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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="da chicken" data-source="post: 492691" data-attributes="member: 5634">The point is, the spell becomes too powerful for NPCs if it ages.  There's a reason aging is no longer used as a balancing mechanic.  You won't find it anywhere in any WotC published material.  It balances the game for PCs and not for NPCs.  Ultimately, this is why no-save miasma is a very bad spell, and why "triple natural 20 = death" is a bad rule for PCs.I don't know about you, but in the games I play and run, the PCs never have all the advantages.  NPCs are always more plentiful, and often more powerful.  NPCs after level 8 or so almost always know that the PCs are coming, and after level 12 they start to know when they're attacking.NPCs don't need the "advantage" of an unbalanced spell because the PCs have it hard enough already when the game is fair.No, but it is reasonable.  Ah, but it stacks with everything.  Meaning you can get an epic AC bonus from non-epic armor (+5 mithral shirt of speed = +13 AC, +7 max Dex, light, no check penalty).  Additionally, while you might lose the bonus in some circumstances, the bonus will apply at times when an armor bonus or natural armor bonus would not (touch AC, incorporeal attacks, et al).  It should be worth +4.Note also, that while a natural armor bonus is decidedly worse than a deflection bonus, a ring of protection +X and an amulet of natural armor +X cost the same.  All non "armor" AC bonuses are costed by: bonus * bonus * 2,000 gp, whereas normal armor bonuses are bonus * bonus * 1,000 gp.  That's why bracers of armor are cheaper than rings of protection.  Meaning you're already getting a break by calling it +4.And the extra partial action?  Well, there's a weapon enchantment, speed, that grants an extra attack for a +4 bonus.  A partial action is better than that in every conceivable way, making it +5 minimum.  Gee, now it appears the overall bonus should be closer to +9 or +10!This is all moot, BTW, as the most recent issue of the Main FAQ changes it to work exactly like boots of speed and costs +2.Inconsistent?  With what?  Your opinion?Look, you can't cost a permanent haste effect as if you were just making any 3rd level spell permanent.  You don't get to ignore game design just because you find a cheaper way to price something.[i/]  If the spell provides AC bonuses, you have to price them as AC bonuses.  Proper game design involves not allowing players to get something for nothing, and you're ignoring the fact that haste has a very limited duration.  If we look at Persistant Spell (which doesn't apply to haste, but it serves as a good example), you must spend +4 levels for an (effectively) permanent spell.  Meaning a permanent haste spell would be about 7th level.What did you say earlier?  +7 would be 8th level?  Gee, isn't that kinda close?I don't care about haste.  There are other things in the game that are blatantly badly designed (harm, polymorph other, simulacrum, gate).And if we're talking about spells, we're necessarily talking about components of the system, and not the system itself.  Nobody is claiming the initiative system doesn't work, or that combat actions are messed up.My "intent" was to make three points:1. Aging is a bad mechanic.  It was purposely designed out of the system.2. d20 Modern uses a nerfed from of haste, which people who find the spell too powerful might want to look at.3. WotC staff has been quoted as saying that speed, as presented in DotF, would more correctly calculate out to about +7.</blockquote>

Verification