Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 1663240" data-attributes="member: 892">Not to worry, I have no problems with criticisms of ideas, so long as they are not criticisms of persons: [Checks carefully to make certain my mother was not insulted]  Nope, I've got no problems with your criticisms.  <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=":)" />That said, I will try to clarify my idea a little.  I wasn't saying that the illusionist would have to learn Evoke lists or Summon lists.  Rather, the illusionist would get the temporary damage *as if* she had poured the MP's she spent on illusion components, instead, into evoke components that she does not know.  So she would calculate the damage (continuing or not) as if using those evoke enhancements, but would not need to know a single evoke spell.  The illusionist would need to learn Charm if she wanted to get spells to affect critters that are mindless (using that lovely "Charm works vs. mindless critters" loophole as a component, I was thinking).Yeah, I was worried about introducing a new mechanic (temporary damage).  I was trying to make it as close to temporary hit points as possible (if you like, they could be thought of as temporary anti-hp), to soften the blow.  The trouble is, if I use "real" damage, I am in danger of making either evocation/summon spells obsolete, or making illusion spells that do "real" damage pointless (after all, why not simply be an evoker?).  If I use "nonlethal" damage, I am stepping on the toes of a specific evoke spell that covers that already.  So necessity became the mother of invention.  Or perhaps reinvention: oddly enough, it does fit in with some early D&D campaigns I have been in (where after the fight is over, the damage you took from illusiory, but believed, monsters/effects was actually painful/damaging, but eventually "went away" as if it had never been), and "instant death" illusion effects equalled unconsciousness.  (Am I thinking Basic D&D here?  Where is Diaglo when you need him?)  <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=":)" />In defence of temporary damage, if the DM wishes, she could keep track of this damage and not tell the player it is temporary (assuming the player does not suspect an illusion).  This might require the DM to ask the player to roll a will save w/o saying why, or else to just roll the player's will save, however.  Thus sneaky DM's can continue to be sneaky. <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=":)" />I was also toying with the idea of the "death" effect effectivly "costing" xd6 of the damage that was done (similar to the Heal spells "costing" xd6 healing with their various enhancements).  (I am trying to get as close to Phantasmal Killer as I can, here, while realizing that EoM tries to give up some power for flexibility).  But as it stands, a fort save vs. the specialist's 8 MP "death" effect would net 4d6 DA, which isn't that different from the 3d6 DA of the SRD for PK.Anyhow, thank you for your comments.</blockquote>

Verification