Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 3070288" data-attributes="member: 4303">Thinking about deafness/blindness. Man, that's a nasty spell. 2nd level. 300 ft. V only. Permanent. Technically, even at SP 8 touch range you should be able to do a lot more: touch attack to 300 ft. targeted is +14 factors, somatic is +2.Say we double the original factor (+8 per sense afflicted), you could still render someone blind, deaf and incapable of smell at SP8 touch with V and S components. Too much?Edit - using range factors to this extent to extrapolate new SPs is problematic, and skews any sense of proportion. I think we need to reconsider factors for range (amongst other things!).1) Touch to 75ft. ray at +4 is derived from Reach Spell (CD, p.75). I suppose it should stay.2) +4 SP toggle for ranged touch <-> targeted is a holdover from the ELH, and might be better reduced to +2; although IME ranged touch attacks always hit at these levels, and the caster will gladly snatch a penalty to the opponent's saving throw.3) Increase range by 100% at +2 is derived from Enlarge Spell. I'd like an additional factor which simply moves you up the tree; 75 ft. -> 300 ft. -> 1200 ft. I think this should be +4 - there will still be instances where it is beneficial for a spell to utilise a single doubling of range. And I think a metamagic feat which increases the range from medium to long at +2 spell levels (presumably w/ Enlarge Spell as a prereq) would be perfectly reasonable, even underpowered.My feeling is that when range increases are converted to range decreases with a mitigating factor, they should receive half of the benefit - i.e. to reduce a seed with a  range of 1200 ft. to 300 ft. would net you -2 on the SP. I'm still thinking -4 is too steep as a mitigating factor for duration reduction. Actually, no. [Compel] needs some kind of limiting clause, and that irks me - this is my only real obstacle: I absolutely love the idea of a cheap, effective, swift action 1-round mage armor as an epic spell. But I don't want to reduce the duration of [compel] (say by extending the range); nor do I want to exclude it from having its duration reduced. Nor do I want to change the root spell to something like suggestion, and have a bunch of subseeds based on dominate person and dominate monster.That said, I think the real problem is that the root spell is 9th level - these are precariously balanced, by any standards. Meh.Edit: it occurs to me that if the same pattern holds true for duration increases as it does for range increases, a factor which increases the duration by one category should be at +8 if it mitigates at -4. This actually feels about right - increasing duration generally affords much more utility than increasing range: +4 levels of metamagic to change a 20 minute spell to a 20 hour spell. I wouldn't allow this as a factor - for obvious reasons (the 'F' word again) - but as a 'virtual factor' it might be worth considering when retooling seeds.</blockquote>

Verification