[Afflict]

[Cheiromancer]

Taken from the big thread, and reworked a bit.

[edit] See post #5

[sblock]This is not that different from a greater bestow curse, but that is mostly due to the fact that GBC gives twice the effect of a bestow curse, so does this one. This seed doesn't seem that dramatic, compared to what a failed save will give you anywhere else. However it is not a mind-affecting effect (like feeblemind is) or a death effect. It affects undead and constructs alike. Immunity to ability score damage won't help you. In other words it is hard to avoid. And it's hard to fix.

I was a bit whimsical in the section that emulates blindness; I chose to require multiple saves, and to allow the same sense to be targeted more than once. This blunts the "save negates" part of the spell an awful lot.

Afflict
Necromancy

Root Spell: Blindness/deafness, bestow curse
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Target: One creature
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The [afflict] seed bestows some negative condition upon the target as determined by the caster at the time of casting. Choose from one of five effects:

• Afflict up to four of the target's senses: sight and/or hearing and/or smell (includes taste) and/or touch and/or special senses that the target possesses. The target attempts a saving throw for each sense. If the target fails its saving throw for a particular sense, that sense doesn't function for the spell's duration, with all attendant penalties. You may choose the same sense multiple times to increase the chance of failing a save.
  Factor: Each sense affected changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 4.
  
• Assign a total penalty of –16 to the target's ability scores. This cannot reduce a score to less than 1.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to ability scores changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 1.
  
• Afflict the target with a –8 morale penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks and saving throws.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to all four of these categories changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 2.
  
• Afflict the target with either a –8 penalty on caster level checks, a –8 penalty to spell resistance, or a –8 penalty to some other aspect of the target which is specified in the development process.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to these categories changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 2.
  
• Afflict the target's capacity to act. Each turn, the subject has a 25% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action (treat as dazed).
  Mitigating Factor: To only reduce the chance of action to 50%, decrease the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 8.

You may also invent your own curse using these options as guidelines. Add a specialized curse to the above list at a cost of +2 SP.

Mitigating Factor: If you choose the effect of [afflict] during spell development instead of at the time of casting, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 4.

Special: Only a wish, miracle or epic spell which uses the [dispel] seed can remove the effects of an [afflict] seed from the target.

Mitigating factor: To make [afflict] subject to standard measures of removal (dispel magic, etc.) reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 4.

Mitigating factor: If you restrict the target to living creatures, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4; if you do this you may change the saving throw to Fortitude: negates.[/sblock]

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Afflict

Stylistic/

I'm not so keen on the use of 'changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite;' it seems a little imprecise. I can understand your wish to avoid double negatives - the reason that I continued to use them was because of my understanding of precedent in the way penalties are expressed in official produsts; I might be misremembering, though - perhaps there is no such precedent.

I can also understand the reason for you wanting to get rid of the phrase "add +2 to..." - I suspect the tautology frustrates you, even though its mathematical certainty is not in doubt. Also, if we are removing the phrase "the Spellcraft Prerequisite is reduced by -X," them a consistent style demands that we also remove its opposite.

I submit that change is not the way to accomplish this, however. I also feel that there is a certain benefit from having a '+' or '-' sign in the body of the text, so it can be scanned quickly. I think this is reader-friendly. FWIW, I've also been frustrated by the inaccuracy of "reduce by [a negative]," but I've let it slide (for reasons I've noted).

We need to find a convention which works, though.

/stylistic.

I was a bit whimsical in the section that emulates blindness; I chose to require multiple saves, and to allow the same sense to be targeted more than once. This blunts the "save negates" part of the spell an awful lot.

I'm pretty sceptical about this: it begs for a "prompt multiple saving throws" factor.

I would suggest that the base curse targets a single sense, but the curse is impervious to nonepic magic: 'removing the affliction is beyond the normal scope of even wish and miracle; only an epic spell incorporating the [dispel] seed has a chance of ending a curse bestowed by the [afflict] seed.'

I would rate this factor as a +8; maybe a +6 allows a 'partially effective wish' - as in the case of imprisonment. Beyond the normal scope of wish and miracle places it in the DM's hands, if he wants to allow these spells to work. Wish is into dangerous territory with unpredictable side-effects; the miracle required is a great effort for one's patron deity to accomplish.

An [afflict] spell which was bolstered by factors which made it resist attempts to dispel it would be nigh-unbreakable: a feat which faciltated this would be cool, too. Maybe factors which resist dispel attempts could be cheaper for [afflict]. I think an unbreakable curse is a worthy model for this seed - maybe the size of the penalty is not so important as its unshakeability.

