A new 6th level spell (not the poll yet) Options

[Sikret]

Before I create the main poll to choose the replacement for Mislead spell, I want to gather suggestions to be the candidates and options of the poll. So, feel free to send your suggestions here.

So far, I have thought of three possible spells. My own favorite one (so far) is the third one below:

1- Moster Summoning 4:

Advantages: A classic 6th level spell form pnp. Easy to make and not controversial at all.

Disadvantages: There are already a few summoning spells among the 6th level spells; so this spell can hardly encourage the player to choose it.

2- Improved Enchanted Weapon:

An improved version of the 4th level spell, "Enchanted Weapon". This spell will create +4 weapons but for much shorter duration compared to the 4th level spell which creates +3 weapons which remain for a long time.

Advantages: This spell can be a great help for players who don't have +4 weapons for when they unexpectedly encounter an enemy who requires +4 (or better) weapons to hit. The scrolls of this spell can also be used as upgrade ingredients to forge powerful weapons.

Disadvantages: The spell will severely decrease the importance of +4 weapons and artifacts in the game. If every 12th level mage is capabale of fabricating +4 weapons, what's the significance of artifacts and relics. It will also decrease the significance of those powerful foes which are immune to +3 weapons. For these reasons, this choice is my least favorite one so far, but feel free to argue for it if you think it's a good choice.

3- Giant Strength:

An improved version of the second level spell, "Strength". This spell grants the strength of a giant type to the recipient for its duration or until dispelled successfully. A 12th level mage can raise the recipient's strength to the strength of a Hill giant (19); a 14th level mage can increase the strength to that of a Stone Giant (20); a 16th level mage can create the strength of a Frost Giant (21); an 18th level mage can increase the recipient's strength to that of a Fire Giant (22) and a 20th level mage can create the strength of a Cloud Giant (23).

Advantages: Potions of Giant Strength are relatively rare (compared to other types of potions) in the game and this spell can excellently work as a replacement for those rare potions.

Disadvantages: As the game proceeds, the party will have items which grant permanent giant strengths and this spell may gradually become less useful.

Please, comment on these options and also offer your own suggestions. After having enough discussions here and collecting the best possible options, I will create a final poll to decide over the new spell.

As in the case of previous similar threads for new spells, any suggestions for a new spell which can lower enemies' resistances (such as resistances to elemental and physical damage types) won't be accepted; so, please don't suggest that kind of spells.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Jan 8 2008, 10:23 AM

[luan]

Cheat is actually more offensive than cheese unfortunately!

You could probably just say "The problem with your suggested spell was that it could bypass Imp. Invisible targets" to avoid the words cheese or cheat altogether!

[Sikret]

You could probably just say "The problem with your suggested spell was that it could bypass Imp. Invisible targets" to avoid the words cheese or cheat altogether!

The suggestion was obviously made with the idea of allowing the spell to target Imp. Invisible creatures. Your suggested reply (if given by me) would have been nothing but repeating what the hypothetical spell was designed to do without showing the degree of my disagreement with it.

Perhaps what I needed to write was something like this:

"I seriously disagree with making such a spell exactly because it is designed to allow the spell to target Imp. invisible targets and consequently to remove the intended importance and efficiency of Improved Invisibility from the game."

Does it sound better?

[rbeverjr]

"I seriously disagree with making such a spell exactly because it is designed to allow the spell to target Imp. invisible targets and consequently to remove the intended importance and efficiency of Improved Invisibility from the game."

Does it sound better?

That's fine, but I really didn't intend for this thread to lose focus. I disagree with your conclusion that the proposed spell is a cheat or cheese (but really don't mind as the spell was unnecessary for my success in IA 4.2). If you read the description of the original spell (spellstrike, which was described as both abjuration and alteration - yes, I know that you think it is only abjuration), you can see that this one spell neutralizes many spells at the same time, including another level nine spell (spell trap). So, neutralizing a lower level spell is nothing new. Of course, it is easy to get rid of spell shield with spell thrust first; thus, making spell strike valuable in other tactical mods. (Yes, I know spellstrike could have some use in IA, but certainly less than in other mods.) In the modern day game, Mordenkainen's Disjunction is even more powerful than Spellstrike. I strongly believe that there should be a level 9 spell that is superior to Ruby Ray in IA, and there currently is not. Remember, level 9 is as high as you go! You even have to share the HLAs with level 9 slots.

I do understand that spellstrike as written or my suggested enhanced ruby ray would make the game easier in some ways. As that is something never desired in IA, I understand you wanting to avoid that. My viewpoint is that those changes are not necessarily cheats or cheese, just taking the game in an unwanted direction (easier instead of harder). Still, I hope you will consider a better level 9 spell. What do you think about a level 9 spell that does 1 ruby ray/round for 3 rds?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult. I hope you will just regard my post as a request for a better level 9 spell debuffer. On the other hand, if you think the level 7 ruby ray should be the best debuffer allowed in IA (to make it more difficult), well that's fine. As I said, I succeeded without it before.