negotiated me down from a -3 legality to a -1 penalty in the last thread. :smalltongue:

[AttilaTheGeek]

Spoilered for length.

Wizard: Attila
Spell: Refraction
Originality Score: 4
Utility Score: 4
Awesomeness Score: 3
Legality Penalty: 0
Thoughts: Illusion (figment) gets teleportation? 1d3 times during the duration of the spell, you can spend an immediate action to completely negate essentially any attack. Immediate action nigh-invulnerability is scary. Discretely assigning move actions for every image sounds like a hassle. Why does area damage destroy the figments when it doesn't destroy figments from similar spells (Mirror Image, etc.)?

Spell: Ethereal Flash
Originality Score: 3
Utility Score: 5
Awesomeness Score: 3
Legality Penalty: -1
Comments: Completely obsoletes physical obstacles of any kind as a 1st level spell. The utility of this spell is insane, and its ability to ignore or surpass normal obstacles exceeds anything that comes to mind until Dimension Door. I'm afraid this is just too powerful for 1st level.

Spell: Out of Time
Originality Score: 2
Utility Score: 4
Awesomeness Score: 3
Legality Penalty: -1
Comments: Are all times before "when they were intended to" equally likely? What happens if you choose a 1 round duration, and they make their save? The fact that this gets rid of an opponent for roughly 1 round/4 levels even on a successful save makes this hugely powerful. Even if this only removes the creature for 1 round, all it would take is a single caster doing this repeatedly to completely nullify any foe. Compare to Resilient Sphere, which is higher level, allows a save to negate, and is much less of a total removal (still allowing the creature to cast spells and act while segregated from combat).

I had a huge post all written up and ready to go, like multiple paragraphs per spell of response, but then I closed the window and it was lost. Here's the basics of it.

Refraction: Illusion (figment) was odd, but still more accurate than Conjuration (teleportation) would have been. Compared to Dimension Door and Greater Invisibility, its defense is not that incredible.

Ethereal Flash: compared to Vanish, Disguise Self, and Silent Image, it's not that crazy. At second level, it would be competing with spell slots for Invisibility, Major Image, Darkness, and Darkvision, where I don't think it would stand up.

Out Of Time: Yes, all times are equally likely. You're right, it is too strong. If I could, I'd change it to one round plus one per four levels Edit: concentration plus one round with save negates. As a former WoW player, I can't believe (in retrospect) that I underestimated the value of crowd control. However, why the low originality score? I don't know of any other spells that are like it.

[Vadskye]

Spoilered for length.

I had a huge post all written up and ready to go, like multiple paragraphs per spell of response, but then I closed the window and it was lost. Here's the basics of it.
Control-Shift-T reopens a closed tab. On most browsers, that will restore the post you were writing, too!


Refraction: Illusion (figment) was odd, but still more accurate than Conjuration (teleportation) would have been. Compared to Dimension Door and Greater Invisibility, its defense is not that incredible.
Agreed - it's more defense than I want in a theoretical sense, but it's balanced against other spells in the system. And without dual-school spells, the spell school on this will never make sense - not really your fault. (This did get my "most likely to see play" award, after all.)


Ethereal Flash: compared to Vanish, Disguise Self, and Silent Image, it's not that crazy. At second level, it would be competing with spell slots for Invisibility, Major Image, Darkness, and Darkvision, where I don't think it would stand up.
Major Image is third level, and Darkness and Darkvision are nowhere near as game-warping as Ethereal Flash. I'd say that it is at least equal to Invisibility in terms of how it can change the game, which tells me that it should be 2nd at a minimum (preferably higher).


Out Of Time: Yes, all times are equally likely. You're right, it is too strong. If I could, I'd change it to [S]one round plus one per four levels Edit: concentration plus one round with save negates. As a former WoW player, I can't believe (in retrospect) that I underestimated the value of crowd control. However, why the low originality score? I don't know of any other spells that are like it.
I feel like a quarter of all spells in these competitions have been time manipulation effects. The concept of hopping forward in time I've seen a dozen different times, though not in this thread. Heck, it's in the SRD at the same level (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Time_Hop), albeit in substantially weaker form.