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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 2682554" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey Borlon mate! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, but at those high levels, the Fire Resistance becomes a resistance, whereas Anti-Magic is still an absolute. Theres no gradient - its an all or nothing approach.  Yes.Yes bt the point is that your high-level casters won't be able to distinguish between it because its either off or on. Which means its either useful (in which case the original flaws apply) or useless.I don't see the point of making it relative for high-level characters and arbitrary for low-level characters.The problem with this approach is that you are going to have multiple adjudications per round, per character. Will you have to roll for a characters attacks every hit to see if their vorpal sword is working? Will the opponent get the chance to test every defensive item/spell when they go to strike them in turn. This approach just seems like a bottomless pit of confusion.Doen't my approach do all thsi with minimal fuss anyway!?The only problem as I can see it is that you are worried that a 3rd-level spellcaster could still cast a spell on a greater deity of magic with a 36th-level Anti-Magic Field spell in effect. But as I see it the effects are going to be so negligable with the imposed penalty that they become inconsequential. Thats why I don't have a problem with it. If monster 'x' has anti-magic, all you need do is up the level of it to neuter weaker casters.eg. A 23HD Beholder might reduce the magic effect by 1/3 (-8 to DCs)</blockquote>

Verification