Spelljammer Converting Spelljammer creatures

[Cleon]

I like the suggested Spell Reversal.

I'm not sure about the save or die for 5 HD creatures (even in a group). How about "caster gains a negative level" (or a random number of negative levels) instead?

A cockatrice or basilisk has 5 HD and is effectively "save or die" (albeit petrification instead of literal death).

If you really don't fancy save or die, I'd prefer a large amount of damage (like the harm spell's 10 hp/level) over negative levels, since (a) it's more likely to kill a spellcaster, and (b) negative levels are so damn fiddly.

 

[Shade]

A cockatrice or basilisk has 5 HD and is effectively "save or die" (albeit petrification instead of literal death).

If you really don't fancy save or die, I'd prefer a large amount of damage (like the harm spell's 10 hp/level) over negative levels, since (a) it's more likely to kill a spellcaster, and (b) negative levels are so damn fiddly.

The thing I liked about negative levels was the loss of spells, the spellcaster's bread n' butter.

How about another option: Caster loses all (or some random number) of prepared spells/daily spell slots?

We don't have to select just one option. We could expand the chart. Something like...

Roll 1d4 and add +1 for each additional misi present:

1 - Spell failure (spell has no effect and is wasted).
2 - Spell misdirection (spell affects random target within range, or within range X for spells without a range).
3 - Caster must succeed at a DC X Will save or lose ability to cast spells for Y hours.
4 - Spell Reversal. Caster is harmed by a spell backfire (see #3) plus the spell has the reverse of the intended effect (e.g. a targeted enemy is healed or invigorated instead of being harmed or penalized).
5 - caster loses 1dx memorized spells/daily spell slots starting with the highest spell levels
6 - "harm"-like effect
7 - Caster must succeed at a DC X Fort save or instantly die.

 

[Cleon]

The thing I liked about negative levels was the loss of spells, the spellcaster's bread n' butter.

How about another option: Caster loses all (or some random number) of prepared spells/daily spell slots?

That could work, and I like it better than negative levels.

If we're going for a harm-type effect I see little need to leave the save or die one in.

 

[freyar]

I think we lost the spell backfire in Shade's most recent list.

With harm, I'm also not sure about the need for the save or die, but it would be nice to have a somewhat longish list.

 

[Cleon]

I think we lost the spell backfire in Shade's most recent list.

With harm, I'm also not sure about the need for the save or die, but it would be nice to have a somewhat longish list.

I think we'd better reinstate the spell backfire then.

 

[Shade]

I think we'd better reinstate the spell backfire then.

I thought Cleon's Spell Reversal replaced that.

 

[Cleon]

I thought Cleon's Spell Reversal replaced that.

My proposed spell reversal is a worse form of spell backfire. The backfire harms the caster and does nothing to the target, the reversal harms the caster and has opposite the intended affect to the target.

If the caster is the intended target they take both negative effects.

 

[freyar]

Oh, the original list had first backfire and then reversal as a more powerful effect. If you look, the reversal still lists "see #3" which was spell backfire.

 

[Cleon]

Oh, the original list had first backfire and then reversal as a more powerful effect. If you look, the reversal still lists "see #3" which was spell backfire.

You mean from my post #299?

I though the "plus" in the Spell Reversal would make it clear both effects took place, but I can see it may have been overly succinct for you.

Anyhow, are we clear on the difference now?

 

[freyar]

Yes, I agree, it includes both effects. But Shade dropped the original spell backfire, which I thought we were keeping.