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: 3134492" data-attributes="member: 141">The irritating thing about the ELH entry is that it also costs +4 to change the effect from a ray to a target.  At the moment I think it is a good idea that there is a free toggle between them.  There are various subtle factors (related to concealment, spell turning and/or good touch AC) that might make a person go from one to another.I could see rays being restricted to seeds that normally have reflex or fortitude saves.  The x2 USP no-save version could be restricted to those three seeds.  And [afflict] - think ray of enfeeblement.I don't know of any rays that offer a reflex save; they are usually no-save (like scorching ray, polar ray or enervation), but disintegrate is exceptional in that it offers a fortitude partial save.  I was just about to say that the flavor of the save should change to Fortitude, but that the type should remain unchanged (half, negates, etc.).  But it occurs to me that there should be some compensation for braving a miss chance, and that if you are hit with a ray *something* should happen.  Perhaps the Save: negates spells could become Fortitude: partial, with the target being sickened for 1 round even on a successful save.  Making your enemy have -2 to weapon damage and most d20 rolls is a worthwhile result from a spell- better than nothing, anyway, but I don't think it is broken.  Whereas daze would be broken.  You can also score criticals with a ray; I don't think there is a defined effect if the spell is not a damaging one, is there?  Perhaps a penalty to the saving throw equal to the critical multiplier (normally -2 unless something strange is going on).  Would that be enough to balance the vagaries of high touch AC, concealment, etc.?  Too much?****Clouds are weird.  I was looking at cloudkill and incendiary cloud and they don't come out well at all.  If they allowed SR it might be doable, but I don't know how to handle the disallowance of SR.  And I don't know why cloudkill isn't the same level as incendiary cloud; 1d4 points of Con damage per round (save for half) should be worth at least as much as 4d6 fire, and the cloudkill lasts longer.****Re: AMCWere you going to have a "Spontaneous metamagic" feat to blunt the effect of AMC on metamagic specialists?  It could include access to some minor "metamagical techniques" in case they didn't know any +0 spell level metamagic feats.The Empower and Maximize factors aren't a problem as long as the jacobeans aren't stocking up on AMC; if a generalist optimizes their choices, they'll get results close to what the equations in post 360 predict.  Seed specialists will eventually outstrip the metamagic specialist if they have unrestricted use of AMC and the Empower factor.  That's only with AMC providing a 2 point mitigation to each spell, though.  Rather than putting in limitations on Empower and similar factors (I'm not enthusiastic about this category of restricted feats), I'd suggest changing the benefit of AMC so that a jacobean caster can get a 1 point mitigation up to twice per round. This is not necessarily to the player's detriment; quickened and immediate action spells are liable to become important at higher levels, and it might be a good idea to ensure that PCs don't find themselves short of mitigation.  At level 110 and AMC=1, the seed specialist would be throwing around 663d6 blasts; the metamagic specialist would do 1000d6.  Oh, and the generalist has to content himself with puny 333d6 blasts.  But if AMC=2, the seed specialist is throwing around blasts in excess of 1100d6.  And the metamagic specialist should be better than the seed specialist.  (This is also assuming that the metamagic specialist doesn't buy any other metamagic feats instead of AMC- if he does he'll fall further behind, sooner.  Enhance Spell is a must!)That's a good goal- are the eventual ratios (333, 663 and 1000) too divergent?  That's how far they've grown at 111th level; at lesser levels they are closer together.[edit] I'm getting myself confused by the math here.  If we are including a double empower in the base seed to make it 40d6, what happens if we add another double-empower factor (at +16)?  Do we get 80d6, or do we get 60d6?  I.e. is a double double a quadruple, or is it a triple (of the underlying 20d6).  I think my numbers above are screwed up; I was treating the seed as if it did 40d6 base, each +1 SP was +1d6, and an empower would add 20d6.My brain is kinda fuzzy right now, or I'd try to work out new equations.</blockquote>

Verification