Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Verequus" data-source="post: 1116370" data-attributes="member: 9135">Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to post the reply yesterday. Unfortunately, at first ENWorld wasn't reachable and then I didn't finished my post in time - I wrote several hours for this post... For space reasons I cut text from the quotes, if it isn't necessary for the understanding, and I leaving the clear points out, too. Hopefully my double quotes will be accepted... and triple quoting is sure hell <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I can feel your pain, because I lost an email two times before I used a text file for saving (then, of course, I had no problems...) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Okay, I can understand that you decided against Intelligence as bonus MP ability but you could have used Charisma instead like at a bard. This is the only decision so far I'm not so happy with it but it is probably because I'm accustomed to a bonus since I started to play AD&D. If you don't like this table, how about a feat like Toughness, just for MPs?Yes, I meant the formula 10 + (1/2 MP cost or spell level in the core rules) + Charisma bonus. Have we to substitute spell level to 1/2 MPs if we have to calculate a DC with the core rules? Also, in the core rules the save DC of standard magic item like a wand has the following formula: 10 + rounded down(1.5 * spell level). But because there is now no dependency between the usable MPs and the Charisma score, a spell has now a lower minimum save DC (5 + 1/2 spent MPs) and so a greater range of possible DCs. This means also that there has to be a new standard formula for setting the DC of a rolled standard magic item. In addition, I'm still one of those who want a minimum intelligence score for being able to cast a spell of a certain level. I can't just understand that someone who barely speaks a language can eventually leveling entire towns - especially that he came up with such a plan. If the good old formula 10 + x = needed score to cast spells of level x (of course converted to MPs) doesn't function anymore, I will use a plain minimum of 10. Or do you have a better idea? Instead a plain minimum or regarding why I should use your system in this point...Ah, that reduces EoM to a total of 268 spell lists. @Kannik, your new spell lists are now obsolete, because EoM can surely handle weather conditions, earthquakes and such catastrophes, can't it?Oh, there I drew a false conclusion. I thought, if you cast Evoke Fire 3/Gen 0, then you have 3d6 fire damage, which I can enhance further without increasing the "spell level", but I have to pay extra MPs, like the effect of a metamagic feat on a core spell. Please clarify that point.I just wanted to know, why the number for Range Long is 800 ft., because like I calculated it would be more logical to choose 750 ft. Your general explanation is interesting, though. Unfortunately you missed the last question of this section - if no, I would spent 1 MP for short  range and 1 MP for the extra 500 ft. to get a nearly long range for 2 MPs.Yes, I mean with standard classes core classes. In German, I associate "core" (while I don't watch Star Trek <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) more with the seed of a plum <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=":)" />, so I use "standard" instead. Now to the extra questions: Survived all magical skills (at least their uses - Intuit Direction was fusioned with Scry and Sight, for example)? What system of skill point spending do you use personally?I hope, "Magical skills are just like spells." will be clear to everyone in the final product. This also means, you can have scrolls of "Dispel Magic". That inspires me to following idea: Can someone use scrolls of basic spells and combine them or known spell lists at casting? How flexible can be used a scroll? If you have Evoke Fire 5 with 3 MPs for damage and two for another enhancement, but you need only the damage, can you "skip" the enhancement? I think that it shouldn't be possible to replace an enhancement until you know the spell list but in that case you wouldn't need the scroll anyway - until you can so break the "Max spent MPs = current caster level". If you can't combine scroll on the fly shouldn't it be possible to use them at least in item creation processes?I saw that Barbara has an enchanted armor in the latter example but I didn't conclude that she had the same armor also in the prior example. But that doesn't matter anyways. I discovered that I like antimagic which is similar in functionality to spell resistance because it represents the principle "There is always someone who can beat you" - stolen from DragonBall <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> . Also look out for inconsistencies like that Ursus knows a spell list and then not - or at least of the same spell action types.If someone casts "Summon Monster V", then you must know the suitable Create [Creature] spell in order to dispel the spell without penalty (assuming succeeded Spellcraft checks). But because there is no Divination Spell but only a skill you can circumvent only a penalty if the Divination skill counts as a spell. In that case it could be relevant how many ranks you have in Divination but I'm unsure in that point.I like the idea of not getting automatically visible - that's something what I wanted the whole time.No comment on the Blindsense and Blindsight statement? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />It seems I have to get accustomed first to that flexibility. But I hope one can get still inherent bonis to abilities, probably through a Transform spell, can't I? Oh, how can someone create a ring of three wishes? Is that possible without having to know every 268 spell lists? They do, but there a three major differences: Firstly, with Quick Counterspelling you can dispel several spells in one round, secondly the dispels are treated as standard actions and thirdly don't use a part of the normal action. Otherwise is Inquisitor Counterspell nearly identical to Reactive Counterspell from Magic of Faerun besides you give up your next action totally. The second point violates the full round-action rule - how about the change of the prerequisites of my feat to "Inquisitor Counterspell, having Dispel Magic skill as signature spell"? If there is no feat like Quick Counterspell available, then magical combat has good use of its sword, but nothing comparable to a shield - or better only half the possibilities of a shield.I bought EoM one week after its release. It isn't surprising that I was interested enough to comment the whole file because I wrote CZ already for the original EoM several very long emails which has been already credited in the erratas (I really didn't expect that great honor <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> ). So if you want me to comment the whole revision before its release - I would do it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.EoM revised seems to be the near perfect implementation of a flexible, yet balanced magic system - you and CZ managed to create a self-contained system which allows every theoritical spell with everytime the same effect (prismatic spells need wild magic, like I told CZ, but that's why Wild Spellcraft is in Lyceian Arcana <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ). That's all because you separated two extra elements and the parameters like range and duration from the spell lists, you consolidated the spell lists and rearranged the effects - EoM revised is clearly superior to the original EoM and I would recycle my printed exemplar if it wouldn't contain the one chapter which isn't included anymore. Could you please release a separate PDF-file with that chapter, at least to the old customers? So I can print on copy without looking like being separated.Some new questions:-Will be a list of converted core spells published?-In your sampler you wrote in the Summary of Changes, that "a 1 MP Evoke spell will never deal more than 3d6 points of damage". I thought that 1 MP would bring only 1d6 points of damage.-Is Cursecraft now a use of Transform Spells?-How is the spell list progression? Do casters get normally 2 spell lists per level but at first (or fourth) level 3 and then every four levels after the first (or fourth) again 3?-Do you already know a spell which violates Rule 1?-What happened to Disjunction?-Is there a possibility to create no save-spells?Some unrelated questions:-Is FTCF modern already updated to 3.5? Especially the Damage Reduction power is out-of-date. Has now every ability a boost power?-How about a book which covers a point-buy system as a replacement for classes? I know of one which uses point-buy with classes but I like to have a system with no classes.</blockquote>

Verification