Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 5002098" data-attributes="member: 40398"><a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B13rBX1CAB0XOTJmYjdhNTAtMTUxNS00YjU2LThkM2QtMDE4OGIyMTRjMzU3&amp;hl=en" target="_blank">Revised Spell Book</a>Didn't know I had such a reputation to maintain!Whoops, let's try this instead:Wall of ForceEvocation [Force]Level: (Arcane) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Component: M, S, VCasting Time: 1 standard actionRange: 30 ft.Effect: Wall of 200 square feetDuration: 5 minutesSaving Throw: NoneSpell Resistance: NoYou create an immobile wall of force with stats as shown below. The wall is immune to most effects that allow saves, except for Disintegrate which automatically destroys an appropriate portion of the wall.Spell&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hit&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Armor&nbsp; &nbsp; DamageLevel&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Points&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Class&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Reduction1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 23&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 34&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 45&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 56&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 67&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 23&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 78&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 25&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 89&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 27&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 910&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10/CL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 29&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10I'm still not convinced that force effects need DR, but well...peer pressure, I guess. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />Maybe my text isn't clear, so here's how I see Save-or-Loses working: An 11th level party faces off against the Boss (a 15th level caster) and his goons (CR 7 whatevers). The PCs can't SoL the bad guys, because they all meet the immunity threshold for any SoL spell the PCs could cast. But the bad guys can't SoL the PCs either, because the PCs are 11th level which meets the immunity threshold for any SoL spell that the Boss could cast.Yeah, that's the idea -- SoLs should be for show, not for serious challenges. Something to make peasants scream in terror; something that PCs hear stories of and say &quot;We've got to take down that s.o.b.!&quot;Then we have fundamentally different ideas about what SoLs should do. I don't want any single spell having such a drastic effect on the fate of anyone; your ideas simply make it a bit less likely for SoLs to take effect.*I like your damage per round idea, though I'd prefer HP damage. I'll work on it.Multi what?How we imagine spells is somewhat arbitrary, but I like rules to have as little arbitrariness as possible. Why? Because then we end up with character concepts that aren't viable until X level, necromancers for example, because someone arbitrarily decided that Animate Dead should be a 4th level arcane spell. (Although since these are all house rules anyway, any DM who wanted to use my spells would be free as a bird to place all the arbitrary restrictions on them they pleased.)Maybe I'm failing a Spot check here, but where now?Not a bad idea.Okay, I have to ask EVERYONE: What makes you think that HD are a better measure of challenge than CR?I don't know how viable they are, because they haven't been play tested. They are a step in the right direction though.Haven't thought about it, in that way. Right now I'm just focussing on pulling all spells closer toward 'average' balanced power -- which I figure is the power level of the better 3rd level spells.*Not to pick on anyone, but this reminds me of 2e's over-abundance of required Strength checks to do things like lift a treasure chest -- outside of combat. It was bizarre that the 3 Str wizard could get lucky enough to be able to haul all the phat lewts home, while the 18/00 Str fighter could get unlucky enough to fail. So at some point a splatbook came out, I don't remember which one, that suggested a solution to the problem: roll two Strength checks instead of one! But of course that's not really a solution, because all it does is make the bizarre [and unwanted] consequence one degree less likely to happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tequila Sunrise, post: 5002098, member: 40398"] [url=http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B13rBX1CAB0XOTJmYjdhNTAtMTUxNS00YjU2LThkM2QtMDE4OGIyMTRjMzU3&hl=en]Revised Spell Book[/url] Didn't know I had such a reputation to maintain! Whoops, let's try this instead: [B]Wall of Force[/B] Evocation [Force] Level: (Arcane) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Component: M, S, V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 30 ft. Effect: Wall of 200 square feet Duration: 5 minutes Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No You create an immobile wall of force with stats as shown below. The wall is immune to most effects that allow saves, except for Disintegrate which automatically destroys an appropriate portion of the wall. Spell Hit Armor Damage Level Points Class Reduction 1 6/CL 11 1 2 6/CL 13 2 3 7/CL 15 3 4 7/CL 17 4 5 8/CL 19 5 6 8/CL 21 6 7 9/CL 23 7 8 9/CL 25 8 9 10/CL 27 9 10 10/CL 29 10 I'm still not convinced that force effects need DR, but well...peer pressure, I guess. :heh: Maybe my text isn't clear, so here's how I see Save-or-Loses working: An 11th level party faces off against the Boss (a 15th level caster) and his goons (CR 7 whatevers). The PCs can't SoL the bad guys, because they all meet the immunity threshold for any SoL spell the PCs could cast. But the bad guys can't SoL the PCs either, because the PCs are 11th level which meets the immunity threshold for any SoL spell that the Boss could cast. Yeah, that's the idea -- SoLs should be for show, not for serious challenges. Something to make peasants scream in terror; something that PCs hear stories of and say "We've got to take down that s.o.b.!" Then we have fundamentally different ideas about what SoLs should do. I don't want any single spell having such a drastic effect on the fate of anyone; your ideas simply make it a bit less likely for SoLs to take effect.* I like your damage per round idea, though I'd prefer HP damage. I'll work on it. Multi what? How we imagine spells is somewhat arbitrary, but I like rules to have as little arbitrariness as possible. Why? Because then we end up with character concepts that aren't viable until X level, necromancers for example, because someone arbitrarily decided that Animate Dead should be a 4th level arcane spell. (Although since these are all house rules anyway, any DM who wanted to use my spells would be free as a bird to place all the arbitrary restrictions on them they pleased.) Maybe I'm failing a Spot check here, but where now? Not a bad idea. Okay, I have to ask EVERYONE: What makes you think that HD are a better measure of challenge than CR? I don't know how viable they are, because they haven't been play tested. They are a step in the right direction though. Haven't thought about it, in that way. Right now I'm just focussing on pulling all spells closer toward 'average' balanced power -- which I figure is the power level of the better 3rd level spells. *Not to pick on anyone, but this reminds me of 2e's over-abundance of required Strength checks to do things like lift a treasure chest -- [i]outside[/i] of combat. It was bizarre that the 3 Str wizard could get lucky enough to be able to haul all the phat lewts home, while the 18/00 Str fighter could get unlucky enough to fail. So at some point a splatbook came out, I don't remember which one, that suggested a solution to the problem: roll two Strength checks instead of one! But of course that's not really a solution, because all it does is make the bizarre [and unwanted] consequence one degree less likely to happen. [/QUOTE]

Verification