[FR] Spellfire Wielder feat?

[rhammer2]

You always get a save if the spell allows a save.

Another Question.

For the remaining power levels that do not get absorbed, do you give the spellfire wielder a saving throw on any left over effect? Or would you rule no saving throw since the spellfire wielder is intentionally trying to absorb the spell?

 

[kreynolds]

If the spell only has 20% of affecting you AND it only affects you by 20% of its full power, then it isnt really 20% anymore...

Sure it is. It's the remaining 20% of a spell that may or may not do a thing. If the spell's effects can be reduced with a percentage, then that's what I do. For example, if 1 level of a 5th level spell gets through, and that spell's effect is a -5 penalty to the target's saving throws, then the result is simply a -1 penalty to saves.

If I can't reduce a spell's effects like that, then I just use a percentage of success/failure.

 

[buchw001]

Originally posted by theoremtank
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another Question.

For the remaining power levels that do not get absorbed, do you give the spellfire wielder a saving throw on any left over effect? Or would you rule no saving throw since the spellfire wielder is intentionally trying to absorb the spell?
---------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by rhammer2
---------------------------------------------------------------
You always get a save if the spell allows a save.
---------------------------------------------------------------


Would you decrease the save if only a percentage of the spell is taking effect?

 

[kreynolds]

Would you decrease the save if only a percentage of the spell is taking effect?

Nah. The spell's effectiveness is already getting hammered enough.

 

[buchw001]

An Example for clarity

So let's say the the character absorbs 2 levels of a 3rd level suggestion spell that a 9th level wizard casts at him.

That leaves 1/3 of the spell to affect the PC.

He is allowed a will saving throw to completely negate this remaining 1/3 of the spell (normal DC).

Lets say he fails. The spell is therefore still effective but...


The spell will only last for 3 hours (instead of 9) or until completed.



Does this sound good to everyone?

More examples might help...

 

[kreynolds]

Re: An Example for clarity

Does this sound good to everyone?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

Re: An Example for clarity

Does this sound good to everyone?

Either that or the spell still lasts 9 hours, but only has 33% chance of affecting the PC in the first place.

TS

 

[buchw001]

Re: Re: An Example for clarity

Either that or the spell still lasts 9 hours, but only has 33% chance of affecting the PC in the first place.

TS

So which sounds better?

DM's decision at random, or possibly BOTH 33% AND reduced duration

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: An Example for clarity

So which sounds better?

Like I said before, for me, if I can reduce something in the spell by a percentage, I'll just do that. In this case, I can reduce the duration, so I'll stick with that. If I can't reduce anything, I'll use a % chance.

DM's decision at random, or possibly BOTH 33% AND reduced duration

I definately wouldn't do both.

 

[the Jester]

I'd go with the three hours, not the 33% chance to affect you.

I guess I'm pretty much with kreynolds on this one.