Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lorehead" data-source="post: 2827588" data-attributes="member: 40086">Thanks for going over my work and making these suggestions.  I'll definitely incorporate some of them.  I'd like to write some higher-level spells, at some point, but I really would prefer to focus my efforts on rules that someone is using.It's actually less than what gate can do (although I encourage DMs to allow heralds to gain levels).  I think that eliminating the XP cost is enough.  In this system, 13th-level spells become available at character level 33.  A spell which calls a creature of 21st level or so would be highly underpowered by then.If it's a published item, the DM should use the default CL from the book.  If it's a homebrew, the DM should determine its caster level (normally the same as the creator's).Your statement that miracle has an XP cost to duplicate spells is incorrect.  Your statement that it doesn't is correct.Miracle lets you duplicate any spell that became available four levels earlier, with no XP cost.  This spell also duplicate any spell that became available four levels earlier, with no XP cost.  Miracle is a hugely more versatile spell, and lets you cast the duplicated spell immediately.  Duplicate spell merely allows you to prepare it ahead of time.  (I was concerned about giving sorcerers too much flexibility if they could duplicate any spell up to 9th level spontaneously.)  A 7th-level cap is definitely too low; that's no better than miracle.I think that the spell is actually not quite good enough; perhaps what I ought to do is give the caster the option of reducing the casting time to a swift action (allowing him to cast the spell right away) at the cost of duplicating a more limited number of spells.Here's why I wrote it the way I did.  I will probably go back and make a few changes.Several lower-level spells already exist that kill characters who fail a saving throw and harm even those who succeed.  One 9th-level spell even kills characters with no saving throw.  A 10th-level spell needs to be as good compared to a 9th-level spell as a 9th-level spell is to a 7th-level spell.  As I've previously said, it has to be worse than death, or leave something more useful to you than a dead enemy.Reducing your foe to first level seemed to fit the bill.  If you'd just killed her, a true resurrection would easily reverse the death.  She might even have a spell cast ahead of time to restore her automatically.  This spell hampers her more than that: she'd need to find an epic-level caster to reverse it, not just a 9th-level cleric.  It also has uses out of combat; I tried to spark a few ideas in the spell description.  Instead of all or nothing, it makes your enemies easier for your teammates to defeat, and gives you a much better chance to succeed on your second attempt.  I think that infantilize and arbitrary form are both about equally useful, but I can't say for certain until I see them in play.I wouldn't object to that house rule, but I don't see a compelling reason to change it.</blockquote>

Verification