New Special properties
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
The file you sent me was corrupt. At least Winzip couldn't make heads or tails of it. But it is the one updated with my suggestions, right? I can't seem to locate it right now.
One thing I'm not sure about is the high magic definition, and that is whether random variables should be doubled. Does the fixed portion of random damage get doubled too? I mean, if a magic missile does 2-5 hp damage, does it do 4-10 when doubled ((1 + d4) x 2) or 3-9? (1 +(d4 x 2)) If the former, it seems odd that a spell that did (say) 8+1d2 hp damage would be doubled, when a spell that did a flat 10 hp damage would not be affected.
Also, even though it was my idea, the complexity of the high magic property is probably unnecessary. Especially those bits about +2 and +2. The information per word is a little low.
How about (and I'm just tossing around ideas);
Would we need a definition of "hit point effects" ? By doubling of hit point effects I mean that if the spell does hit point damage, the damage is doubled. If it cures hit points, the amount cured is doubled. If it summons creatures, the creature has double hit points. Animated dead have double normal hit points.
What else? Let's see; I was wondering about the difference between a space and a dimension. They are for all intents and purposes the same, aren't they? (One is infinite, the other is practically infinite).
Pseudo-planes; "half-way between mortal planes and outsider planes." What does that mean? More apropos would be that pseudo-planes do not fit neatly into the other categories.
Somewhere there should be a mention that borders are of multiple types; they can be a particular point in space (a gate or portal); they can be a line (the shore of a sea, the edge of a cliff), they can be a 2-imensional plane (the vault of the sky, beyond which is heaven, or the deepest layer of the underdark), and may or may not be cyclic; passable only at specified times or seasons.
Anyway- try and send me the updated version again, and hopefully it'll go through this time.
Cheers,
One thing I'm not sure about is the high magic definition, and that is whether random variables should be doubled. Does the fixed portion of random damage get doubled too? I mean, if a magic missile does 2-5 hp damage, does it do 4-10 when doubled ((1 + d4) x 2) or 3-9? (1 +(d4 x 2)) If the former, it seems odd that a spell that did (say) 8+1d2 hp damage would be doubled, when a spell that did a flat 10 hp damage would not be affected.
Also, even though it was my idea, the complexity of the high magic property is probably unnecessary. Especially those bits about +2 and +2. The information per word is a little low.
How about (and I'm just tossing around ideas);
Would we need a definition of "hit point effects" ? By doubling of hit point effects I mean that if the spell does hit point damage, the damage is doubled. If it cures hit points, the amount cured is doubled. If it summons creatures, the creature has double hit points. Animated dead have double normal hit points.
What else? Let's see; I was wondering about the difference between a space and a dimension. They are for all intents and purposes the same, aren't they? (One is infinite, the other is practically infinite).
Pseudo-planes; "half-way between mortal planes and outsider planes." What does that mean? More apropos would be that pseudo-planes do not fit neatly into the other categories.
Somewhere there should be a mention that borders are of multiple types; they can be a particular point in space (a gate or portal); they can be a line (the shore of a sea, the edge of a cliff), they can be a 2-imensional plane (the vault of the sky, beyond which is heaven, or the deepest layer of the underdark), and may or may not be cyclic; passable only at specified times or seasons.
Anyway- try and send me the updated version again, and hopefully it'll go through this time.
Cheers,
ax0n
First Post
I sent you a new copy. Let me know if thats OK.
Pseudo-planes are like demi-planes, but I believe that term is an original creation of WotC so we couldn't use it. You are right, though, the description for pseudo-planes could use clarification and I'll ammend this for 1.2.
The 'double variable modifier' includes the fixed portion. The modification is a direct copy of the Empowerd Magic feat, which details this. Perhaps we could add some notes to this effect.
I agree. But I still think we should have double duration, range and variable effects. That way, a summon monster spell is more powerful, whereas under you suggestion only duration would be improved for that spell.
I agree that the differences are small. I actually put it to the vote to the team a while ago about whether we should get rid of spaces alltogether, but they remained. I think spaces will come into their own when we introduce the rules for planar borders. But, we could ask the team again whether they want to get rid of spaces or not.
Last edited:
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
Do you know of a link where Empower Spell is described in more detail? For instance, what would a shocking grasp spell do if empowered? (Base damage is 1d8 +1/level)
Hypnotism would be affected (2d4 hit dice) but not Animate dead (1 hd of undead created per level)?
How does Empower affect a Heal spell?
Too bad the search functions are down on the forums. I'm sure this question has already been asked and answered.
My proposal is to double the hit point effects of a spell; high magic fireballs would do double damage, high magic cure spells would heal double the normal amount, and high magic summonings get the usual number of creatures, but with twice the normal amount of hit points.
