Persistent regeneration..not kidding here

[kreynolds]

Let's try and get this thread back on track. Here's the last post that actually pertains to the topic...

I was trying to state that if a PC wanted merely to be able to make Regen persistent, there would be no direct in-character reason to do more than change the range. It could be surmised that the more you wish to change, the more effort is required, and there is no point further modifying the spell if your only aim is to make it persistent-compatible.

Well, see, that's the funny part. If you're gonna bother researching a new spell, you might as well try to customize it as much as you can. Making more of an effort or less of an effort really has nothing to do with it. Why? A regeneration spell with a different range descriptor takes the same amount of time to research as a regeneration spell that is completely redesigned (so long as both are of the same spell level as the original), so why not customize it in any way you can? This kind of forethought tells me that you are using your creativity to it's utmost potential, or that you're at least making the effort to do so, instead of you just saying "The range sucks because I can't use it with Persistent Spell, so I think I'll just change that". Taking this kind of rash action could very well result in you not discovering other ways to improve the spell. Of course, if your character is an impatient spellcaster anyways, then that's really damn good roleplaying in my book.
[/quote]

 

[Metalsmith]

Well, see, that's the funny part. If you're gonna bother researching a new spell, you might as well try to customize it as much as you can. Making more of an effort or less of an effort really has nothing to do with it. Why? A regeneration spell with a different range descriptor takes the same amount of time to research as a regeneration spell that is completely redesigned (so long as both are of the same spell level as the original), so why not customize it in any way you can?

[/QUOTE]

Cause you are trying to minimize the amount of time needed and the effort required by the DM to Adjucate the new version of the spell. Instead of doing a "Quid Pro Quo" with the spell, "shortening" the range for a benifit of a few more rounds of duration, or other effect (Balancing a Spell Internaly). Boiling it down to a clear net loss for the Internal Balancing of the spell just leaves Game Balancing to the DM.

Of course once the spell is approved for Game Balance, a whole nother problem may arise when the player tries to re-Balance the Spell Internaly (also known as Special Effect Creep) The gamemaster can find himself in a chain of, "That sounds reasonable Ok, That sounds Reasonable OK, That sounds reasonable ok, OMYGOD WhatHave I Done!

Metalsmith

 

[kreynolds]

I get ya'. But this...

you are trying to minimize the amount of time needed and the effort required by the DM to Adjucate the new version of the spell.

...always leads to this...

The gamemaster can find himself in a chain of, "That sounds reasonable Ok, That sounds Reasonable OK, That sounds reasonable ok, OMYGOD WhatHave I Done!

...see why I encourage more of a change?

 

[LGodamus]

Mr. Reynolds .....you are one funny *&%$#$%^ ....really .
I love your sense of humor..you would fit in well in my gaming group.