| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Rucka |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 14:36:10
In the Stone Bones description in MoF, there's mention of "another version" that works on living creatures, but goes on to state that this variation has fallen out of use because of the extreme pain it causes--except, of course, by worshippers of Loviatar.
You can see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
As listed, it's a Clr 2 spell, with a duration of 10 minutes/level. I'm curious how other DMs would modify the spell for use on living creatures--it grants a +3 Natural Armor bonus, which isn't huge, but that duration is pretty substantial. How would folks deal with the "extreme pain" factor?
Also, the focus is a "miniature skull carved of granite." If used on a living creature, would you require a separate focus? If so, what? |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 06:03:10
quote:
Originally posted by Rucka
It's a fair point. But MoF states that the spell is used by worshippers of Loviatar on living creatures; I'd assumed it was as a defensive spell, to increase the Natural AC. Now I'm wondering if it isn't viable as a combat spell that would inflict pain and suffering on a target (living, without an exoskeleton, and requiring a discernable internal skeletal structure) to inflict pain and suffering...perhaps as Garen Thal has suggested... thoughts?
If it's used by followers of Loviatar, I'd assume it was all about pain and had nothing to do with defense. She is called the Lady of Pain, after all. |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 05:55:24
My suggestion was to make it a give and take sort of spell: you can boost AC at the expense of the pain, or you can hurt a target at the expense of granting them a boost to AC, which would make this a viable 1st-level spell. To simply grant pain, the spell should be at least 2nd-level, with care taken to balance it against other spells which force specific conditions. |
| Rucka |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 05:32:09
It's a fair point. But MoF states that the spell is used by worshippers of Loviatar on living creatures; I'd assumed it was as a defensive spell, to increase the Natural AC. Now I'm wondering if it isn't viable as a combat spell that would inflict pain and suffering on a target (living, without an exoskeleton, and requiring a discernable internal skeletal structure) to inflict pain and suffering...perhaps as Garen Thal has suggested... thoughts? |
| RogueAssassin |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 04:25:15
If the spell did turn the creatures bones to stone, then i couldnt see any benifits for a creature without an exoskeleton anyways, seeing as most muscle is layerd on top of bone. I could see the spell making you immune to critical hits or something along those lines, because most vital organs are protected by bone. That would probably increase the spells level though...
-The Rogue |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 22:38:01
Okay, so I've not got any books handy, because I'm at work. Does this spell turn bone to stone? Because if it does, that's not going to affect a creature's exterior armor in any way, unless they have a bony exoskelton. |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 19:34:31
The stone bones spell is essentially an alternative to the barkskin spell from the Player's Handbook. It has the same duration, spell level, and net effect: a natural armor bonus. The difference is that stone bones only works on undead, and barkskin works only on living creatures (constructs are still left out).
Having a stone bones for living creatures would necessitate providing penalties. More than likely, I'd keep the +2 bonus--in keeping with the 3.5 changes to barkskin, this would increase existing natural armor bonuses as well. I'd also make the target either be sickened (-2 penalty to attacks, damage, saves, and checks) or staggered (single move or standard action per round) by the pain (spell would specify, but I can't decide just now), and drop the spell level to 1st. The target would change to "living creature touched." This would make the spell a somewhat inefficient option both as an attack spell and a defense spell, but both are still available. I suppose a Concentration check or Will save, each round, could serve to negate the effects of pain, but the spell is still categorically less powerful than barkskin. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 19:10:59
One option in terms of dealing with the pain would be for the dm to require concentration skill rolls from anyone affected when they attempt difficult tasks, such as spellcasting. Failure means they can't focus on their task due to the pain.
Another option would be to require will saves whenever the person affected attempts to exert themselves strenuously, such as a full run, tumbling, or jumping. Failure means they are either unable to perform the maneuver (running) or suffer a penalty to their associated skill roll (tumbling and jumping).
As to the focus, I'd suggest petrified bone of some sort.
Sarta |
|
|