So it wouldn't work quite the same as Empower Spell. And I don't know quite how it would work in conjunction with a Heal Spell either.
Well, actually I've house-ruled Heal so that it cures 10 hp/caster level, but doesn't cure the last 1d4 hit points. Harm does 10 hp/caster level, but doesn't take away the last 1d4 hit points. If house-ruled thusly, a high magic Heal would cure 15 hp/level (except for the last 1d4), and a high magic Harm would inflict 15 hp/level (but leave the victim at 1d4 hp).
(this should bring more traffic into this forum; everyone loves a discussion of Harm
)
Hypnotism would be affected (2d4 hit dice) but not Animate dead (1 hd of undead created per level)?
How does Empower affect a Heal spell?
Too bad the search functions are down on the forums. I'm sure this question has already been asked and answered.
My proposal is to double the hit point effects of a spell; high magic fireballs would do double damage, high magic cure spells would heal double the normal amount, and high magic summonings get the usual number of creatures, but with twice the normal amount of hit points.
So it wouldn't work quite the same as Empower Spell. And I don't know quite how it would work in conjunction with a Heal Spell either.
Well, actually I've house-ruled Heal so that it cures 10 hp/caster level, but doesn't cure the last 1d4 hit points. Harm does 10 hp/caster level, but doesn't take away the last 1d4 hit points. If house-ruled thusly, a high magic Heal would cure 15 hp/level (except for the last 1d4), and a high magic Harm would inflict 15 hp/level (but leave the victim at 1d4 hp).
(this should bring more traffic into this forum; everyone loves a discussion of Harm
)Cheiromancer
Adventurer
Oh, and the files were received correctly. Thanks.
Last edited:
ax0n
First Post
The Empowered Spell feat is only detailed in full in PHB 82. Thats were I got the clarigication on the double 1d4+1 ruling.
The benefit of the 'double variable modifier' is that it is a simple mechanic that can be applied across various spells. It doesn't affect all spells, true, but the double range/duration pick up the slack, so to speak, improving any other spells that the empowered spell effect misses. It wouldn't affect a Heal spell, but then how can you improve a spell that completely heals an individual of all damage/blindness/disease?
The problem is either way, not all spells are improved, if you double hit points or double variable modifiers. The advantage over the double hit point rule is that the variable modifier is simpler. Double hit point effects has lots of conditions (double healing, double damage, double hit points for summoned creatures, and so forth).
The benefit of the 'double variable modifier' is that it is a simple mechanic that can be applied across various spells. It doesn't affect all spells, true, but the double range/duration pick up the slack, so to speak, improving any other spells that the empowered spell effect misses. It wouldn't affect a Heal spell, but then how can you improve a spell that completely heals an individual of all damage/blindness/disease?
The problem is either way, not all spells are improved, if you double hit points or double variable modifiers. The advantage over the double hit point rule is that the variable modifier is simpler. Double hit point effects has lots of conditions (double healing, double damage, double hit points for summoned creatures, and so forth).
Here's hoping
Klintus Fang
First Post
Telgian said:
Why does a space have to have a boundary? the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional sphere has no boundary.
Similarly, the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional sphere has no boundary.
*confused*
Telgian
First Post
Greetings,
The reason for the boundary is due to my use of the Plane Descriptions v1.1 that are available in the download section of the website. The current definition of "Space" in that document may be taken as current Netbook of the Planes jargon indicating the size of a plane.
(The plane descriptions are subject to refinement/expansion BTW. We'd love to get your opinion of them. Other files that are currently in progress tend to end up as attachments on the mailing list)
If I have understood your Planar Geometry on the mortality.net boards correctly, yes the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional sphere does not have a boundry, but what I was refering to was akin to the volume of the sphere in question.
Regardless of a sphere's volume, does not the two-dimensional surface of any sphere remain without a boundry?
Isn't this a constant even though the volume of the sphere may be variable?
Or am I totally out to lunch?
My original concern was for the conditions within the sphere, thinking in the more simplistic terms. (or rather more preoccupied with what is in the pop bottle and whether it is under pressure in the absence of gravity, than the pop bottle itself) I hope that makes things more clear.
Hmm...looked at from the perspective of your planar geometry, it was kind of a silly question. I think I understand why you were confused.
Hmm... Exellent food for thought.
Unfortunately I must get some sleep soon...
'til tomorrow?
Regards,
Telgian.
The reason for the boundary is due to my use of the Plane Descriptions v1.1 that are available in the download section of the website. The current definition of "Space" in that document may be taken as current Netbook of the Planes jargon indicating the size of a plane.
