Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3205265" data-attributes="member: 141">My gut tells me that a binary resolution system would be better; category A and B/C only.I'm thinking that some technically non-epic magic might be classed as epic effects for the purpose of interacting with this system.&nbsp; Wish and an extraordinary miracle, prismatic sphere- these would require OCLCs to resolve.&nbsp; Perhaps antimagic field is a pseudo-epic effect too, as is mind blank; they have that same kind of absolutist language that distinguish them from most other spells.How does Matt fit into this system?&nbsp; Can he make an &quot;class B&quot; disintegrate by heightening it enough?Maybe these &quot;pseudo-epic&quot; spells make an OCLC at a penalty based on the spell level. Mind blank resists [compel] if it succeeds at an OCLC with a -4 penalty.&nbsp; Antimagic field resists [dispel] if it succeeds at an OCLC with a -8 penalty.&nbsp; Set the penalty at -2 per spell level below 10.&nbsp; The penalty can be reduced by Heightening the effect, and can be eliminated if Heightened to spell level 10 or higher.Actually, if we take absolute language as the criterion, probably all kinds of spells can be folded into this mechanic.&nbsp; Feeblemind says it can only be removed by a handful of spells- this suggests that an epic spell needs to make an OCLC check to trump it, and feeblemind takes a -10 penalty in resolving the check.&nbsp; The description of death ward says it provides complete protection against energy drain, and so [harrow] brushes it aside if death ward fails the OCLC. The odds are rather in [harrow]'s favor, since death ward will have a -12 penalty to the check.Does that make sense?&nbsp; Aside from a few category A effects, epic effects can overwhelm opposed absolutes with an OCLC.&nbsp; When non-epic spells clash with epic spells, they take a penalty to this check based on the amount by which they fall short of spell level 10.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 3205265, member: 141"] My gut tells me that a binary resolution system would be better; category A and B/C only. I'm thinking that some technically non-epic magic might be classed as epic effects for the purpose of interacting with this system. [i]Wish[/i] and an extraordinary [i]miracle[/i], [i]prismatic sphere[/i]- these would require OCLCs to resolve. Perhaps [i]antimagic field[/i] is a pseudo-epic effect too, as is [i]mind blank[/i]; they have that same kind of absolutist language that distinguish them from most other spells. How does Matt fit into this system? Can he make an "class B" [i]disintegrate[/i] by heightening it enough? Maybe these "pseudo-epic" spells make an OCLC at a penalty based on the spell level. [i]Mind blank[/i] resists [compel] if it succeeds at an OCLC with a -4 penalty. [i]Antimagic field[/i] resists [dispel] if it succeeds at an OCLC with a -8 penalty. Set the penalty at -2 per spell level below 10. The penalty can be reduced by Heightening the effect, and can be eliminated if Heightened to spell level 10 or higher. Actually, if we take absolute language as the criterion, probably all kinds of spells can be folded into this mechanic. [i]Feeblemind[/i] says it can only be removed by a handful of spells- this suggests that an epic spell needs to make an OCLC check to trump it, and [i]feeblemind[/i] takes a -10 penalty in resolving the check. The description of [i]death ward[/i] says it provides complete protection against energy drain, and so [harrow] brushes it aside if [i]death ward[/i] fails the OCLC. The odds are rather in [harrow]'s favor, since [i]death ward[/i] will have a -12 penalty to the check. Does that make sense? Aside from a few category A effects, epic effects can overwhelm opposed absolutes with an OCLC. When non-epic spells clash with epic spells, they take a penalty to this check based on the amount by which they fall short of spell level 10. [/QUOTE]

Verification