Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ltheb Silverfrond" data-source="post: 3484843" data-attributes="member: 39867">&quot;is there a die cap for simple spells?&quot;&quot;should simple spells only affect up to X number of targets?&quot;&quot;should simple spells have up to Y amount of healing in them, if at all&quot;&quot;should complex spells only affect up to Z amount of the battlefield?&quot;I think warlocks give some insight as to Question 1. Their eldritch blast is weak. Really weak. So I would say a simple spell should deal no more than 1d6/2 levels. (or the equivalent; about 1.5 dmg/level) If it does deal more, it should have other significant drawbacks. (melee touch plus saving throw to negate, etc)Simple spells should generally only affect 1 target, unless the effect is weaker than the above damage or is easier to avoid (requires attack rolls and saving throws).&nbsp; Example: Grease - It is an area spell, but sufficient ranks in a skill or a high save will protect you.I don't think simple spells should have healing at all. While it makes some things simple, theres no way to &quot;wear down&quot; the heros (or the villain) making Mooks pointless. The only kind of healing I would see as &quot;simple&quot; might be something like Vampiric touch.Complex spells could have bigger areas and more damage. Things like Web or Black Tentacles could fit into Complex. (Though black tentacles is pretty cheesy; maybe it should be exotic) I would limit all the &quot;mass death&quot; spells to Exotic rather than complex. (Not just death effects; Mass Hold/Charm/Dominate/Etc) They end the entire fight. A single target &quot;death&quot; spell (Polymorph, Finger of Death, Hold, etc) could be complex, and I would consider that the upper bounds of power for complex - Take 1 guy out of the fight completely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ltheb Silverfrond, post: 3484843, member: 39867"] "is there a die cap for simple spells?" "should simple spells only affect up to X number of targets?" "should simple spells have up to Y amount of healing in them, if at all" "should complex spells only affect up to Z amount of the battlefield?" I think warlocks give some insight as to Question 1. Their eldritch blast is weak. Really weak. So I would say a simple spell should deal no more than 1d6/2 levels. (or the equivalent; about 1.5 dmg/level) If it does deal more, it should have other significant drawbacks. (melee touch plus saving throw to negate, etc) Simple spells should generally only affect 1 target, unless the effect is weaker than the above damage or is easier to avoid (requires attack rolls and saving throws). Example: Grease - It is an area spell, but sufficient ranks in a skill or a high save will protect you. I don't think simple spells should have healing at all. While it makes some things simple, theres no way to "wear down" the heros (or the villain) making Mooks pointless. The only kind of healing I would see as "simple" might be something like Vampiric touch. Complex spells could have bigger areas and more damage. Things like Web or Black Tentacles could fit into Complex. (Though black tentacles is pretty cheesy; maybe it should be exotic) I would limit all the "mass death" spells to Exotic rather than complex. (Not just death effects; Mass Hold/Charm/Dominate/Etc) They end the entire fight. A single target "death" spell (Polymorph, Finger of Death, Hold, etc) could be complex, and I would consider that the upper bounds of power for complex - Take 1 guy out of the fight completely. [/QUOTE]

Verification