Search results

Option two, but the caster most certainly does not lose the charges if he casts another spell... or goes to sleep... or is knocked unconcious... or is killed... Fire and forget spell system. This is an instant effect that enchants your hands. It can't be dispelled either, per RAW, But you could...

It looked to me like the average of this variant was around 20 charges. Which means to me that you need to add MORE degrees of degredation. I do like the concept, really, but I'd like to get the average as close to 50 as possible, so as to better know the game balance/monetary outlay that should...

I’ve done something similar to this before, figuring out how much the UA buyoff would be, and then deducting a percentage of XP as they level up like the rest of the party. I went slightly more complicated, giving a fairly large initial penalty, since I also treated them as the level they...

Ah. Communication. I do agree with that. Of course, it does require you to make a touch attack for each one, but now I'm pretty sure you are including that. (As opposed to absolutely no additional actions.) You know, I don't actually see it as unclear. Even on a second (third, etc) reading...

Since it's not dismissable, you not only get 20 chill touch attacks, but your next 20 touches WILL be chill touch attacks whether you want it or not. It's really kind of a shame that you can't cast this spell targeting someone other than yourself ... That would be a mean and interesting curse to...

Well, a definition of a word that includes the word as a part of it's definition isn't really a definition at all, let alone a clear one (So I agree with you there. ^_^ ). And that definition seems to imply to me the same thing as the dictionary defintion I gave, admittedly in part because the...

Ah. Thanks, I got it now. Edit: (more commentarty) It's an interesting idea, but I personally really dislike this type of mechanic. I've even made house-rules to sorc (and like character's) ability to swap spells such that they can do it with an alternate method other than just the swap 'em...

I'm not entirely certain what you're asking.... define further please.

You may be right. I mean that it does spell out that the spell operates in a specific manner, and therefore instead of there being an implication (implicit?) operation in a different manner, there is a confirmed one, to indicate this I used the word Explicit. (Now I'll look it up on...

Interestingly enough, I used the exact same data to come up with the exact opposite conclusion. The fact that it's instantanious means that it doesn't allow you to "hold the charge", sure, but that's because it instead creates an effect wherein your next X touches do Y... they're not considered...

I also gree with the base logic behind why it shouldn't work in those situations. I just also see the entire subject as a balance issue, and if you're going to take something away from a class, you have to give something back of equal or greater value...

I've never assumed this was the case. I've seen it as a long lasting spell that affects your hands, a fire and forget type spell. Such that you could indeed cast other spells in between touch attacks that use up these charges. I haven't looked up any relevant rules yet, that's just been how I've...

Of course, plus that additional scribing cost if you don't have a blessed book. ^_^ I sort of took that as just understood. Which is often a mistake.

True, sounds like a perfectly balanced feat. I don't know of one currently written however. Note, of course, that in general you'll be doing a LOT better taking a level of fighter to get the proficiency rather than spending a feat on it... I'm sure there is some circumstance somewhere that it's...

How much will it cost? How long will it take? Well, either the above, which is WAY TOO MUCH, or around 50GP/spell level to copy it out of an existing magic tome, payable to the owner of the tome it's currently in. Or maybe if you're being really mean the price of a scroll of scorching ray.

Overall I agree with you there. Rogues are almost never better at combat than fighters. And the higher you level, the more often situations crop up where not only are they not as good as a fighter, but they become completely useless in combat.

Well. I think it's a good rule, but an incomplete one. My reasoning: The game is theoretically balanced the way it is, including allowing sneak attack in all the situations you're taking away from them. Therefore you have to give something back to them too, in exchange for this taking things...

I didn't notice it. Of course, I've also never played or ran an Assassin. Yet... (evil grin). Still, now hopefully it'll be there in my mind when/if it does come up. Thanks!

Yea, but you get to apply sneak attacks to some spells, and AT gets a full sneak attack progression. At two levels invested in rogure you're already one spell level behind a full caster wizard, make that three rogue, you'll be one and a half spell levels behind, but you're lower level spells...

I don't understand why a wiz would only take two levels of rogue when he could take three and get AT. I can see why they'd stay a straight wiz, but two and only two levels of rogue? That's a waste! Of course, other than a single dip in for wands, I don't see why any rogue wouldn't take several...