# Haste Question



## osarusan (Aug 1, 2005)

Hi,

I'm curious as to why it's 4 MP for an extra attack per round, yet only 5 for an entire extra standard action? It doesn't say otherwise, so I'm assuming this 1 MP makes the difference between casting one or two spells per round? For fighters, this obviously makes very little difference, but for spellcasters, that 1 MP makes a huge difference. And at 1 MP to make it an area of effect spell, you get a really cheap masshaste that allows spellcasters to cast twice per round. I've considered HRing that the extra standard action can't be used to cast another spell each round, but that basically would make the extra standard action pointless. Is there a reason it's only 1 MP more for extra spells per round?

I've mentioned before that I'm running a party of 4 mages. You can imagine the devastation they can wreck with this spell. ;-)


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 1, 2005)

To cast an Infuse Time spell of that level, you need the Quicken Spell feat as a prerequisite. Perhaps it would be appropriate to rule that you actually cannot cast more than one spell per round unless you have the Quicken Spell feat (barring the brief spells that were discussed a month or two ago on this board). The idea would be that, without that feat, you're just not ready to channel magical energy that quickly.

Also, if you compare it with the 3.0 version of haste, the "extra standard action" spell is a good deal weaker. You don't get a speed bonus, an AC bonus, or a Reflex save bonus.

It's very powerful, but as a GM I got used to the magical proliferation of haste spells while running 3.0, so it wasn't too hard for me to keep it balanced when I ran games. If it's ruining your game, feel free to up the cost, or perhaps require characters to have the Quicken Spell feat before they can benefit from the spell.


----------



## osarusan (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm not altogether opposed to the use of the spell to get an extra spell per round... just that the cost is merely 1 MP to make it so much better. I'll keep the Quicken Spell feat requirement to cast this spell, and maybe as a compromise I'll say that you can only cast 2 spells per round if you happen to have Quicken Spell as well.

That way, one casting of this spell to give everyone in the party 2 spells per round isn't as overkill, but is still useful enough.




Edit: (I'm starting to think that all of my concerns with the spells in this system are really originating from making it so much easier to make area-effect buff spells. 1 MP is all it takes to make a fairly powerful buff spell cover every single party member. While the power level of the spell seems perfect to cast one 1 character, 1 MP difference to make it effect everyone in the party makes mutli-buffing the whole party way too cheap. But raising the cost of area of effect makes damaging spells way too weak. I think I need to figure out a HR to compromise this for my game anyway.)

BTW, Rangerwicket, I LOVE this system. I hope you don't take my posts about imbalances to mean that I am dissatisfied with EOM... because I really really enjoy using it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 2, 2005)

Well remember that if you just create an area of effect, it'll center on a creature or object and move with it. You need a discerning spell to keep your enemies from gaining the same benefits.

But yes, mass buffing is powerful, just as is mass healing. In the Modern version I'm working on, things are priced differently, so it's not so overpowering.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 2, 2005)

Speaking of which, how's that coming along (if you don't mind my asking)?


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 2, 2005)

I've sent out the art call, though I haven't heard back from one artist for about a week. My hope is to get the art in by next Monday, then lay it out in about a week, so we can release it in the days leading up to Gen Con.

Right now I'm toying with a slight variant. Originally to cast spells you had to make spellcasting checks, which I intended to use to balance the system because if you failed then you took a penalty to further spells. I think now I'm leaning toward no skill checks, and having spellcasting just temporarily reduce the level of spells you have access to for a short term.

The main thing that's been giving me trouble is that some spells are incredibly useful when you can cast them an unlimited number of times. I think I'm just going to recost those things, require extra costs for a few, and hopefully it will balance out. If it doesn't work, I can keep the current system, but I prefer not to require unnecessary checks. It's bad enough when a foe makes a save to resist a spell, but if you flub your own spell, that sucks.

The spells that are a problem are basically Cure spells. I'm perfectly fine with PCs attacking each other with magic (guns can do that), creating things they need (money can do that), or compelling people to do things (guns or money can do that), but healing people is a miracle. It should be hard and special.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I oughta get back to work.


----------

