Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Dog Soul Hosted Forum
[Afflict]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 3190832" data-attributes="member: 4303"><p>Stylistic/</p><p></p><p>I'm not so keen on the use of '<em>changes</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I submit that <em>change</em> 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).</p><p></p><p>We need to find a convention which works, though.</p><p></p><p>/stylistic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm pretty sceptical about this: it begs for a "prompt multiple saving throws" factor.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>wish</em> and <em>miracle</em>; only an epic spell incorporating the [dispel] seed has a chance of ending a curse bestowed by the [afflict] seed.'</p><p></p><p>I would rate this factor as a +8; maybe a +6 allows a 'partially effective wish' - as in the case of <em>imprisonment</em>. Beyond the <em>normal</em> scope of <em>wish</em> and <em>miracle</em> places it in the DM's hands, if he wants to allow these spells to work. <em>Wish</em> is into dangerous territory with unpredictable side-effects; the <em>miracle</em> required is a great effort for one's patron deity to accomplish.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>dispel</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>I think [afflict] should be (D), as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 3190832, member: 4303"] Stylistic/ I'm not so keen on the use of '[I]changes[/I] 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 [I]change[/I] 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'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 [I]wish[/I] and [I]miracle[/I]; 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 [I]imprisonment[/I]. Beyond the [I]normal[/I] scope of [I]wish[/I] and [I]miracle[/I] places it in the DM's hands, if he wants to allow these spells to work. [I]Wish[/I] is into dangerous territory with unpredictable side-effects; the [I]miracle[/I] 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 [I]dispel[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Dog Soul Hosted Forum
[Afflict]
Top