EoM-R House Rules

[sirwmholder]

I was just curious what house rules everyone was using with EoM: Revised. I have been delving into the back history of this forum but I couldn't come up with anything. Does everyone use the material as printed?

Thank you for your time,
Wm Holder

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Mostly as printed, altho I have a couple sheets of errata/HR at home.

The two big ones are expanded duration costs and a variant higher cost for mass spells.

Of course, I am off at a conference so I can't post the details

 

[sirwmholder]

Mostly as printed, altho I have a couple sheets of errata/HR at home.
The two big ones are expanded duration costs and a variant higher cost for mass spells.
Of course, I am off at a conference so I can't post the details

I would be most interested if you could post those when you get back... I was reading through and had trouble wrapping my head around how a spell that effects one target for say 4d6 damage can inturn effect over 10 creatures clustered together for one more mana. Just seems to be a large jump in damage dealing potential.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Here ya go!

Change to Mass spells
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2978455#post2978455
Originally posted by Hs5ias

All Abjure, Heal, Infuse, Move and Transform spells can only affect a single target.

In order to use as a mass spell, you must pay the cost of the relevant spell effect, not including general enhancements, twice. 0 MP costs are increased to 1 MP.


Fer instance:
Heal 1D6 to all within 10’ radius normally Heal 0, Gen 1, total 1MP
Mass Heal 1D6 to all within 10’ radius is (Heal 0)*2, Gen 1, total 2 MP

New table for Move Force:

MP . STR : Weight (Size)
0 . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 5 lb. (Tiny)
1 . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 30 lb. (Tiny)
2 . . . . . 8 . . . . . . 75 lb. (Small)
3 . . . . 16 . . . . . 125 lb. (Small)
4 . . . . 20 . . . . . 250 lb. (Medium)
6 . . . . 25 . . . . . 500 lb. (Medium)
8 . . . . 30 . . . . . 1000 lb. (Large)
10 . . . 35 . . . . . 4000 lb. (Large)
12 . . . 40 . . . . . 16000 lb. (Huge)
14 . . . 45 . . . . . 64000 lb. (Huge)
16 . . . 50 . . . . . 256000 lb. (Gargantuan)
18 . . . 55 . . . . . 1,012,000 lb. (Gargantuan)
20 . . . 60 . . . . . 4,048,000 lb. (Colossal)

 

[sirwmholder]

Thanks a ton, I have been playing around with the mass healing and buffing effects as they are... I think they are a bit too powerful for the level so I have been thinking of increasing the mp cost of all area spells instead of just the beneficial ones... or do you believe the damage spells are fine as is?

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[BSF]

Remember that damage spells do not scale the same way core spells do. A normal fireball increases from 5d6 at 5th level, to 10d6 at 10th+ level, as well as improving the range indefinitely. All for the same 3rd level spell slot. This would be commensurate to 6 MP for a fireball.

6 MP will get you a 3d6 evoke fire in a 20' radius out to 150' in range. (Evoke Fire 2/Gen4). To get a 10d6 fireball, you will need to spend a minimum 12 MP and that would be 10d6, in a 20' radius with a range of 30' (Evoke Fire 9/Gen 3). If you wanted greater range, it will take even more MP.

It depends on what flavor you are looking at. If you want magic to be less pervasive in impact, increase the costs. But if you are running something closer to a core rules assumption game, increasing the costs of damaging spells will make spellcasting less useful as a direct combat solution.

Primitive Screwhead: I note you didn't mention changing the MP expenditure to be equal to character HD rather than spellcasting level. For some reason I thought you were the one that first proposed that change. Am I incorrect?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

BardStephenFox, I don't recall suggesting that.. I am happy with the spell casting limit going on caster level, even tho I favor mutli-class characters

Of course, since I post alot from work I don't always save my suggestions....

 

[Verequus]

Primitive Screwhead: I note you didn't mention changing the MP expenditure to be equal to character HD rather than spellcasting level. For some reason I thought you were the one that first proposed that change. Am I incorrect?

If my memory serves me right, then it was actually me, who proposed this rule after mulling over the consequences of a feat, which would have done the same for only one particular spell list. In case, people think that it is overpowered to implement such a rule: 1. You don't get any new spell lists. 2. You deplete your MP resources faster (as you don't get any additional MPs). 3. Your spells can be as powerful as the ones of your teammates - otherwise you have the Mythic Theurge effect, which makes you to only a support caster. That is for most people not so fun as killing people. 4. It simplifies the table with the availalbe MP for a particular caster level. I've seen the difference.

 

[BSF]

If my memory serves me right, then it was actually me, who proposed this rule after mulling over the consequences of a feat, which would have done the same for only one particular spell list. In case, people think that it is overpowered to implement such a rule: 1. You don't get any new spell lists. 2. You deplete your MP resources faster (as you don't get any additional MPs). 3. Your spells can be as powerful as the ones of your teammates - otherwise you have the Mythic Theurge effect, which makes you to only a support caster. That is for most people not so fun as killing people. 4. It simplifies the table with the availalbe MP for a particular caster level. I've seen the difference.

*laugh* Fair enough, it has been a while since I saw it suggested.

For the record, I agree with your assessments. We are using the house rule with the games I play in/adjudicate.

EDIT: One additional comment. Lyceian Arcana introduced Magical Calling which allows you to use as many MP for a single spell list as you have HD. I have found the feat to be useful for the times when you want to make a character that is very good at something specific without needing to bump more spell lists to get the greater usage.

An Example. Randy the Righteous is a crusading spellcaster type. He might know a lot of infusions, evokes, and abjurations. So now Randy wants to summon celestial allies. But when he takes 1 Summon list, he can only summon a fairly small range of allies. He isn't as interested in purchasing more Summon lists. But if he takes Magical Calling, he opens up his options for bringing in allies with the single Summon list he does have.

 

[Verequus]

EDIT: One additional comment. Lyceian Arcana introduced Magical Calling which allows you to use as many MP for a single spell list as you have HD. I have found the feat to be useful for the times when you want to make a character that is very good at something specific without needing to bump more spell lists to get the greater usage.

An Example. Randy the Righteous is a crusading spellcaster type. He might know a lot of infusions, evokes, and abjurations. So now Randy wants to summon celestial allies. But when he takes 1 Summon list, he can only summon a fairly small range of allies. He isn't as interested in purchasing more Summon lists. But if he takes Magical Calling, he opens up his options for bringing in allies with the single Summon list he does have.

I totally forgot about that part of Magical Calling. Considering, that with the aforementioned house rule a good part of the feat is already free, and that RangerWickett agrees with me, that Extra Spell Lists should give actually 2 free lists, I don't see any value in having Magical Calling around. Even if it would remove the limitation from 3 or 4 spell lists. After all, the more spell lists you have, the less severe is the restriction. And you gain more effects and possibilities for the spent feat.