This spell produces a widened desecrate effect at the equivalent of cl 12 with the bonuses of a permanant altar to evil where there is none, requiring only cl 1. Furthermore, it can dispell some potent effects without a check - effects created by persons of at least cl 9, subverting thousands of gold pieces of investment for a fraction of the cost. In addition, it allows this to wizards/sorcerers, not even divine casters. Granted it's easier to destroy than create, but are you sure this is a good idea? -- Techpriest88 19:21, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

It's also really costly to cast. A 2nd-level character would have to spend the better part of their WBL to cast it. A Scroll of desecrate is cheaper than the material component for this spell. --IGTN 00:33, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
If I'm referencing correctly, a scroll costs spell level * caster level * 25gp, meaning a cl 12 desecrate costs 600pg. So this spell's component costs less than an equivalent desecrate scroll. Of course, it also dispells an existing effect without the check, making it substantially more powerful (assuming the need arrises). If we're talking costs, this is an additional scroll, 3rd level spell * 9th caster level * 25gp for a cost of 675gp on top of the desecration... and it isn't even guaranteed to work, like the tomb tainting. Doesn't hurt me either way, i'm just saying: perhaps, this does a little more than it should be allowed to for it's level and cost. (Please, correct and forgive me if my figures are wrong.) -- Techpriest88 00:54, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I do kind of see what you're saying. It's impractical for a 2nd level party to expend so many resources so they really don't gain much in having this spell. To boot, once a cleric can manage Dispel Magic and Desecrate, he'll have no use for this, since it's insanely cheeper to cast the two (even with multiple castings) than TTT'... but, if it won't be used, there's no reason to have it be available. On principle, I still think it's too powerful for it's level. Also, desecration should probably remain a thing for dark clergymen, unless it's isn't restricted to that in official content (personal opinion, and I don't know enough to say whether or not it is). -- Techpriest88 02:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
No, desecrate-like effects should absolutely not be restricted to "clergymen". You are arguing that Clerics who invest absolutely nothing beyond "not being Good" should be a priori better than specialist Necromancers (i.e., wizards with Necromancy as their preferred school). Desecrate is so good for undead-making that not having it is an insult of the highest degree to anyone who writes "Necromancer" under class and expects to actually, y'know, have zombies following them around.
Putting a stop to that sort of bullshit was the entire point of the Tome of Necromancy. --Quantumboost 02:15, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can see we feel strongly about this. =.= I see no compelling reason to disagree with you on that point, I suppose. -- Techpriest88 00:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.