I'm sorry if someone already made thread about this has been created. If so, please notify me (or moderators, if you can, delete it). I wanted to ask those of you who play spellcasters this question: Do you like to modify the effect of your spells without changing the game mechanics?
When I make a spellcaster that I want to stick to a specific theme of spells, sometimes, the spells on my class's spell list don't produce the desired effect. So I revisualize them. For example, say I wanted to make a wizard with spells based on summoning creatures from other planes. But the only summoning cantrip is infestation. So I select mage hand and revisualize it. Instead of conjuring a hand, I summon a tiny imp that doesn't speak. Instead of moving the hand, the tiny imp flies. The imp can manipulate objects as the mage hand does.
I made this thread to ask if any of you do things like this often and wanted to hear what ideas you've come up with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Devious serpent folk devoid of compassion, yuan-ti manipulate other creatures by arousing their doubts, evoking their fears, and elevating and crushing their hopes. From remote temples in jungles, swamps, and deserts, the yuan-ti plot to supplant and dominate all other races and to make themselves gods.
Catapult and mage hand summoned a chicken (or several) to carry the object; infestation summoned an angry rooster to claw the target and chase them out of their space (I think the UA version might've done piercing damage); Maximilian's earthen grasp conjured a giant chicken foot to crush the target; charm person summoned a very young, very fluffy chick to be adorable and charm the target; and feather fall, of course, either conjured a vast amount of chicken feathers to stop my fall harmlessly, summoned a squad of chickens to grab me and slow my fall, or turned my arms into chicken wings so I could slow my own fall.
Hello, everyone!
I'm sorry if someone already made thread about this has been created. If so, please notify me (or moderators, if you can, delete it).
I wanted to ask those of you who play spellcasters this question: Do you like to modify the effect of your spells without changing the game mechanics?
When I make a spellcaster that I want to stick to a specific theme of spells, sometimes, the spells on my class's spell list don't produce the desired effect. So I revisualize them. For example, say I wanted to make a wizard with spells based on summoning creatures from other planes. But the only summoning cantrip is infestation. So I select mage hand and revisualize it. Instead of conjuring a hand, I summon a tiny imp that doesn't speak. Instead of moving the hand, the tiny imp flies. The imp can manipulate objects as the mage hand does.
I made this thread to ask if any of you do things like this often and wanted to hear what ideas you've come up with.
Devious serpent folk devoid of compassion, yuan-ti manipulate other creatures by arousing their doubts, evoking their fears, and elevating and crushing their hopes. From remote temples in jungles, swamps, and deserts, the yuan-ti plot to supplant and dominate all other races and to make themselves gods.
I once made a chicken-themed sorcerer. I don't remember all my cantrips, but I had catapult, charm person, feather fall, infestation, mage hand, and Maximilian's earthen grasp.
Catapult and mage hand summoned a chicken (or several) to carry the object; infestation summoned an angry rooster to claw the target and chase them out of their space (I think the UA version might've done piercing damage); Maximilian's earthen grasp conjured a giant chicken foot to crush the target; charm person summoned a very young, very fluffy chick to be adorable and charm the target; and feather fall, of course, either conjured a vast amount of chicken feathers to stop my fall harmlessly, summoned a squad of chickens to grab me and slow my fall, or turned my arms into chicken wings so I could slow my own fall.
In short, yes, I do that fairly often.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)