Talk:Quincy's Investiture (5e Spell)

Hahaha! I'll admit, this made me laugh. Quincy (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2017 (MST)

( b'v')b - Guy (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2017 (MST)

How do you feel about renaming this spell to "Quincy's Investiture" and making it a serious page? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:27, 1 December 2017 (MST)

I'm impartial, but you're welcome to do that if you would like. Either way I was planning to add it to one of my homebrew classes. - Guy (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Since Guy said it, it's okay. Heck, the title you're proposing still keeps part of the joke, which is great. Quincy (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Regarding Deletion

I don't believe this page should be deleted soley for the fact that it duplicates the effect of several other spells. The reason for taking this spell over any of the other investitures is that it is more efficient in terms of number of spells prepared (or known for spellcasters that have a finite amount of spells known), allowing you to save those slots for other, more relevant spells. The tradeoff, of course, is that Quincy's Investiture is naturally higher level than the spells that it replicates. That I think is reason enough to justify its existence. Endermage77 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2021 (MDT)

How often would one need multiple investiture spells in the first place? --Lavie (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2021 (MDT)

If you deal with a lot of different elementals, just one or two might not cut it. So, having a list of options is definetly worth the slot. --SwankyPants (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2021 (MDT)

How often is that? --Lavie (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2021 (MDT)

Depends on the game, like half of the spells on this site. Like, not every game will have a lot of humanoids, so animate dead could end up worthless. Stealth may never come up, so invisibility and pass without trace never have a proper use case. Just like every other spell, this one has a valid niche. --SwankyPants (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2021 (MDT)