I think [afflict] should be (D), as well.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I don't mind saying "increase by +4" since that is, as you note, correct. I don't even mind being redundant; but I don't like being inaccurate. However I can live with "reduce by -4" for stylistic reasons. We are reducing the number by applying -4 to it, after all. The pedant in me would be happy with a foot-note so the John Coopers of the world don't make sarcastic comments about it. And me with a math degree too.

But my use of "change" has nothing to do with that. I used it because the factor could be an increase or a decrease. You could afflict more senses (or the same sense more times) by increasing the cost by +4 for each sense, or one fewer sense by decreasing the cost by -4 multiple times. (There, I said it! Decrease... by -4)

I take it that wording it like that would be an improvement? It's terribly awkward to phrase it like this, but if it afflicted only one sense it would be at most SP 12 than SP 24.

I think [afflict] should be (D), as well.

I think so too. The (D) seems to have gotten dropped somewhere between post 169 and 196 in the big thread, but I always regretted its passing.

I'm pretty sceptical about this: it begs for a "prompt multiple saving throws" factor.

I think when a spell does a lot of little things, multiple saving throws are appropriate. Like the layers of a prismatic wall. But it is intended to streamline things. Instead of dealing with a deaf, anosmic giant - when you really wanted to blind him - just make him save three times against blindness.

Regarding the unbreakable curse model: did you see my reflections on Tenacious Spell? If a spell-specific feat could turn any premature ending into a temporary suppression, then a spell factor could do the same. It would be pretty hefty; about 30 SP worth. But there is margin for such things in kernelese as long as the base effect is sufficiently low level. Below 5th level or so. That would be perfect for a Tenacious effect.

Maybe the problem here is that we are trying to fit a second level spell (blindness) into the same seed as an eighth level spell (greater bestow curse). Perhaps we should make the effects much more non-epic, but include the tenacity provision (as modified by me).

You could dispel such a spell all day long, using wishes and all sorts of epic dispels. But the effect would keep coming back. There would be a few alternatives; if you could somehow make the subject immune to blindness, the spell would be foiled. If the spell gave a numeric penalty it would be more difficult. D&D doesn't (and shouldn't) allow for one to be immune to numeric penalties. Perhaps an epic spell that allowed you to take ownership of the spell, so you could dismiss it normally.

 

[Cheiromancer]

[stylistic]

When does a + sign get added? For instance, in [augment] there are lots of places where I say things like "Each +10 temporary hit points costs 1 SP." Should that be a +1 SP? Should there be a space between the number and the SP (+1 SP vs +1SP)? Should I reword it so that it follows the "increase by" wording? I.e. "To grant +10 temporary hit points, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +1". It is tedious and wordy to constantly spell out Spellcraft Prerequisite, though. I would like to have it spelled out on each page (or seed) so that it could be discovered by context what SP refers to.

[/stylistic]

 

[Cheiromancer]

Here's a draft of the Tenacious [afflict]. This format (with lower SP to develop a blindness effect) might be a better approach than the one above. I wonder if [curse] is a better name for this seed.

[Afflict]
Necromancy

Root Spell: Blindness/deafness, bestow curse, lesser geas. Also the Tenacious Spell feat and the Mummy Rot disease.
Preferred Mitigation: Any
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Target: One creature
Duration: Permanent (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The [afflict] seed bestows some negative condition upon the target as determined by the caster at the time of casting. There are several versions available, some of which have a higher or lower Spellcraft Prerequisite to develop. You may choose to default to any version for which you have adequately increased the Spellcraft Prerequisite when you cast the spell.

Mitigating Factor: If you choose the version of [afflict] during spell development instead of at the time of casting, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by –4.

Mitigating Factor: If you restrict the target to living creatures, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4; if you do this you may change the saving throw to Fortitude: negates.

Sensory Deprivation (–4 SP)
Afflict one of the target's senses: sight, hearing, smell (includes taste), touch, or a special sense that the target possesses, such as blindsight or tremorsense. If the target fails its saving throw, that sense doesn't function for the spell's duration, with all attendant penalties.

Factor: Afflict an additional sense for +4 SP.


Ability Penalty
Assign a penalty of up to –8 to one ability score. This cannot reduce a score to less than 1. You may divide the penalty between ability scores, as long as the total penalty is -8 or less.

Factor: Increase the penalty by –1 for +1 SP.


Dice Penalties
Afflict the target with a –4 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks and saving throws.

Factor: Increase the penalty by –1 for +2 SP.


Other Penalties
Afflict the target with either a –8 penalty on caster level checks, a –8 penalty to spell resistance, or a –8 penalty to some other aspect of the target which is specified in the development process.

Factor: Increase by penalty by –1 for +1 SP.


Inaction
Afflict the target's capacity to act. Each turn, the subject has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action (treat as dazed).

