Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 3102508" data-attributes="member: 4303">Random Stuff.Concerns re: the permathrall are noted. You've got me thinking about permanencies & contingencies as well.The original 'contingent upon trigger' factor was +20 (from contingency at SP = 2 x spell level +10). As we're dealing with 2 x level +4 now, this would equate to  a +14 SP factor.I would suggest making a +15 factor for 'contingent effect:'  this isn't entirely baseless. Consider a hypothetical [contingency] seed - one of the predicted benefits of such a seed would be that its effects extend to affect epic spells.A [contingency] seed might be SP 30: 14 (5th-level) +6 (10 mins -> 1 action casting) + 6 (at 2SP per additional spell level capable of being made contingent above 6th to 9th) + 4 (extend remit to [epic] effects). But if the [contingency] seed is acting in the manner of a secondary seed, it should incur half of this SP value - i.e. +15. It should also have a maximum duration of 20 days, through the contingency spell. If you were to include a range factor (personal -> 1200 ft.), then the vale of a contingent factor would rise to +20: I'm not sure whether this is desirable; +15 is probably enough.*When I initially suggested the 250 xp. / +1 SP for permanence, I excluded the 'make spell permanent' factor because I was anticipating higher SPs across the board: a lot of seed-tightening has occurred since then, and I'm thinking maybe it should be included.The [permanency] seed might be SP 32: 14 (5th-level) +4 (reduce casting time) +10 (sweeping flexibility from permanency), +4 (extend seed to epic effects). As it would effectively be a secondary seed, it should also be half of this value as a factor - i.e. +16.A +16 factor would merely allow the spell to be made permanent, with a subsequent investment in XP. You are charging twice for the permanency, once in spell development, and once again in the added XP cost - but like I said, when I was considering the original formula, I hadn't anticipated so many useful spells available at SP 24 without mitigation. 250xp/+1 SP should stand - but all permanency effects are effectively raised by 4000xp across the board. At a minimum USP of 40, the baseline for making an epic spell permanent would start at a nice, round 10,000 XP.*This, in turn got me thinking about base seeds, secondary seeds and descriptive seeds, and how they should fit together. The mitigating factor to the [compel] component of call Graz'zt had been bugging me - it's way wonky.There's a variety of ways of addressing this, and I think the simplest way is to reduce the value of a descriptive seed to +6. Not because of call Graz'zt, though.I have to say that I think that adding half the value of a secondary seed is right. If you were to combine [call] and [compel], say, to use the full value of each seed would be analogous to making delayed blast fireball a 14th-level spell. If you consider the [compel] seed a metamagic effect applied to [call] - metamagic is necessarily inefficient - then you'd expect the SPs to simply stack. But its not metamagic, its a new spell (of a higher 'level') which is more efficient than the simple sum of its component parts. If half-factors work (I think they're a pretty good model), then half of the SP value of a secondary seed should work as well.It's nonsensical to mitigate a secondary seed to the point where it's cheaper than a descriptive seed, and we've defined already that a -6 limitation is a 'major limitation.' We don't have the option of saying 'mitigating a secondary seed uses half the normal mitigating factor.' Effectively, this equates a descriptive seed with a 'secondary seed which suffers a major or greater limitation.' I'm not saying that every secondary seed which is mitigated by 6 points automatically becomes a descriptive seed, but I would suggest that no matter now much its effectiveness is reduced, its value cannot be reduced to less than 6. I'm talking about internal seed factors here (specifically limitations), rather than generic mitigating factors (such as rituals).That said, it might be interesting to say that the minimum SP of a spell is = 24 +6/additional seed. It would delay 2-seed spells to 27th level, 3-seed spells to 33rd level, and probably many aggregates to 39th level.  If a descriptive seed is just that - descriptive - then it should not be subject to any factors at all.Incidentally, I've used the term compound spell to refer to any epic spell which contains 2 or more seeds, as opposed to single-seed spell. (Imaginative, eh?) I have no attachment to either term, something flashier is fine. I draw a distinction between compound spells and aggregates: compound spells obey the regular laws of construction, aggregates somehow twist or bypass them; they obey a higher set of laws. If deific magic routinely used aggregates, it would explain a lot.Trying to capture aggregates mechanically is tricky, but I'd like to try. Ideally, I'd like a set of principles which underpin them, which make them replicable. At least one of each aggregate's parameters is whacky - if [weather] combines with [afflict] in a normal compound spell, target trumps area, 1200 feet trumps 2 miles, 200 minutes trumps 48 hours, etc. and the result is pretty lame. With an aggregate, the [afflict] seed is superimposed onto [weather] and everyone within 2 miles is blinded - or whatever. One of the spell's parameters (in this case, a massive area effect vs. a single target)  prevails when it shouldn't.Maybe the thing which distinguishes aggregates should be that each possesses some kind of 'dominant parameter;' perhaps they could all be rendered sensible in that light. I dunno. Just random stuff.</blockquote>

Verification