Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marius Delphus" data-source="post: 1844277" data-attributes="member: 447">Not broken. Personally, I'd like to see some kind of &quot;sliding scale&quot; that relates [how easy a condition is to meet] to [how much of a discount it provides], but I do realize that something like that would require even more DM fiat, which tends to amuse powergamers and frustrate DMs.A particular spell-ending contingency can have more than one dimension, after all... forgive the first draft/stream-of-consciousness way of posting here, but I'm thinking at least the following things could potentially factor in:- Easier/harder to meet the contingency- Requires no/low-level/mid-level/high-level spellcasting
- Requires free/cheap/expensive materials
- Requires a very common/common/rare/very rare circumstance
- Requires a third party's cooperation/convincing/etc.
- Requires any one/exactly one interpretation of the contingency's wording- Caster cannot prevent the contingency from being met- Because caster's intervention meets the contingency
- Because victim can meet the contingency- Contingency limits the spell's effect- By making the spell less effective/ineffective in certain circumstances If you have access to any Ravenloft materials, the stuff on curse &quot;escape clauses&quot; is also good for plundering on this topic. Having the spell effect meets the &quot;quantified&quot; prerequisite for a good curse.... IIRC, there's also some stuff in Four Color to Fantasy (the &quot;kryptonite&quot; limitation) that might prod thinking along these lines.With a sliding scale, I think it'd be easier to make the contingency an up-front discount on the XP cost, rather than leaving this open-ended thing hanging around... though I also see a good reason it shouldn't be (letting characters fling permanent spells around cheaply may not be a good idea). But hey; that's what playtesting is for, right?&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marius Delphus, post: 1844277, member: 447"] Not broken. Personally, I'd like to see some kind of "sliding scale" that relates [how easy a condition is to meet] to [how much of a discount it provides], but I do realize that something like that would require even more DM fiat, which tends to amuse powergamers and frustrate DMs. A particular spell-ending contingency can have more than one dimension, after all... forgive the first draft/stream-of-consciousness way of posting here, but I'm thinking at least the following things could potentially factor in: - Easier/harder to meet the contingency [INDENT]- Requires no/low-level/mid-level/high-level spellcasting - Requires free/cheap/expensive materials - Requires a very common/common/rare/very rare circumstance - Requires a third party's cooperation/convincing/etc. - Requires any one/exactly one interpretation of the contingency's wording[/INDENT] - Caster cannot prevent the contingency from being met [INDENT]- Because caster's intervention meets the contingency - Because victim can meet the contingency[/INDENT] - Contingency limits the spell's effect [INDENT]- By making the spell less effective/ineffective in certain circumstances [/INDENT] If you have access to any [I]Ravenloft[/I] materials, the stuff on curse "escape clauses" is also good for plundering on this topic. Having the spell effect meets the "quantified" prerequisite for a good curse.... IIRC, there's also some stuff in [I]Four Color to Fantasy[/I] (the "kryptonite" limitation) that might prod thinking along these lines. With a sliding scale, I think it'd be easier to make the contingency an up-front discount on the XP cost, rather than leaving this open-ended thing hanging around... though I also see a good reason it shouldn't be (letting characters fling permanent spells around cheaply may not be a good idea). But hey; that's what playtesting is for, right? :heh: [/QUOTE]

Verification