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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3083133" data-attributes="member: 141">Agreed.  However, I will sometimes extract the values of factors by comparing non-epic spells.  I will express the difference in metamagic levels, convert to SP (by doubling) then divide by 6.  For example: fireball + heighten (+4 levels) + enhance (+4 levels) + delay (+3 levels)  = delayed blast fireball;  +11 levels = +22 SP, divided by 6 is approximately +4.  So dbf is +4 levels higher than fireball, but is a little weak for its level.  It would make a strong 6th level spell.  The point is that I am not using half-factors, but one-third-factors.  This is in a specialized research context- identifying the values of factors, not applying them.  With that caveat, I agree completely with your predicate.Tentatively yes.  The problem is if you allow switching a [Save: Reflex half] to a [Save: None] by requiring a ranged attack roll.  That is a significant enhancement; I'd guess about +6.Yes, although [touch <==> close] should be +/-4.Some metamagic values are safer than others.  Enhance (+4) is safe, and often doubles the damage of a seed; use it if you can.  Half of it (+2) mimics going from 10d6 to 15d6, and can be useful when analyzing non-epic spells.  Maximizing is not very safe.  Empowerings, especially in multiples, aren't very safe either.The only time I use Heighten is when I'm comparing non-epic spells; usually to extract the value of unknown factors.  My analysis of horrid wilting above is typical.  I'm also assuming that the spells I'm comparing are benchmarks.  If they are over- or under-powered then my numbers will be off.  Ideally I will have more than one benchmark, but that's not very common.Yes.I've been using "only affects living creatures = -4" a lot, and it seems solid.  I think that a narrower effect, like "only affects incorporeal and ethereal targets" is probably a -10.  Increases in utility might be more expensive than +4.  Something that overcame a specific immunity to mind-affecting spells might be +4, but overcoming a generic immunity should be more expensive (+10, and will often require a caster-level check).  These aren't common in non-epic spells that are made into seeds, but are good to keep in mind.I agree with the points quoted without comment.Yes.  And I think this is a promising route for dealing with immunities.I tend to screw up range modifiers; maybe I wouldn't if I used a better notation.  I'm getting better at remembering what I'm doing even when factors are expressed tersely; either that or I am getting better at ignoring my mistakes. <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 think you are right, though I'm unsure about including the "can affect incorporeal and ethereal creatures" clause.  And the "objects can't be targetted" clause.  Maybe make them both factors: +1 for the first, -1 for the second?  There's room for a little fine-tuning here.Divine damage would be similarly valued (+6 to +8) though it will have to be watched to ensure that it is not merely a cheap way of getting typeless damage.  Or something better than typeless damage; making it do no damage to good creatures but full damage to evil creatures (cf Purify Spell) would be about +4 or so.  If it was effectively typeless as  well... <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=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /></blockquote>

Verification