Difference between revisions of "User talk:Luigifan18/Agebreaker (3.5e Spell)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) (Added rating.) |
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel | {{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel | ||
|rating=oppose | |rating=oppose | ||
| − | |reason=This is dumb for aforementioned discussion and was created for even dumber reasons. | + | |reason=This is dumb for aforementioned discussion and was created for even dumber reasons. If you don't want people starting at venerable, disallow people from starting at venerable. If you don't want people to start at venerable for power reasons, remove the benefits of being venerable. But having an instakill button specifically made for them to punish them for choices that the system supports is stupiddumb. |
}}== Humans Are Short-Lived == | }}== Humans Are Short-Lived == | ||
Revision as of 23:49, 5 December 2012
Ratings
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This is dumb for aforementioned discussion and was created for even dumber reasons. If you don't want people starting at venerable, disallow people from starting at venerable. If you don't want people to start at venerable for power reasons, remove the benefits of being venerable. But having an instakill button specifically made for them to punish them for choices that the system supports is stupiddumb. |
Humans Are Short-Lived
Even taking away the range doesn't really justify making a no-save disintegrate two levels lower. --Foxwarrior (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's still a touch attack. And it doesn't actually disintegrate anything. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- It matches disintegrate in terms of damage/level at age 35. Which is much lower than the ages of most young adults. --Foxwarrior (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- But this spell doesn't scale with level. It's really just there so the DM has an excuse to smite the insufferable munchkin playing an 800-year-old wizard for +3 Intelligence - and to specifically make it so that his own powergaming blew up in his face. (The fact that it can drop dragons and liches with a single blow, thus making hilarity ensue, yet proves to be an insignificant scratch to a human fighter and literally will not harm an infant is a nice touch.)
- It matches disintegrate in terms of damage/level at age 35. Which is much lower than the ages of most young adults. --Foxwarrior (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't like munchkins all that much. Brings back memories of the very first game I DM'ed, where one of the players sent the whole thing off the rails by trying to murder the rest of the party. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh ugh ugh. That entire chain of thought is disgusting. The thought that a game designer should punish people for making the choices that the game is clearly written to reward is gross, the idea that you would patch a game by sneaking in a counter when DM monster choice rock-paper-scissors strategy is barely part of the game in the first place is gross, that you're very mad about a player sending things off the rails is a bit unsettling, and that you associate munchkinery with slaughtering party members seems farfetched.
- And I didn't mean to imply that agebreaker scaled with level; I meant that at caster level 5, when you get it, the average damage of a 2d6/level spell is 35, which means that agebreaker matches that damage against characters who are 35 years old. --Foxwarrior (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
