Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 3083047" data-attributes="member: 4303">Actually, i've screwed up pretty badly  <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" /> - a lot of my calculations have been based on the fact that dbf is a 6th-level spell; in fact it's 7th (duh!). All of my metamagic arguments are wrong. I need to rethink.Me too.Me too. Unfortunately, sometimes mine are bogus because they are predicated on false assumptions.Can we agree on (have we already agreed on?) a common set of half-factors for seed tinkering before we move on? If you can answer each point in succession it would help, as I'm getting confused here.Predicate: Metamagic (and hence factors which modify seeds during spell development) is inefficient. When balancing seed construction, half-factors (which generally correspond to the mitigating factor value) more accurately portray the real value in the differences in seed parameters.Half-factor values:1) Changing from a ray to a targeted effect should be a free toggle.2) Range increment half-factors should be +/-2.3) Duration increment half-factors should be +/-4.4) Other metamagic effects should simply use their equivalent metamagic value - e.g. increase damage by 50% = +2.5) Changing the [target = creature touched] to an [area = 20 ft. radius emanation centered on a creature touched] half-factor should be +/-6.6) There is no half-factor based upon changing a seed's Save DC. (The Save DC is always 20 + relevant modifier).7) A half-factor which represents a special condition of a seed based on its projected power as a 10th-level spell has a half-factor value of +/-4. These include:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The ability of the [dispel] seed to counter a wide range of effects not normally subject to dispel magic.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The resistance of the [afflict] seed to nonepic attempts to counter it (wish and miracle notwithstanding).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The ability of the [destroy] seed to affect an antimagic shell or prismatic effect upon a successful caster level check.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The ability of the [reveal] seed to penetrate both epic and nonepic attempts to foil it upon a successful caster level check (mind blank, I'm looking at you).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The ability of the [conceal] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it (including discern location). Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The ability of the [delude] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it. Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.</li> </ul>8) Other flexibility and limitation half-factors which provide a substantive increase or restriction of utility should be +/-4.My feeling has always been that the opposed caster level check should assume more significance when seeds come into conflict with one another, and with nonepic effects which can't otherwise be trumped.I know that we're using different notation here (+/-4 vs. +8/-4)</blockquote>

Verification