Factor: Reduce the chance to act to 25% for +8 SP.


Geas (+4 SP)
A geas places a magical command on a creature to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you. If it does not comply with your command it immediately suffers your choice of either the Sensory Deprivation (two senses), Inaction, Dice Penalty or Ability Penalty afflictions. You may include a provision whereby the penalty can be lifted (such as being in a particular place or performing a particular action), but the penalty will be reincurred upon an additional violation of the geas.

Special: You may increase the effect of the penalty by paying for the relevant additional factors. You may also decrease the effect of the penalty, or tie its effect to the number of violations of your command.

Note: This geas cannot directly require that someone do something. But it can impose a penalty for a common action (such as eating, speaking or sleeping) and include a provision for relief which is the desired course of action.


Rotting Curse (+6 SP)
Afflict the target with magical decay. The target takes 1d6 points of damage to Constitution and another 1d6 points of damage to Charisma. Each day thereafter the target must attempt another save or take additional damage. A character attempting to cast any conjuration (healing) spell on a creature afflicted with a rotting curse must succeed on a DC 30 caster level check, or the spell has no effect on the afflicted character. A character who is immune to ability damage or magical disease takes a 1d6 penalty instead; this penalty overlaps with itself, but does not stack. It can be mitigated by an effect that cures ability damage (provided the caster level check is successful).

Factors: Increase the ability damage/penalty by +1 for +4 SP. Increase the DC on the caster level check by +2 for +1 SP. Afflict an additional ability score for +2 SP. You may cause ability drain instead of ability damage for +4 SP; in this case an immune character takes a cumulative penalty that cannot lower an ability below 1, but which can be mitigated by any effect that cures ability drain (provided the caster level check is successful).

Note: This is a rotting curse, so it should always affect Constitution and Charisma. If you cast it on an unliving opponent (such as a construct or undead) part of the effect is wasted, but that is intentional: it should be difficult to greatly affect such opponents.

Special: If you are possessed by an entity afflicted with the Rotting Curse, you will become afflicted yourself after 1 day; the accumulating nature of this affliction causes it to spread from soul to body and vice versa.


You may also invent your own affliction using these options as guidelines. Add a specialized affliction to the above list at a cost of +2 SP.

Special: Spells developed using [afflict] are Pernicious: You may dispel or dismiss the spell normally, but if it otherwise ends prematurely, it is instead only suppressed for 1d4 rounds. Even this is difficult; suppressing the spell requires a miracle, wish or an epic spell involving [dispel]. A dead magic zone will also suppress it, but not an antimagic field.

Mitigating Factors: To allow the spell to be removed by a miracle, wish, or an epic spell involving [dispel], reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -15. To reduce the duration to 200 minutes (D), reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -20.

Note: Variable penalties due to [afflict] (such as by the Rotting Curse and certain forms of Geas) are not reset by being suppressed. An affliction is tied to the identity of the being, and so follows that character even through changes of form: a blinded character who magic jars a sighted character, or who shapechanges into another form will still be blind. Remove blindness, heal and the like will work for only 1d4 rounds. Even death (followed by resurrection or reincarnation) is ineffective as a remedy.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Maybe the problem here is that we are trying to fit a second level spell (blindness) into the same seed as an eighth level spell (greater bestow curse). Perhaps we should make the effects much more non-epic, but include the tenacity provision (as modified by me).

I think this is a good idea; having the tenacity as an implicit part of the seed would work well. I'm nervous about screwing [dispel] - I think we'd need to include a corresponding 'end tenacious effect' factor in the [dispel] seed. Or maybe as a part of an esoteric [disjoin] seed. Whichever, this also perpetuates the arms race, which is a good thing.

I don't know that Tenacious Magic is really worth an epic feat, so I'd be inclined to cost it at less than the +30 suggested - it appears in the FRCS and PGtF in the guise of a nonepic feat. The fact that one of its prereqs is 15 ranks in Spellcraft is suggestive to me (a +15 factor), but that's just to make the numbers look pretty. Combined with permanency, it's a powerful combination - I'm reluctant to make it a general factor, though. As a specific schtick for [afflict], I like it.

You suggested somewhere in the big thread that blindness/deafness should really be a 4th-level effect; maybe we should assume as much, kernel-wise. Much more severe short-term effects could be achieved with removing the tenacity (at +15) and reducing the permanent duration to 200 minutes (I've suggested this is worth +20 in the esoteric [rune] seed) - this would free up a total of 35 factors to apply, which means we could cost increases in the penalties in the base seed pretty severely.

Edit: just saw the updated seed. I like it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Ah, we're simulposting, I see!

I'll add in the remove tenacity and reduce duration factors right now.

