Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8118926" data-attributes="member: 20323">For me personally, you're headed in the right direction. Creative adaptation of spells, like you did for sanctuary, is a good step. Just a couple thoughts/tweaks:1. You've removed the Concentration component from spirit guardians, which is a key method to breaking the spell. Yes, an experienced DM might know, but the point of writing out the spells is to avoid having to memorize / lookup, right?2. I think your attempt to include all/most of the priest's spells in your revised stats is working against you. With such a burly radiant mace attack, does it really need both spiritual weapon and spirit guardians?3. Incorporating multiple recharge conditions in one creature makes it a pain to run more than one of said monster. That's why in 4e you rarely saw a monster with more than one recharge power, and when you did it was typically a solo. Think: Is it easier to just tick off spell slots or is it easier to keep track of 3 separate recharge conditions? Personally, I'd say the former is easier.4. When creatively adapting spells – such as sanctuary – for NPC use, I try not to just make it an overt power-up but also to include some interesting weakness. The reaction is a power-up, right? So how might this particular priest's version of sanctuary have an interesting workaround? Maybe anyone bearing a holy symbol of the priest's deity automatically succeeds their save or outright cannot be targeted?5. Writing spells out in long-form is a sure way to bloat a stat block. I use an abbreviated form, like this: Action; 60 ft; Conc. 1 min; 20-ft radius sphere; Dex save; 4d6 fire (half).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 8118926, member: 20323"] For me personally, you're headed in the right direction. Creative adaptation of spells, like you did for [I]sanctuary,[/I] is a good step. Just a couple thoughts/tweaks: 1. You've removed the Concentration component from [I]spirit guardians[/I], which is a key method to breaking the spell. Yes, an experienced DM might know, but the point of writing out the spells is to avoid having to memorize / lookup, right? 2. I think your attempt to include all/most of the priest's spells in your revised stats is working against you. With such a burly radiant mace attack, does it really need both [I]spiritual weapon[/I] and [I]spirit guardians[/I]? 3. Incorporating multiple recharge conditions in one creature makes it a pain to run more than one of said monster. That's why in 4e you rarely saw a monster with more than one recharge power, and when you did it was typically a solo. Think: Is it easier to just tick off spell slots or is it easier to keep track of 3 separate recharge conditions? Personally, I'd say the former is easier. 4. When creatively adapting spells – such as [I]sanctuary[/I] – for NPC use, I try not to just make it an overt power-up but also to include some interesting weakness. The reaction is a power-up, right? So how might this particular priest's version of sanctuary have an interesting workaround? Maybe anyone bearing a holy symbol of the priest's deity automatically succeeds their save or outright cannot be targeted? 5. Writing spells out in long-form is a sure way to bloat a stat block. I use an abbreviated form, like this: [I]Action; 60 ft; Conc. 1 min; 20-ft radius sphere; Dex save; 4d6 fire (half).[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification