Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7345465" data-attributes="member: 6932123">Various points of note in Elements of Magic:Range and Area are interlinked effects, rather than independent.&nbsp; Might need to consider this.Conceptually it's similar to the work I'm doing, but it's fiddling with things on a much lower level.&nbsp; It seems mostly about setting costs for all the 'bonus' features that I've been treating in a more abstract manner.So. Many. Tables.&nbsp; And much of the costs and benefits are tied to the elemental system, which is an entirely separate beast, and likely completely broken with respect to the bounded accuracy of 5E.3.5 is so fundamentally built into the system that it would be a major undertaking to convert it to 5E.&nbsp; If someone did, however, it would be an interesting model for sorcerer spellcasting.&nbsp; Just, that person probably isn't going to be me.Enhancements costs for one of the early spell sets give a nice progression.&nbsp; 0 for a single weak effect, or +1 for each of more than one weak effect. +2 for moderate, +4 for strong.&nbsp; Those are a bit similar to how I'm doing bonus effects.&nbsp; Likewise, elemental damage spells have side-effects of various levels, from mild to extreme.&nbsp; These tend to be common by element.However in general, you're still just judging how strong a bonus effect is, and using an estimated cost based on that.&nbsp; It's just a matter of what baseline you're using.So, in a way, it's approaching spell design very similarly to how I'm doing it.&nbsp; I'm limiting the points based on spell level, and it's using mana point limits (and even that is a refinement from the previous version, which also based points on spell level).&nbsp; It's applying costs based on range and area, just like I am.&nbsp; And it's detailing tons of bonus effects, which I'm only lightly touching on.It was a useful review, but probably won't change much about how I'm approaching the spell creation system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 7345465, member: 6932123"] Various points of note in Elements of Magic: Range and Area are interlinked effects, rather than independent. Might need to consider this. Conceptually it's similar to the work I'm doing, but it's fiddling with things on a much lower level. It seems mostly about setting costs for all the 'bonus' features that I've been treating in a more abstract manner. So. Many. Tables. And much of the costs and benefits are tied to the elemental system, which is an entirely separate beast, and likely completely broken with respect to the bounded accuracy of 5E. 3.5 is so fundamentally built into the system that it would be a major undertaking to convert it to 5E. If someone [i]did[/i], however, it would be an interesting model for sorcerer spellcasting. Just, that person probably isn't going to be me. Enhancements costs for one of the early spell sets give a nice progression. 0 for a single weak effect, or +1 for each of more than one weak effect. +2 for moderate, +4 for strong. Those are a bit similar to how I'm doing bonus effects. Likewise, elemental damage spells have side-effects of various levels, from mild to extreme. These tend to be common by element. However in general, you're still just judging how strong a bonus effect is, and using an estimated cost based on that. It's just a matter of what baseline you're using. So, in a way, it's approaching spell design very similarly to how I'm doing it. I'm limiting the points based on spell level, and it's using mana point limits (and even that is a refinement from the previous version, which also based points on spell level). It's applying costs based on range and area, just like I am. And it's detailing tons of bonus effects, which I'm only lightly touching on. It was a useful review, but probably won't change much about how I'm approaching the spell creation system. [/QUOTE]

Verification