NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Michael Silverbane" data-source="post: 3178628" data-attributes="member: 38016">I did think a bit about the raise dead, ressurection, and true ressurection spells when I created this spell, but I didn't really deconstruct them in the way that you do so much as go, "hmm...  which one of these spells is this more like?"Items do have to be whole.  Broken items are not restored, and whether or not any other magic item whacking effect is a "similar effect" I've left completely up to the DM.  So, individual DM's could decide differently on whether or not an item destroyed by a disenchanter (for example) could be restored via the use of this spell.On the XP cost: I waffled around quite a lot on that, ranging anywhere from 500 XP to 5,000 (which would give the true ressurection figure).  While I would've liked to have had that parity with true ressurection, I decided that, since it was an XP cost rather than a GP cost, that 5,000 was too expensive in a lot of cases (since the XP cost to create the magic item has already been paid once, anyway).  I, personally, allow the Undo Misfortune effect of wish to restore items (note the plural, there) disjoined in the previous round, which makes this spell a little bit redundant.I also considered tieing the XP cost into the caster level, or total caster level of the items so restored, but couldn't figure out a way to do so that I liked.  This was at the same time that I was thinking of changing the material component cost of life restoring magic to an XP component cost, and making the cost of such magic similar to that of simulacrum.  I gave up on that as too costly, but it might be something that I reconsider, based on the discussions going on re: your [life] seed.  I know that the goal is to keep these rules as cross-compatible with the standard rules as possible, but I generally prefer an XP cost for a spell as a balancing factor (and limiting factor, assuming that the rule that you cannot spend enough XP to cause yourself to lose a level remains intact) much more than a GP cost.Overall, I think this spell could use some tweaking around with to find an optimal balance for use in epic level situations, but I thought I'd throw it out there as something you guys could think about as regards mage's disjunction.Latersilver</blockquote>

Verification