I am have very contradictory requirements for [dispel]. On the one hand I want it to be the solution to any potential imbalance in the other seeds; if some effect is too powerful, I expect a well timed [dispel] to restore sanity. On the other hand I don't want it to interfere with anything cool (i.e insane) that another seed does.


[edit]

I gave away my Faerûn books some time ago, but I think the intended effect of Tenacious is to make a permanent spell into a bestow curse-style hard-to-remove kind of spell. Hard, but not impossible. My variant is tougher yet; more Pernicious than Tenacious.

There was a discussion in the Rules Forum about whether a Tenacious permanency would allow the permanenced spell to recover from a successful dispel against the permanency. Hypersmurf thought not: the base spell would end as soon as the permanency was suppressed (assuming its duration had expired sometime ago), and when the permanency came back there would be nothing for it to affect.

Spoiler

My arguments to the contrary were unpersuasive.

Now if permanency were an instantaneous effect that made another spell permanent, then Tenacious (applied to that spell) would work. But as it is the rules don't allow this feature.


[edit 2]

I wonder how a lich afflicted with a comprehensive Rotting Curse could escape it. Suppressing it for a few rounds wouldn't reset the cumulative penalty; that seems fairly obvious, but I suppose I should specify it.

Dying and being raised won't free you from a curse. I wonder if reincarnation would? Or some kind of possession ability (like with magic jar). Living hosts would rot away as long as the cursed agent was possessing them. I wonder if they end up affected by the curse as well? It'd be cool if they did.

Seems like an epic challenge, dealing with something that jumps from body to body, abandoning its host when it is too rotted to be useful.

[edit 3]

Changes incorporated above, but a loophole just occurred to me: What if someone develops a spell that doesn't dispel an effect, but instead permanently suppresses it? That would deal with a pernicious curse quite neatly. Provided it wasn't itself dispelled.

Still I should make it so that even temporary measures are hard to come by. Would the possibility of a permanent suppression (via an epic dispel) be enough of a counter in the arms race?

The alternative is a spell that deludes the curse into thinking someone else is its owner; that person could then dismiss it.

[edit 4]

There. Any other nastiness I can add to it?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There. Any other nastiness I can add to it?

How would you go about making a spell that aged someone?

It seems like you could inflict a -8 penalty on 3 physical stats ([Afflict] plus two compounded [afflict] seeds = 48), and include a descriptive [slay] and [time] seed. I'll have a go at wrting one. It'd be costly.

Edit: don't need to compound [afflict]. The factor is already there.

 

[Cheiromancer]

If you put the penalty on the stats, the description would be flavor, wouldn't it? Unless it actually changed your life expectancy- the date when "your time is up." That would make you non-resurrectable, and that would warrant a +12 or so (two descriptive seeds). It'd be mitigated if the actual date was a few months or years away.

[edit] +6 and add the [death] descriptor to put you at the beginning of Venerable seems just about perfect. Your time is up that much sooner, right? [/edit]

And if it killed you of old age right now- well, that would seem to be mostly [slay]. A pernicious death effect.

[edit2] Hmmm. That's the second time in two days that I've seen the need to make an instantaneous effect permanent. Both involve the pernicious factor; here it is to make a pernicious death effect (to model death by old age), and the other was to allow [dispel] to permanently suppress a pernicious effect.

Are there any benchmarks for instantaneous => permanent? I don't mean something like making a fireball last forever. Rather, something like a cure light wounds that knits together injuries by magic, meaning that the subject loses those hit points if it is dispelled. (Which would be a neat arcane spell, wouldn't it?)

The permanent => instantaneous factor is a little easier to cost. It should be no more than +12, given that two benchmark spells (baleful polymorph and flesh to stone) both have comparable effects (neutralizing an opponent who fails his fort save) but are 2 spell levels (=12 SP) apart. Probably only +8 - flesh to stone is one step longer range (+2) and has a higher DC (+2).

Maybe cost it the same either way. Dunno.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

[edit2] Hmmm. That's the second time in two days that I've seen the need to make an instantaneous effect permanent. Both involve the pernicious factor; here it is to make a pernicious death effect (to model death by old age), and the other was to allow [dispel] to permanently suppress a pernicious effect.

Durations are going to be tricky when we combine seeds; but I think that to aggregate [slay] and [afflict] would work.

I'm proceeding on the basis that an aggregate creates an "irrational parameter" in the spell - in this case, duration. I'm wondering if that when you aggregate two seeds, both should incur their full Spellcraft Prerequisite cost; as opposed to regular compounding, where only the base seed counts its full value.

There is a point where we're going to have to start writing lots of new rules to cover ideas like this. There is also a point where the reader has to be trusted to make the right balance choices; spells involving more than one seed are going to test this, however we approach it. We can't cover every contingency - we can only demonstrate by example.