User talk:Luigifan18/Agebreaker (3.5e Spell)

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.)

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)