Talk:Rien's Rotting Touch (3.5e Spell)

Comments

A lovely spell. It's a good permanent(ish) debuff that could also maybe kill you, and is a good way to deal with annoying wizened old sages or players who decided to abuse the aging rules for starting attributes.

Which will go in my like in a bit, but first some comments and questions. It could probably use a line about how it interacts with things like Dragons though. I don't really want people to go around casting hatchlings into Great Wormness. The destroyed utterly thing is also a bit weird, since the first time those otherwise show up is disintegrate and destruction (I think). Seems like an extra thing that isn't needed here.

And why is it on the list of every full caster? That sort of "everyone gets it" listing doesn't help differentiate between classes and generally makes me sad :-(. Not enough to withhold or lower a rating or anything, but sad nonetheless. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never really subscribed to the idea that spells should be reserved for particular full caster classes. I feel as though it would be wrong of me to limit, say, a druid from using this spell. Any limitations made shouldn't be done by the creator except in terms of mechanics, in my opinion.

I removed the destruction bit, for the reasons that you enumerated, although I feel as though it detracts somewhat from the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade inspiration. I can live with it.

As far as interaction with dragons go, I agree that it probably should be able to be used to age dragons fully, but I don't know how it would be used against them. Just giving them immunity seems like an easy copout, but it could work. - TG Cid 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So what should the distinction be between a Wizard and a Cleric, in your opinion, then?

In the case of this particular spell, though, it seems to fit the aesthetic of all three classes. --Foxwarrior 20:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Dragons could possibly expand the current "ageless" grouping of undead, constructs, and outsiders into "creatures with non-standard age adjustments" so that they just suffer physical penalties indefinitely.

I'll save further discussion about spell lists for another time, likely a rant, since it applies to more than just this and I don't want to clutter the page with it (unless you want to get into it with Fox on this page I guess). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I figured the difference would be what it's always been: the prestige classes available to them. The PrC's published by both WotC, the Tomes, and many authors on this Wiki have set a good precedent that, while the full casting base classes may have you believe otherwise with their bare bones "here, get casting and pretty much nothing else" approach, you can actually have full casting advancement and class features. As far as spells are then concerned, I just think as Fox said: If it fits for that class, give it to that class. - TG Cid 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Who needs class features when you have spells that handle every possible action under the sun? --Foxwarrior 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)