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

[Sikret]

Apology accepted. I try to believe the best in people, and do trust that you don't intend to be rude in your replies to me or anyone else. I would like to point out that referring to My suggestion as Cheese is not very nice, even if you are completely right. The spell could be overpowered with a 5-foot radius effect. I'm not sure about that as it is a level 9 spell, but you may be right. If you had said something like, "I think that the area effect ability of your suggestion makes the spell too powerful because ...." Then there is no way I could be offended by that.

Thank you. As I said, I didn't mean to offend you at all.

The problem with your suggested spell was a bit more than being "overpowered"; it looked like a "cheat" just to find a workaround against Imp. Invisible targets. (I hope "cheat" is less offending than "cheese". I'm not a native English speaker as you probably know.)

[Sikret]

Honestly, I don't like that "Unraise Undead" name... I don't know why, but to me it sounds somewhat weird. Cheesy as if taken from some b-movie, maybe .

It's not taken from any movie. You are too quick in assuming and imagining things.

That was supposed to be funny, hence the emoticon . I didn't seriously assume that.

Yep, I guessed so, that's why I used the smiley as well.

[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?

[luan]

Haha, that's perfect Sikret! I would even say it borders on being *too* diplomatic

[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.

[Shadan]

I have to agree with rbeverjr regarding Spellstrike and RRR. In my 4.2 run, I have never memorized Spellstrike. After RRR was available for my chars, I used that only with Breach and Remove Magic. There was no valid point to use higher level dispelling spells (Khelben, Pierce Shield or Spellstrike), I memorized 1 or 2 Secret Words in case I am in need of dispel, and they took up only a lvl 4 slots.
To tell the truth I found lvl 8 spells quite useless... Important enemies was immune to fire and magical damage, RRR better than Pierce Shield, PfmW better then Impr. Mantle, symbols are uselss (important enemies were immune or rolled save), summon demon spells are weak etc., Bigby is weak damage and important enemies immune to stun again. Against weak enemies, my fighters killed them so fast I hadnt cast any spells. I used Abi Dalzim and Inc. Cloud only in very few fights. Usable spells were Spell Trigger and Prot from E. But in very important ToB fights, I havent found any good offensive lvl 8 spells.

[Sikret]

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.

The reason for which I found it a very bad idea was not that it nuetralizes a 4th level spell (Imp. invisibility); the reason was that it would allow you to target a creature who is principally untargetable. It's not the spell level of Imp. invisibility which matters here. It's its intended functionality which shouldn't be nullfied.

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).

Yes, I agree that as long as you don't want the spell to affect an area (rather than an individual), it's not a cheat.

I don't still understand whether your main concern is SI:abjuration or the combination of Imp. invisibility and SI:divination. Your comments in comparing spellstrike with ruby ray suggests that you are mostly concerned about SI:abjuration which blocks SpellStrike but doesn't block Ruby Ray. On the other hand, your request to make a new area affecting spell, suggests that you are probably concerned with Imp. Invisibility.

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.

I understand your concern and I agree that making a spell which applies three ruby rays for 3 rounds (1 RR per round) is not cheat (provided that you do not want to make it an area spell, of course).

Nonetheless, my experience of the game has shown that even with the existent collection of protection removal spells, the party (with two high level mages) can easily bring down enemies' protections quite quickly. I don't want to make it easier than that.

SpellStrike can still be very useful against enemies who don't have SI:abjuration.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Jan 27 2008, 06:46 AM

[Sikret]

Here is another idea for the new 6th level spell:

The spell is practically an improved combination of the 4th level spell, Spirit Armor and the divine spell, Armor of Faith. Consequently, it's most useful for fighter-mages (though other mages can also benefit from it). Being a necromantic spell it can do a great job in closing the gap between F/I and F/M (note that noone practically plays a single class illusionist; anyone who picks an illusionist, wants it as a multi-class character; see this post.)

Greater Spirit Armor (Necromancy)
Level: 6
Range: 0
Duration: 2 turns
Casting Time: 5
Are of Effect: Self
Saving Thorw: None

By casting this spell, the caster uses his or her own life force to create a powerful corporeal barrier around his or her body which works like an armor. The armor does not work cumulatively with any other armor, however dexterity bonus still applies as well as magic rings and a shield. While in effect it works as if the caster was wearing a +1 full plate (AC= 0). The armor also absorbs 15% of all physical damage directed at the caster, which works together with other methods/spells which grant such resistances, but doesn't stack cumulatively with itself.

============================

Note that it's important that this spell is not to be cast on anyone except the caster to make sure that it won't result in 100% resistance to physical damage (ex: casting such a spell on a single class warrior who wields JD sword (or FoD&W) might result in such unintended resistances)

Comments will be most appreciated. I also would like to know if you have any alternate and better suggestion for the spell's name.

If you find it interesting, I will add this option to the final poll for the new 6th level spell too.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Jan 29 2008, 10:07 AM

[Shadan]

It would be a good spell, just ay 6th level, there is a PfMW for fighter/mages... Personally I would like those spells which would make the caster type mage to be better, not fighter types again.

[lroumen]

I've though about the different possibilities and I've come to the conclusion that the 6th spell level would benefit most from an additional direct damage spell. It only has Chain Lightning as another option, the rest is defensive, summoning or spell protection related. Level 7 and 8 also have such problems. Most of the stuff is just for defensive spelling, dispelling and summoning.

[Sikret]

It would be a good spell, just ay 6th level, there is a PfMW for fighter/mages...

Yes, this is a good point. The new spell (if a defensive one) has to contend with PFMW.

However, PFMW can be removed by Breach and/or Remove Magic. What if I make this new spell undispellable for its duration? I guess it can be a worthy spell with that additional feature. What do you think?

[Sikret]

I've though about the different possibilities and I've come to the conclusion that the 6th spell level would benefit most from an additional direct damage spell. It only has Chain Lightning

I don't want to diminish Chain Lightning's importance by adding a similar 6th level spell. If a new 6th level spell which inflicts direct damage is to be added, it has to be a spell which damages a certain type of creatures only (similar to the one I suggested for the undead for example).