(The plane descriptions are subject to refinement/expansion BTW. We'd love to get your opinion of them. Other files that are currently in progress tend to end up as attachments on the mailing list)
If I have understood your Planar Geometry on the mortality.net boards correctly, yes the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional sphere does not have a boundry, but what I was refering to was akin to the volume of the sphere in question.
Regardless of a sphere's volume, does not the two-dimensional surface of any sphere remain without a boundry?
Isn't this a constant even though the volume of the sphere may be variable?
Or am I totally out to lunch?
My original concern was for the conditions within the sphere, thinking in the more simplistic terms. (or rather more preoccupied with what is in the pop bottle and whether it is under pressure in the absence of gravity, than the pop bottle itself) I hope that makes things more clear.
Hmm...looked at from the perspective of your planar geometry, it was kind of a silly question. I think I understand why you were confused.
Hmm... Exellent food for thought.
Unfortunately I must get some sleep soon...
'til tomorrow?
Regards,
Telgian.
Klintus Fang
First Post
Being a person who has a lot of mathematical training I tend to think of planes of existence in topological terms.
But that aside, the problem I have with the "planar descriptions" document occurrs at a relatively basic level: the definitions of dimension and space. These are basic untuitive concepts that already have very specific meanings. Redifining them as you do makes it no longer possible to use the words for what they already mean.
I mean if you redefine the word dimension to mean: an infinite plane that has no beginning and no end. Then all of a sudden simple common sense statements like "the world in which I live has 3 dimensions" become nonsensical, because the world in which I live does not have "3 infinite planes that have no beginning and no end".
The same is true of space. If "space" means "a near infinite plane...". Then a statement like: "the space inside my swimming pool is filled with water", makes no sense. Because there is not a "near infinite plane" inside my swimming pool.
So my first suggesting is: don't use basic common sense words that already have specific meanings as the basis for your new terminology. Better to leave those words alone and use new words or phrases that don't already have specific meanings instead.
just my 2 cents.
But that aside, the problem I have with the "planar descriptions" document occurrs at a relatively basic level: the definitions of dimension and space. These are basic untuitive concepts that already have very specific meanings. Redifining them as you do makes it no longer possible to use the words for what they already mean.
I mean if you redefine the word dimension to mean: an infinite plane that has no beginning and no end. Then all of a sudden simple common sense statements like "the world in which I live has 3 dimensions" become nonsensical, because the world in which I live does not have "3 infinite planes that have no beginning and no end".
The same is true of space. If "space" means "a near infinite plane...". Then a statement like: "the space inside my swimming pool is filled with water", makes no sense. Because there is not a "near infinite plane" inside my swimming pool.
So my first suggesting is: don't use basic common sense words that already have specific meanings as the basis for your new terminology. Better to leave those words alone and use new words or phrases that don't already have specific meanings instead.
just my 2 cents.
Klintus Fang
First Post
With reference to some of your other questions, what you define to be a "space" is what I would call:
1. a plane of existence that has a physical boundary.
what you call a "dimension" is what I would call:
2. a plane of existence that is infinite in size and has no boundary.
but there are other possibilities that can't even exist in the "planar descriptions" terminology. for example, it is possible to have:
3. a plane of existence that is finite in size and has no boundary.
it is also possible to have:
4. a plane of existence that is infinite in size and has a boundary.
my biggest confusion when I read the glossary for the site is that I have always visualized most material planes as having property 3. which doesn't even exist in the "planar descriptions" terminology.
Regarding the terminology needed to descripe planes: As I see it, there are really only a four terms needed:
infinite or finite
bounded or unbounded
the terminology the document uses instead: dimension, space, world and realm confuses the stuffing out of me. I understand what world and realm mean of course, but in that respect ,I don't understand why there needs to be special terminology for different sizes of finite planes.
But I'm just an observer, so do whatever you want of course. I'm just giving my take on the current terminology.
1. a plane of existence that has a physical boundary.
what you call a "dimension" is what I would call:
2. a plane of existence that is infinite in size and has no boundary.
but there are other possibilities that can't even exist in the "planar descriptions" terminology. for example, it is possible to have:
3. a plane of existence that is finite in size and has no boundary.
it is also possible to have:
4. a plane of existence that is infinite in size and has a boundary.
my biggest confusion when I read the glossary for the site is that I have always visualized most material planes as having property 3. which doesn't even exist in the "planar descriptions" terminology.
Regarding the terminology needed to descripe planes: As I see it, there are really only a four terms needed:
infinite or finite
bounded or unbounded
the terminology the document uses instead: dimension, space, world and realm confuses the stuffing out of me. I understand what world and realm mean of course, but in that respect ,I don't understand why there needs to be special terminology for different sizes of finite planes.
But I'm just an observer, so do whatever you want of course. I'm just giving my take on the current terminology.
