Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Turjan" data-source="post: 2485282" data-attributes="member: 3477">I thought I made that pretty clear: Spell costs. If you take an effect like &quot;invisibility&quot;, then this is in and itself quite useful and would be assigned a certain cost. The spell duration would be another cost factor. In a modular point buy system, each of these effects would have fixed costs. E.g., the duration cost would have to be measured against what you wanted to pay for making an &quot;invisibility&quot; spell with a duration of half a day. In a combat or challenge example (e.g., sneaking into some enemy camp), this duration would be infinitely more valuable than in some spell granting shelter for the night (like &quot;rope trick&quot;), and therefore the cost of this &quot;duration&quot; would be relatively high. The same would be true for each and every effect included in combination spells. As these effects all have some uses in and themselves, they would be expensive as a building block in a modular spell. In a modular system, the point costs for flavourful non-combat combination spells would skyrocket to ridiculous heights without any comparable value in game terms.No, the problem is that they are not included in the stock spell, which makes the equivalent combination spell too expensive for what it does. Obviously, &quot;invisible&quot; and &quot;ethereal&quot; are not two redundant factors. Invisibility is no protection against monsters using scent or touch. Etherealness doesn't protect from inhabitants of the ethereal plane.I understand this. My problem is, that the same modifiers are not always worth the same, depending on the situation and the purpose of the spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Turjan, post: 2485282, member: 3477"] I thought I made that pretty clear: Spell costs. If you take an effect like "invisibility", then this is in and itself quite useful and would be assigned a certain cost. The spell duration would be another cost factor. In a modular point buy system, each of these effects would have fixed costs. E.g., the duration cost would have to be measured against what you wanted to pay for making an "invisibility" spell with a duration of half a day. In a combat or challenge example (e.g., sneaking into some enemy camp), this duration would be infinitely more valuable than in some spell granting shelter for the night (like "rope trick"), and therefore the cost of this "duration" would be relatively high. The same would be true for each and every effect included in combination spells. As these effects all have some uses in and themselves, they would be expensive as a building block in a modular spell. In a modular system, the point costs for flavourful non-combat combination spells would skyrocket to ridiculous heights without any comparable value in game terms. No, the problem is that they are [b]not[/b] included in the stock spell, which makes the equivalent combination spell too expensive for what it does. Obviously, "invisible" and "ethereal" are not two redundant factors. Invisibility is no protection against monsters using scent or touch. Etherealness doesn't protect from inhabitants of the ethereal plane. I understand this. My problem is, that the same modifiers are not always worth the same, depending on the situation and the purpose of the spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification