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: 3190100" data-attributes="member: 141">Yeah, 14 doesn't look pretty.  But if you compare the factors with range included it is rather nice. I.e.single target at close range: 6 single target at long range: 10 mass effect at close range: 20 mass effect at long range: 24Of course that means that a medium mass effect would be 22, which isn't pretty, but I don't see how that can be avoided.  Well, 16, 18, 20 would work, but thats a rather generous pricing. This would correspond to Mass Effect being +10.  I borrowed this from Invisibility Sphere. However the difference between a "non-sticky" emanation and a "sticky" mass effect is 10.  +4 might be a good modifier for the in-between case when the effect is conditional on you being within the emanation, but which allows others to benefit from it:single target at close range: 6 emanation at close range: 10 conditional at close range: 14? 16? mass effect at close range: 20If mass effect at close range is reduced to 16, then conditional effect is probably going to be 12 or 14.  12 is, of course, the prettier number.I'm just worried that with feats like Magnipotent and Arcane Accouterments that the exponential factors are going to explode.  So I want to be a shade on the cautious side. Although I like the pretty numbers too.Well, widen increases all three dimensions at the cost of +3.  That would double the dimensions of each cube.  Which could be unwieldy.  Having smaller cubes gives you a lot more fine control with sculpting your effect.  I'd propose that +3 could double the number of cubes OR double the dimensions of each cube, at the caster's option. You get more volume and area the second way, but you get more precision the first way.</blockquote>

Verification