Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3191015" data-attributes="member: 141">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 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 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.</blockquote>

Verification