Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7347528" data-attributes="member: 6932123">Unfortunately, I have no idea where such interview may be, so I can't comment on this, or treat it as evidence.However, if you say that they had to bump up the spell level in order to account for an extra feature of the spell, I can't see how that in any way argues against the idea that they have a rule set that defines how much can be put in a spell of a given level.  It almost seems like you're arguing against your own point.I have never said that there are not 'bad' spells, and in fact, many tend to stand out pretty strongly when priced in my system (Witch Bolt at 1/6, Snilloc's Snowball Storm at 2.5/8, etc).  But a point system in no way necessitates 'good design'.  Look at the above discussion about Hold Person as a bonus action spell. Overpowered.   Or consider a 24 hour version of Light, as a 1st level spell (but still a 20'/20' radius). No one would waste a spell slot on this when the cantrip is free.Just because it can be done, doesn't make it a good or useful idea.As for whether they've used such guidelines on all spells? I have no way to tell.  Part of me wonders if some of the spells from their early design were rough and unbalanced, as they still needed to refine the rules.  But then, if that were so, I would have also expected them to go back and review their previously created spells to see if they fit within the rule system before they actually published, and not doing so stands out as unlikely.  And it certainly doesn't explain problematic newly-released spells.But ultimately, I don't have to explain the bad spells in the official rules.  I just need a system that can give a good measure of the power/usefulness of a spell, and determine what level spell it corresponds to.  If I want to make a snowstorm, or a pool of quicksand, or an automatic unfolding set of stairs, or whatever else, I can do so, and say with reasonable confidence that such a spell fits within the power limits of a spell of level X.And in fact, if I want to toss out the crap spells in the PHB, and replace them with versions that seems more appropriate to their given power levels, I can now do so with reasonable confidence.  The players shouldn't have to deal with trap spell options (or trap feats, or other trap character design issues).  But that's an entirely separate thing.I'm not really sure what your argument point here is. Nor do I understand what you're trying to imply by saying that it can't be integrated with PHB spells.If you're saying that the PHB can have spell concepts that you can't figure out how to price, yes, that's true, which may make creating similar spells difficult.  If you're saying that the PHB is not always balanced, that is also true, but in no way does that prevent such spells from being created. A balanced system does not require that the results be balanced; it only informs you if the results are balanced, and you generally are encouraged to only create balanced spells.  It provides you the knowledge necessary to make the choice in an informed manner.Spell design should be what it can do, first, and how to use points to get there, second.  Saying that Healing Word can't affect undead or constructs fits the point of the spell.  Saying that Fireball (v2) can't affect humanoids does not.  At the same time, there are options for selective targeting of a damage spell, such as Scorching Ray, or Destructive Wave, so it's not like it's entirely out of bounds.  It's just usually easier to justify by specifying who you do hit, rather than who you don't.Regardless, yes, you could make that spell. It should be easy to construct and price, but may not be so easy to get approved by your DM.</blockquote>

Verification